Talk:The Doon School/Archive 3

What next?

Hello everyone,

Any more suggestions for improving the page? Is it time now to nominate it for a GA? :: Merlaysamuel :: (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• I think it still needs final review and copy edit.I honestly suggest take your time.There is no need to hurry.Justice007 (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're absolutely right Justice. No need to hurry but was just asking if there are any other major edits to be done. :) Or any other issues...

:: Merlaysamuel :: (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry gang, I've been out of town with Spring vacation and all. Glad we're still making progress, and now we have a whole new set of tasks to work on. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No issues! Welcome back :)

:: Merlaysamuel :: (talk) 11:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward

DoscoinDoon (talk · contribs) requested that I had another look at the article and make some recommendations on moving forward. I was however held up by work and more recently my computer breaking down, so apologies for these that.

On images, I'm pleased to see some of my concerns on images has been resolved. However, I still have concerns about the copyright status of some images at Category:The Doon School - images of the school logo should not be on Commons unless there is evidence that is out of copyright, and photos on Commons must be uploaded by the photographer, unless there permission is provided. I will help out by investigating and moving some more images to Commons in good time. File:Doon-school-logo.gif should be in .svg if possible, not .gif, and it does look rather blurry in the article, probably because the image itself is being displayed in the infobox as 250px but the image itself is only 190 × 94 pixels. Either a slightly bigger version should be uploaded (but not too big as it is non-free), or it should be displayed in the infobox at a lower resolution. If possible, please also get rid of the border. As I hinted before, there are a lot of non-free images in the article and as the use of a few are at least borderline under the WP:NFCC, so there may still be issues down the line on these.

There has already been a lot of advise given in the peer review on the text, so I won't dwell too much on that. However, most of my earlier comments seem to have been dealt with and this article is at least approaching GA. If there is a desire to push-on, then the next step is to file a GA nomination, with information on how to do this being located at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. I would suggest going over the Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles and Wikipedia:Good article criteria, the latter being what the article will be assessed against in a nomination. If you want more help, let me know. CT Cooper · talk 17:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments CT. Do you - being a Schools portal admin - think it is now time to file a GA Nomination?? Merlaysamuel :  Chat  18:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to comb over the images both here and Commons before a nomination is made, so to keep distractions to a minimum - I will do this within the next day or so. After that, if there is nothing more to be gained from the peer review, it can be closed, and a nomination can be made. CT Cooper · talk 19:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you point out, if possible, any images in particular because, as far as i can see, a good fair-use rationale is provided in each one...though I must have missed something..! Anyway, whenever you deem the article fit for a GA Nomination, can you file it?

Merlaysamuel :  Chat  19:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I will do it now to make things simpler. I could file the nomination if the main contributors want me to, though I would note in the nomination that I wouldn't be taking much credit on the article writing side of things. CT Cooper · talk 19:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I will be deeply grateful if you can do that. It's a 'Yes' on my part. I have been working on this for too long and wish to see it through to the end. So that I can carry on with other major projects. Though I'm only too happy to hear from other main contributors but it's a definite yes from me. Thanks!Merlaysamuel :  Chat  19:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I will wait until further progress is made on image copyright issues (see below), and other contributors have had a chance to give some input. CT Cooper · talk 21:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I see that wouldn't be easy to fix in the middle if a review is the copyediting issue. I would suggest that we request a really good copyeditor to look it over, unless we want it to sit in the GOCE's request area for a few days/weeks. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 21:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

C.T. can you request a good copyeditor to do the job? Nole, are you aware of any? Should we make the request at GOCE?? Merlaysamuel :  Chat  05:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not well connected to any specialist copy editors. However, I think placing a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests would be a good idea. CT Cooper · talk 18:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

That's probably the best idea. That will give a little bit more time to get any kinks (like the images) worked out. Will set up the request now. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 19:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks... Merlaysamuel :  Chat  05:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

If, however, there is no activity on that request within a week or two, I'll go ahead and directly ask someone to do it. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 19:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot after I'm done with one of the two that I'm currently working on - I've been doing quite a bit of copyediting as part of the GOCE's March 2012 drive, and have also been working on several GAN (one successful so far, the others in the queue for review) and one future FAC (Astatine, already a GA). Just let me know when everyone's agreed the image, et cetera kinks are taken care of. Allens (talk | contribs) 06:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Lord Mountbatten with A.E. Foot in Doon School (1948).jpg

I'm afraid that while File:Lord Mountbatten with A.E. Foot in Doon School (1948).jpg is public domain in India, it is probably not public domain in the United States. This is due to the rather bizarre Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), which resulted in content being copyrighted in the US but not in its home country. According to the description this image dates from 1948. To be public domain in the US the image had to be PD in India on the URAA date which for India was 1 January, 1996 (per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Specific country information), but as photos enter the public domain in India 60 years after publication, this means the image was still copyrighted then. By the looks of it, the image will not be PD in the US until 95 years after publication + time until next new year, that according to my calculations is 1 January 2044 (Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Duration of restored copyright). Unfortunately, all content on Wikimedia projects must either be uploaded as non-free or be free in the United States, since that is where the servers are hosted. This means that the image will either have to be deleted or be converted to non-free per WP:NFC.

I admit though that URAA is not my area, so if anyone has reason to believe my reading is wrong, please say so. CT Cooper · talk 19:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

But there are many images that I"ve come across which are in public domain in India and not in the USA. But the article is on an Indian subject, I don't see how it's a copyvio. Anyway, if there is a major problem can use as FUR as this is quite a significant historic image!

Merlaysamuel :  Chat  22:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The main servers for Wikimedia Projects are located in Tampa, Florida, United States - for that reason, all content on Wikipedia has to be in compliance with US laws, including it's copyright law. There might be ground for keeping it as non-free, although arguments along the lines of it being a "unique/historical image" usually require significant discussion in the article on the image itself or the event it is depicting. CT Cooper · talk 13:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it certainly looks like the image in not in the public domain, so what needs to be done? Just remove/replace the templates in the file page? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 20:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I have now converted it to non-free use, which means that if it is removed from both the articles it is currently used in, it will be quickly tagged by a bot and deleted after seven days. CT Cooper · talk 19:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...looks great...now to decide if we actually need it... Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 23:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

File:DoonLamp.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:DoonLamp.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:DoonLamp.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Images on Commons

Unfortunately it appears that a large number of images with copyright issues have been uploaded to Commons and added to Category:The Doon School, with uploads from various accounts now under scrutiny. By far the worse problem areas were images of former The Doon School headmasters and those of the school logo. I have left messages on the Commons' talk pages of Anony1212 (talk · contribs), RickTyers (talk · contribs), HamsikBoy (talk · contribs), Mussolinispas (talk · contribs), and Merlaysamuel (talk · contribs) on their uploads, and I am awaiting a response in some cases. CT Cooper · talk 21:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

File:The Music School in Doon.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:The Music School in Doon.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:The Music School in Doon.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Qualities

"By 14 he should have learnt..."

Is this paragraph mostly a quotation? If so, where are the quotation marks? If not, is it too closely paraphrased in following the structure and wording of the original? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It is a quote, and is enclosed in the {{quote}} template. There aren't any quotation marks per Wikipedia:Blockquote#Block_quotations. However, it doesn't look like a quote because of the images around it, which prevent the margin indention from appearing. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 20:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks. As you say, too many images.

I wonder if it's too long a quote, as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Quite possible...at one point they were like three (maybe two? don't quite remember...) fairly long quotations that I partially trimmed here. I rather stink at rewriting prose, so held off on the last quote. If you wanna have a go at it... :P I do agree that the FoundEthos section could (and probably should) be trimmed to two, maybe three paragraphs. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 20:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Images

We've got a few problems with the images...

1. First (and I guess this isn't really a problem), what should we have in the infobox? The image there has changed a few times in the last month, so let's try to get this nailed down. My main concern is that if we don't use the main logo here, reviewers might not like using it anywhere else either. After looking through a few of the school featured articles, it looks like almost all (8 out of 9 that I looked at) use the school's main logo in the infobox, and the ninth might have been because the school didn't have a logo. File:The Doon School.jpg is a fantastic picture (did you take that Merlay? if so, major kudos to you) but I'm not sure that it's the best picture for the lead. I would support putting the logo in the infobox, and the other picture anywhere else (Campus, make it the second picture by placing it in History, it could seriously go almost anywhere).
2. This is just the number of non-free images in general. Including File:Lord Mountbatten with A.E. Foot in Doon School (1948).jpg, which is probably going to need to be converted to NF, we have six of them, including two logos and a movie poster. File:Nehru in Kashmir House, Doon School.JPG and File:Doon School 75 Logo.jpg are probably the first ones we should look at removing if we need to (even more so for the DS-75 logo...it's very similar to the normal logo and doesn't significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic (#8)), but File:DazedinDoon.jpg is also iffy as well, if only because it is about a very tangentially related to this article.
3. Lastly, and I hope this doesn't come off wrong, if we have too many images the article becomes really packed in. I'm especially looking at the Student life section, where every subsection has at least one image. Are File:Waiting for Godot in Doon School.jpg, and maybe even the shot of the Doon Weekly's header really needed here? (Obviously they would still be at Commons.) Last on my list is File:DoonSchoolMainFieldPanorama.jpg. It isn't a great panorama shot (only showing half a soccer field) and takes up a lot of space, so I removed it.

Thoughts? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 20:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It is standard practice to put the logo in the infobox, so I agree that if it is in the article at all it should be there, even if the picture is very nice looking. The number of non-free images is likely to be picked-up in a GA nomination, and I think cuts should be made. Firstly, there only needs to be one logo, the 75 one should go. Next, the use of File:DazedinDoon.jpg isn't justified at all in my opinion, given that there are only two sentences on it in the article. File:Lord Mountbatten with A.E. Foot in Doon School (1948).jpg should also go as the event depicted (a meeting with Lord Mountbatten) isn't discussed outside the caption. For File:Nehru in Kashmir House, Doon School.JPG at least the event is discussed in that section, although on balance, I would also say it was also unnecessary. For free images I am not so concerned, as long as they are appropriate for the section they are used in and galleries should stay on Commons. CT Cooper · talk 19:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

DS-75 and Dazed in Doon poster removed....the more I think about it, the more I can't think of any reason to keep those images in this article. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 23:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It's alright, i guess...but I strongly feel that the Dazed in Doon image should be kept for the following reasons:- first, it is supporting the text in the article (regardless of the fact it's just two lines). second, there is no image in that section and dazed in doon could be put to good use. third, it is highly relevant and a harmless image. i believe we should bring it back. Merlaysamuel :  Chat  17:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Non-free images are not harmless - if used improperly they are copyright violations. A lack of images in certain section or in the article in general is not an accepted reason for using non-free material per the WP:NFCC. Furthermore, the article presently just briefly mentions the film title, the anniversary, and the dispute - neither of which are particularly relevant to the film poster. For a non-free image to be justified it has to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." CT Cooper · talk 13:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh....alright. thanks! (It is time i start reading these guidelines :P) Merlaysamuel :  Chat  16:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Merlay, just to give you an idea of how incredibly touchy and disputed this subject is, there are some editors who believe that Wikipedia should only have free images, so all logos, media covers and images, etc would be gone. Obviously I don't believe that and it isn't a widely accepted position, but that gives you an idea of how important this topic is...we're really lucky to be able to use NF images at all, and really must keep their usage to a minimum. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 21:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks , I understand...will keep that in mind :) Merlaysamuel :  Chat  11:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you think we should archive some of the above discussion? It's getting too long...!

Merlaysamuel :  Chat  11:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I have archived discussion more than two weeks old for you. CT Cooper · talk 11:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

:-)

Merlaysamuel :  Chat  12:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This edit by Spy

Welcome back, first of all :)

Anyway, that sentence (or lack of it) was one of the things User:Ruhrfisch brought up in the peer review. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 19:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Introducing table in List of The Doon School alumni

I am taking the liberty to introduce a table (see:List of Harvard University people). It looks much more organised. I know it's a lot of work but I'm doing it section-wise...starting now! Merlaysamuel :  Chat  17:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am doing it section-wise. Taking a break for sometime. If anyone else wants to continue with tables (a helping hand would be great), please feel free...thanks!

Merlaysamuel :  Chat  19:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I have been now working for over 12 hours on the List...phew.. it was exhausting. Anyway, I am nominating it for Featured Lists because I think it has great potential now. If it doesn't pass, we'll, at least, have significant improvements through the course of the nomination. Thanks! Merlaysamuel :  Chat  02:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It does look very well organized now, good work! It is a lot easier to pass a featured list than a featured article, so success shouldn't be too hard to reach here, although the prose and content does have to be perfect - see WP:FLCR. One question; now that everything has inline citations, is the sources section at the bottom still needed? CT Cooper · talk 21:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Merlay/CT

I think the sources section should be kept or merged because that is, I believe, the main source of all the Class years of the alumni. Anyway, C.T. will you please look at the nomination Merlay just made for FL. There is some hysterical gasbag who, I believe, has a personal grudge against The Doon School and is venting his anger (apparent) than objectively reviewing the list. It is really unhealthy for Wiki, I believe. DoscoinDoon (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Heya Dosco, I realize you might be a little offended, but please know that calling anyone "hysterical gasbag" really won't help you. I wouldn't want you to get blocked :) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 02:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nole, i don't know if you'll believe me but Fowler's comments did not offend me one bit. BUT, and that's a big But, he clearly had no intentions of Doon alumni becoming a featured list. (He openly confessed) His attack is clearly on the alumni of Doon....it shows glaringly through his comments on the Talk page and the review of featured candidate. What he basically wants is to break down the list (remove headers such as Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers...and so on) only to make the list obscure.....and No I'm not at all offended by anything. I'd be foolish to... really....I've to distance myself while editing and also realise that Wikipedia does not comprise the world-view. Anyway, but i can say this without an iota of doubt that Fowler's intentions are not wise. Anybody who has read all his comments can easily deduce that.....how cunningly from being opposed to the list to making spurious suggestions of disintegrating it...he has no constructive contribution to make!!!! And therefore, I still stick by the epithet I've bestowed upon him:- hysterical gasbag!!DoscoinDoon (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you are completely right and he is opposed both to the school and the list. Resorting to ad hominem attacks will only get you blocked for violating WP:NPA. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 15:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

A proposal to get rid of the alumni list is clearly not going to fly as the school is considered to be of top-importance for WikiProject Schools and has more than enough alumni to justify a separate article. In any case, editor's opinions over the article's subject are not relevant to an article's quality status, so I would suggest ignoring such commentary. CT Cooper · talk 13:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Time for GA nomination?

There seems to be an emerging opinion that the article is about ready to file a GA nomination. Does anyone disagree with this view? CT Cooper · talk 12:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

! =) Merlaysamuel :  Chat  13:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and do some more tweaks today...go ahead when y'all are ready. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 13:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Please everyone critically final touchings. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Peer Review should be closed before filing GA Nomination! Merlaysamuel :  Chat  08:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I have now taken the liberty to request the closure of the Peer Review... thereby paving the way for filing a GA Nomination. Merlaysamuel :  Chat  11:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

 Peer review closed. Feel free to nominate for GA. Rcsprinter (orate) 12:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added the GA template to the top of this page. That is apparently all you need to do - a bot adds it to the list at WP:GAN#EDU and it is down to the reviewer, whoever that is, to create the sub-page. CT Cooper · talk 12:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  13:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Excessive number of references

This article has gone from one that had at relatively few references to one which I think has an excessive number. Nearly every sentence has its own citation, and I have seen up to 5 separate references for sentences like "Doon has been called the Eton of India". Is this article really so controversial that every sentence requires its own citation, and so many require multiple citations? Out of curiosity I looked at the Israel page which I assumed would represent the high-water mark in terms of controversial content, and that page actually appears to have fewer references per sentence than this one.

All these inline citations make the material much less readable, since the eye must constantly pause after each sentence while the brain processes all the reference links; even if one doesn't follow each reference there is still mental processing needed to handle all the superscripted links. In my opinion the overall readability of this article has declined considerably as a result of all these citations: each sentence now appears to stand on its own as a potentially controversial assertion, and the paragraphs are barely coherent because of all the pauses required after each sentence. The overall impression is that of a closely argued legal brief rather than an encyclopaedic article that's useful for providing a quick overview. (And quick overview is about all any Wikipedia article can provide on any subject that has a lot of content associated with it.) Spy99 (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest an absolute maximum of three refs per statement (not sentence) - pick the three highest quality/most relevant. Five is clearly not appropriate. However, having one citation per sentence is a good thing!

The way I read Wikipedia articles, refs don't require pauses. Israel is not a good article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I forget who it was in literature who said much the same thing about commas! Wikipedia is a reference tool and not a novel; in general, we should welcome citations and not see them as hindrances. However, undoubtedly they can be taken too far. A simple fact calls for one good citation, not three or four weak ones. Below is an instance of this... Moonraker (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

* In 2010 Bollywood film Aisha, the character Randhir Gambhir is a Dosco.

THis has been one of the things I've been working on in the last couple of days. I would guess I've removed about 15-25 in the last week or so. Am not done, obviously. Quite frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if more sections needed to be trimmed/cut in the GAR. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

"Eton of India" is a misleading metaphor

This is somewhat tangential to the main point about an excessive number of references, but "Eton of India" is a very superficial and, in my opinion, highly misleading metaphor. If one reads the descriptions of Eton and Doon, it is clear that both schools have very different histories, cultures and environments.

• Eton was unashamedly intended for the children of the aristocracy; in India that model was replicated by the old "Chief's Colleges", of which Mayo College is the most notable example. Doon was not explicitly created to educate the children of the aristocracy, and although a number of princes did attend Doon, this was far fewer than those that went to Mayo.
• At Eton, the King's Scholars (who are the primary recipients of scholarships) live separately from the other pupils, and have different privileges. At Doon, those who receive scholarships or bursaries are not segregated in any way from the other pupils. (Similarly, King's Scholars use the post-nominal suffix of "K.S."; at Doon it is hard to know which pupils are receiving financial aid unless the information is volunteered by the boy himself.)
• Discipline at Eton is enforced by a self-selecting body of pupils known as "Pop". At Doon, discipline is enforced by prefects who are selected by housemasters.

(There are plenty of other differences; these are just a few that come quickly to mind.)

"Eton of India" is a kind of lazy shorthand adopted by journalists, like describing one of the IITs as the " MIT of India". It saves newsprint. If the Eton metaphor did have to be employed for any school in India, it would be better applied to Mayo than Doon. A more accurate, if less catchy, metaphor for Doon would probably be the "Gordonstoun of India" since Kurt Hahn so strongly influenced the cultures of both schools.

The Eton metaphor has appeared in this article numerous times over the past 5 years, and I have previously edited it out as being inaccurate. Now, it comes with 5 supporting citations so it appears all the more truthful, when, I would argue, it remains as inaccurate as before! Spy99 (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The point made by the citations is surely that the school is often called "the Eton of India". Whether that is a "truthful" comparison or not is another question. Clearly, "the Eton of India" does not mean "a school in India which is very like Eton in most ways". The Doon School adopted some Eton terminology, largely because its first headmaster had spent most of his teaching career there and he was starting a new school, but it was always different in important ways. I think what "the Eton of India" is about is that in the British context Eton is pre-eminent, the most famous of schools, looked on as the archetype of superior education, and the Doon has a rather similar position in India. Moonraker (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem with this comparison is that it isn't accurate, but since so many other publications end up using Wikipedia articles for their sources, including this comparison in this article helps perpetuate the problem. At some point it becomes a self-supporting fallacy: articles in the press say that Doon is Eton's India because they read about it in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia says Doon is Eton's India because there are numerous citations for that. Spy99 (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I had addressed the notion of an "India-wide aristocracy" attending Doon school in the lead that I wrote earlier today. (See here.)

In my view, many stories, whizzing back and forth in the echo chamber of the Indian press, do not constitute reliable sources. A good example is the sentence I recently removed (but which has again been reinserted by Justice007 on the grounds that it has consensus) which cites the Indian newspaper The Economic Times for a survey attributed to the British magazine, The Economist. The Economic Times story says (with bewildering precision), "Back in the 1990s the Economist wrote that the Doon School network was the second most influential alumni network in the world after Harvard." There is no other source available for this statement, in particular, nothing from the Economist. This story has been quoted endlessly on various websites, including naturally Doon school's own, but there is nothing independent available. Unless the Economist is (very atypically) measuring influence by some non-economic indicator, it is hard to believe that an alumni network of a private school in India, a country with the world's 13th largest economy by GDP and 134th ranked by per capita income, is able to compete with the alumni networks of American universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, ... that routinely raise billions of dollars for their school's endowment. In any case, I'd like to see the title, the author, and date of publication of that Economist article and a direct quote from it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This is easily referenced, and corrected: The Economist, December 26 1992, page 21. The correct ranking is fifth: Eton College, Cambridge University Conservative Association, Skull and Bones, General Inspection of Finances (France) and then Doon. This list is partially tongue-in-cheek: it ends with the Illuminati. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spy99 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe "The Economic Times" is a supplement of The Times of India, which I wouldn't usually question as a reliable source, but the actual citation from The Economist clearly trumps it. Curious that Harvard doesn't even feature in the list "The Economic Times" was recalling. (NB, I have some knowledge of CUCA, the Cambridge University Conservative Association, which in my view lacks any significant alumni network.) Moonraker (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

CUCA scored 3 for Power, 1 for Secrecy, 4 for Organization, 0 for Strength of Beliefs, 2 for Peculiarity of Rituals, 2 for Exclusivity. "Competition to rise to the top of CUCA is good preparation for a political career in the Conservative Party, for several reasons. Ideology counts for nothing. What matters is knowing when to make friends and stab them in the back. If you cut your political teeth at CUCA, you are liable to end up sporting a sharp set of fangs." Doon scored 4 for Power, 1 for Secrecy, 2 for Organization, 3 for Strength of Beliefs, 1 for Peculiarity of Rituals, 4 for Exclusivity. "Curiously, the Doon School has not preserved the Indian establishment, but shaken it." The article was very clearly written in a tongue-in-cheek style, as part of their special year-end issue. I doubt if the authors intended it to be cited a couple of decades later. Spy99 (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

And given that, should we just remove it? With what you've told me, it doesn't sound like it's really a serious ref (not just referring to the tongue-in-cheek tone). Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 18:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should definitely remove it: since Wikipedia is a reference source for so many other journalists, we should avoid perpetuating what is, at best, a serious misunderstanding of the original article. The article does describe a variety of powerful "old boy" networks, but the authors clearly didn't intend it to be a reference document. Even if the networks are truly powerful, there is a strong potential for misunderstanding Doon's relative position since the list includes, in order: Old Etonians, the Cambridge University Conservative Association, Skull and Bones, the Inspection Generale de Finance of France, Doscos, Tokyo University law school, Rhodes scholars, the Polish Committee to Defend the Workers (KOR), the Russian Communist Party, South Africa's Broederbond, the Muslim Brotherhood, Opus Dei, Freemasons, the Trilateral Commission, USENET and Internet, and the Order of Illuminati. As we can see from the original citation, journalists incorporate half-remembered references in their articles, Doon didn't rate second after Harvard (which isn't even on the list), and the list was certainly not a ranking of school alumni alone. Spy99 (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Usenet? Oh goodness, I'd be embarrassed to use that reference...removed. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 21:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

To return to the original "Eton of India" thread... We should avoid perpetuating a widespread misconception because too many people, particularly journalists, are careless about the fine distinction between (a) Doon is referred to by some people as the Eton of India, (b) Doon refers to itself as the Eton of India, and (c) Doon is the Eton of India. Here's an example of the carelessness in distinguishing between (a) and (b): the Indian Express, which is a very reputable and long-established newspaper, reports in 2009: "There are at least eight alumni of the exclusive public school which calls itself the Eton of India.". Doon has never called itself the Eton of India, and more recently the Headmaster (Peter McLaughlin) has tried to emphasize that the school would prefer to be called the "Doon of India". Once you segue from (a) to (b), you can reach (c) fairly quickly, and this Wikipedia article shouldn't help pave the way.Spy99 (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, and why you're saying it....but the comparison is just so widespread that I don't see how we can ignore it. We can minimize it in a way, but I really can't quite rationalize a complete ignorance. (Should we decide to keep it, I don't think it should go in its present location. I'm thinking a parenthetical in the Headmasters section, so it would maybe read " though he modelled Doon on Eton and Harrow (and the school is often called the 'Eton of India')..." or something like that.) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 21:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Nolelover's phrasing would work. Spy99 (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Please feel free to change it, if anyone has a better idea. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 23:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

In reply to Spy99, I think the metaphor is here to stay, and indeed is inevitable. I am rather uncomfortable with the idea of consciously using Wikipedia as a tool to change anything. I am sure the school doesn't describe itself in this way, so while (a) is correct, (b) is incorrect; in my view (c) is partly correct, in the limited sense I mentioned above. I agree with Nolelover that we should at least mention the metaphor, but if we can find a suitable reference then the way to do it might be to say something along these lines: "Although often described as "the Eton of India", this comparison is disliked by the school". Moonraker (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead

The lead is very poorly written. It fails to mention, for example, anywhere (!), that Doon is a boys-only school. It has exaggerated claims, in particular the one in the last sentence about the second-most influential network after Harvard. I would urge the authors to incorporate the lead of List of The Doon School alumni, which use to be the same as the lead here until I rewrote it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I've incorporated the lead from the alums page. The new lead is more accurate and informative. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have reverted your rewrite edits because that version is accepted by multiple editors, and your edits are like you are writing an essay.Please first discuss here,if all involved editors agree on this point,I have no problem.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 11:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Who says that a poorly written lead, nay abysmally written one, can't be rewritten? How many ungrammatical and unsourced sentences would you like me to point out in the lead? Have these editors signed off on these too? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Here are some issues with the lead that I've casually spotted:

• • The Doon School (informally Doon School or Doon) is an independent boarding school in Dehradun, India that was registered in 1927 by Satish Ranjan Das,
    • According to your own source, the Indian Public Schools Society was registered (not the school) and it was in 1929, not 1927.
  • who sought to establish a public school that would be adapted to Indian traditions and culture.
    • "that would be adapted to Indian traditions and culture? What does this sentence mean?
    • When would it be adapted? At the time of its founding or after a good bit of time?
    • And what would it be until such time as it is so adapted?
  • The school enrolls boys aged 13 in January and April of each year.
    • Oh I see, it enrolls the newly turned teens in January; then, three months later, it gives the dawdlers (by age or performance) another chance? Right? Unfortunately, your own web site says: "The school admits boys in January and April every year. In January, it admits into the 8th standard (C form), and in April it admits into the 7th standard (D form). To be admitted in the 7th standard, a boy must be over 11 years and under 12 years of age in September of the year in which he sits for the entrance test. To be admitted in the 8th standard, he must be over 12 years and under 13 years of age in September of the year in which he appears for the test."
  • The school, located on the 70 acre Chandbagh estate, requires, endorses and hosts multiple different extracurricular activities and also has buildings dedicated to theatre and music.
    • "Multiple different extracurricular activities?" As opposed to "multiple similar/indistinct extracurricular activities?"
    • Is it possible to require, but not endorse?
    • Is it possible to require, but not host? Are there schools that require their students to participate in extra-curricular activities, but at other schools?

• • And so it goes ....

• • ... until we get to: "In 1990, a survey conducted by The Economist declared that The Doon School's Old Boys' network is the second-most influential alumni network after Harvard's."
    • I'm afraid, the much touted source (The Economic Times), only says, "Back in the 1990s ..." How did you narrow it down to one year?
      • Any thoughts, especially fr9m the people who have endorsed this lead? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Fowler's lead is 100% better. I support the change. The previous lead was not the best (I had been working on rewriting it offline), and this is definitely the superior of the two. I take it this means though that we are sourcing the lead? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 15:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

And to actually respond to some of Fowlers points:

1. Yup. Noticed that. He was actually dead by the time the school was formally established. Quite interesting wording needed there.

4. I had written that (requires, endorses and hosts) just off the top of my head a few days ago. Certainly could be worded better, but I'm not a great prose guy :( Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 15:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I take it this means we are sourcing the lead? Good point, Nolelover. Ideally a lead should be a summary of the article. This my lead is not, and to that extent, Justice007's point (made in defense of his revert) is well-taken. (My apologies for my impatient language upstairs, but I really am strapped for time.) But then neither is the current lead a summary of the article. I guess, I wish the points made in my version of the lead, along with other essential points about the school, were discussed somewhere in the article (and sourced there); then the lead would not need to be sourced. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to work on "merging" the two leads; thanks for at least giving me something else to work with :) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 17:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• That's all right,no any problem.Justice007 (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

British English tag

How did this article get a British English tag (see this talk page)? Most articles about India have either the "Indian English" tag (see Talk:India and Talk:Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760)) or no tags at all. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe Merlay added it a while back....and as an American, I have no idea if there's a difference, reasons, etc. What is the article currently written in? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 15:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Another good point, and one I've made myself many times in many talk pages. There is really no difference, as far as I can tell, between written British English and written Indian English (except for a handful of expressions), but it is unusual for articles about India to have the British English tag. But it's not a biggie really, we can forget it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The difference is in the spelling of certain words, e.g. "behaviour" (British English) instead of "behavior" (American English). There aren't substantive differences in grammar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spy99 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand that, but I'm asking if there's any difference between Indian and British English. I already changed all of the American-to-British words I knew, but if Indian is completely different... Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 17:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a substantial difference between vernacular Indian English and British English. It is difficult to characterize the grammar and prose style of this particular article since the language periodically veers into grammatical errors, use of indirect/passive voice and general circumlocution. If I had to choose, I would say that it is closer to British English than American English, but that's not the same as saying this article is a good example of British English. (I have tried correcting the grammar and prose over the years but it is difficult now with so many people are making changes on a daily basis; I figured I would wait until the content issues got resolved before correcting the language.) Spy99 (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I've come to the same conclusion regarding waiting until the content issues are resolved to extensively copyedit it. Allens (talk | contribs) 21:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I doubt if any Wikipedia articles are written in Indian English -- do you know of any? Spy99 (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC) OK, I just read Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760). That really is written in Indian English. The Doon article doesn't come close to it in terms of style; I think the British English tag is, after all, the most accurate.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spy99 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 9 April 2012‎ (UTC)

(←) See WP:TIES. {{Use Indian English}} really only affects spelling, but there's a bot that recognises it, so it's useful to have there. During my copy edit I'm finding a few AmEng spellings and usages, so it's worth having the tag. --Stfg (talk) 11:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not gonna remove it but...

The more I look at it, the more I see that this article is not quite ready for a GAR. The main issue is the lead, but it still needs a thorough copyedit (I can understand why Allens hasn't done it yet though) and I'm sure Fowler will have some other tips. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 21:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, my better half has given me final notice: I have to get off that darn Wikipedia for a few months or else .... :) So, I will have to be brief. And this will likely be my last post here.

A big problem I see is with the sourcing. Claims are made and cited to certain sources; however, upon examination, the sources seem to say something different. This can be perplexing (and, before long, exasperating) to a reviewer. Here is one example—the first sentence from "Origins:"

• Doon was founded by Satish Ranjan Das, an eminent lawyer from Calcutta (citation: "Doon School to raise Rs 125 crore". Business Standard. 2010-10-09. Retrieved 2012-01-24.)("Eastern Book Company – Practical Lawyer". Ebc-india.com. 1977-09-18. Retrieved 2012-01-24.) who in 1927 became a member of the Viceroy's Executive Council of Lord Irwin on the condition that he would use the prestige of this position to raise funds for a new type of school in India.(citation: Mukherjee, Rudrangshu (1985-05-21). "Editorial > Remains of the Past". Telegraph India. Retrieved 2012-02-20.)
  • "eminent?"
    • The first source says only "prominent."
  • "on the condition that he would use the prestige of this position to raise funds for a new type of school in India."
    • None of the three sources seem speak to this. In fact, the sources only cursorily mention the "founder" of Doon School. (One is an obituary for another SR Das (Sudhee Ranjan Das), which only obliquely mentions this SR Das.)
    • It seems incredible (in the context of early 20th century Indian history) that the Viceroy of India (i.e. British India) would allow an Indian member in his council to use the prestige of the position to do something other than what the position tasks. I can't be sure, but it sounds like the kind of excuse the descendants (genetic or intellectual) of a moderate nationalist would make for his co-option by the British.

I would also suggest that this article not perpetuate the fallacy that Das is the sole founder. It seems that others, including some British officials who stepped in after Das's death, were equally instrumental in the school's founding. David Macdougall, for example, (see my version of the lead) refers to the "founders." It is best too that the article not enhance Das's nationalist credentials.

This, of course, was the first sentence of the first section. But you get the idea. Someone will need to go through the footnotes with a fine tooth comb and make sure that they support what is being claimed.

I wish the various authors and nominators of this article the best in the GA candidacy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have already expressed my concerns in some of my edits summaries about references which were or are not supporting the contents of the article, but no one pay head to that matter,it should be done now,I agree on this point with Fowler.Justice007 (talk) 07:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, Justice has brought this up a few times, and almost every time I go through a paragraph or line with multiple references I see that at least one of them and often more don't actually source the given statements...this is another reason why I think a GAR might be a little premature. Regardless, I want to thank Fowler for his work on both article and list. I know there have been disagreements, but the two are most certainly better for your work :) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 23:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I added the GAR tag on the request of another editor. I suspected that there were a lot of faults with the article, and I had already made my views clear on the image issue, though that said, articles are often far from perfect when nominated, and half the process is ironing out any remaining issues. In any case, I will not object to cancelling the GAR, if on reflection, editors believe the article is not yet ready after all. Since nobody has yet come to review the article, all that has to be done (I think) is to remove the tag. CT Cooper · talk 21:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
      • That is correct, since no one has commented there yet. Now, this will be only my second GAR, so hopefully I'm just underestimating how much work is usually done there. Also, I apologize for bringing this up and then completely dropping the article; until finals ends a week from today, I'm extremely busy. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 01:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
        • I have withdrawn the nomination for now, giving the lack of enthusiasm for such a nomination at this time. Anyone is free to nominate the article again - although it should not be done in my name unless I give consent, although I would be happy to do so if the time is right. CT Cooper · talk 19:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits in the lead

Merlaysamuel (talk · contribs) has made changes to the lead, removing information distasteful to him, but accompanying the removal with disingenuous edit summaries. In this edit, he has removed information about the socio-economic backgrounds of Doon School students, with edit summary "updating admission info." In another edit, he has moved another sentence distasteful to him (sourced to David Macdougall's book) to a "Doon in research" section. I am requesting that the removed material be reinstated. It has been discussed in a section above. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Fowler! I'll be only too happy to explain my actions. I noticed that the socio-economic info was linked to an article dated 2006. Six years is a long time and the school's ethnic/social logistics might have changed drastically. Hence, I removed it for the time being (with edit summary 'updating') and will now approach DoscoinDoon (talk · contribs) for the updated version, as he's a Dosco. Moreover, the David McDougall quote is perfect for the Alumni article lead but does not significantly contribute to the School article lead in any way. Therefore, I moved it to 'Doon in research' section with David film's content where it is undeniably apt. Of course, that is just my opinion and is certainly not the last word. Also, nothing really is distasteful to me here. (P.S: Good to be in touch after so long) --Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  02:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm still mystified by the edit summaries. "Updating admissions info" has no relation to what you removed. Since you have removed the same information before, and not just once, from the Alumni list article and have offered other reasons for the removal, I'm having a hard time taking your new (and friendly) avowals at face value. It is best that you replace the removed material and discuss you reasons on the talk page first. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

'Updating admissions info' edit summary was regarding the new info I put in which talks about pupils being admitted in January and April (aged 13 & 14) As for removal of the content, I think it prudent to leave these dynamic, floating and old facts out of the lead until we have some updated correct info. If Wikipedia boasts of up-to-date info, I don't think citing six-year-old articles for such wavering facts is the best thing to do. I'll have to do the same in the Alumni article as it is unwarranted. It'd be best to keep them out until we find an updated reference or mention of the fact. --Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  03:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid, 2006 is not old information by any standards on Wikipedia. Many newly published books are based on primary information that old. I have reinstated the material, but prefaced it by, "In 2006, ..." I don't agree with your assessment about keeping things out until post 2006 references are available. It is not the consensus view here. As the primary author of an article full of incorrect information, often sourced to the school's own website, you can't overnight begin removing the sourced material added by others on the excuse that it is outdated. Sorry, but your explanations are not credible. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I see that you are edit-warring, and have now removed even more information. Well, since I don't do that, I won't. But I've never heard of sourced information from 2006 being removed on the excuse that it is not up to date, especially when we are comparing then and now, 1935 and the 21st century. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It stands to common sense and simple reason that such a floating fact cannot be added to the article. Such information as '50% parents own medium-sized business' or 'students hail from north/south india etc' will vary with each passing year, what's more, it's now been six years! Hence, my removal or argument does not warrant any credibility, it just stands to simple logic and common sense! P.S:- And if you introduce an old, wavering fact I'll have to remove it as it'll be misleading. I don't know if that's what edit-warring is about. --Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  04:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

How do you know that it will vary significantly from year to year? The lead made a statement about the first generation of Doon students, many of which were not from an India-wide aristocracy; it is natural to ask how things have changed since. Comparing 1936 with 2006 is quite adequate for conveying a sense of this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I note that the statement, "Although the total number of Doscos is relatively small (estimated at 5,000 since the school's founding), they include some of India's most prominent politicians, government officials and business leaders." is cited to a 2002 article. Similarly, the statement, "Doon has consistently been ranked among the best residential schools of India by media such as The Times of India and Outlook" too has one source which is a 2002 Outlook article. Should we be removing those statements? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You really don't understand the difference between static and dynamic facts, do you? Now, if the school's alumni does comprise some of the prominent politicians/business leaders et al, it won't change even if we quote it after a century because the school is done producing them :) But, information such as 'students hail from timbuktu' and 'they own Sony showrooms' will change quickly. Also, the truth is that till now Doon has been consistently ranked such so I don't know what you're talking about. I can't understand why it's hard to grasp the difference between facts that change with time and the ones that stay the same. --Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  04:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Deviating from the topic for a second, may I request you to add your comments at the bottom of the discussion? I took some time figuring out what and where your question was, as the last comment was typed by me at the bottom. Anyway, I apologise for removing "more" information as you pointed out regarding the first generation of Doscos. It was interspersed with the rest of the information that I had intended to remove with lots of references. Sorry , we can put it back. But answering your second question, how will I know it will vary significantly? Obviously, it was a calculated assumption. Since 2006, a whole new batch of students would have graduated from Doon (D form to Sc form) and what do we know about their current social standing and demographics???? Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  04:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia works, not by calculated assumption or by calculated risk, but by verifiability. It is quite normal for "sociological" information to be a little dated. The demographics of India is 11 years old. This is so in spite of the Census of 2011, which obviously has not been analyzed in detail, and likely won't for a few years yet. Such inadequacies doesn't stop a major Wikipedia article such as the FA India from citing that information. I have never heard anyone remove the most recent verifiable information, in the absence of new verifiable information, based solely on some personal calculated assumption about its accuracy.

For the benefit of everyone who has taken part in the discussions above, especially those who debated the claim of "Eton of India," here is a large portion of text of which all but the first sentence (sourced to the same 2006 article) has been removed:

A quarter of the school's students are children of alumni. Doon school students have often been thought to come from an India-wide aristocracy; however, even in the school's early years, many students were sons of the new technocracy then developing in the Punjab and the United Provinces. In 2006, three-quarters of the students were from the North Indian states of Uttarakhand, Punjab, Harayana, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar; only three per cent hailed from Southern India. Fifty per cent of the parents of students owned medium-sized businesses such as petrol stations, cell-phone and car dealerships, appliance stores, and manufacturing units.

The sentences have been removed on the personal "calculated assumption" that the 2006 information, being six years old, is no longer an accurate estimate of a dynamically changing statistic. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Comparing the 'sociological' structure of India (population 1 billion+) with Doon (students 500) is preposterous! The demographics are at a much larger scale and making frequent changes to it is understandably out of question. That is not the case with Doon. In six years (after such Global Economic crises and economy taking a U-turn), the information should be updated by all means. But to project a non-verifiable (on this day) fact from 2006 is misleading for the readers! Yes, it must have been the case in 2006 but to keep it in today, we need proof. You say Wikipedia does not work on calculated assumptions but verifiability. Show me the verification of all your facts for 2012. Pupils would have come and gone and who is to say whether a quarter of the pupils are children of the alumni today????? --Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  07:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Some comments...

1. First, a lot of the lead has material that isn't discussed in the article in any depth ("Golden Age" line, for example), so might be moved per that alone. UNDUE and all that...
2. Six years really isn't old, Merlay. :-/ Much more important facts have been sourced with much older references.
3. I would agree with Fowler that in this case, that source is good enough to show the difference between 1936 and 2012. Yeah, it may change in 6 years but the point remains. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

GOCE copy edit, May 2012

Hi all. I've taken up the request to GOCE for a c/e of this page. Because of the above discussion, I will leave the lead section till last, to give you time to resolve it if possible. Please feel free to update the lead, even when the GOCE-in-use banner is present, until I strike out this sentence.

Regarding the above discussion and other things I've noticed in the article, one thing GOCE editors commonly see in articles about Indian topics is a poor observance of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, which is included in the GA criteria. For example, in the first sentence following the lead, we have someone described as an "eminent" lawyer. That is a peacock term, and the fact that the source describes him as a "prominent" barrister is no excuse for using it in Wikipedia, which is supposed to be neutral in tone. We aren't here to promote, praise, blame or make value judgements. In the context of the above discussion, it might also be good to review Wikipedia:As of, which is referenced from the words-to-watch page.

Please keep an eye on this section, as I may need to use it to request clarifications. TIA --Stfg (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your post STfg. Only today I removed the word "eminent" and replaced it with lawyer and Advocate General (as written in the reference). I fully understand what you say and am watching this page constantly. Once again, thanks for your time! --Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  11:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

(To Stfg) I noticed this after I left a post on your talk page. You seem to be aware of the pitfalls here. Thanks for agreeing to do this, and good luck. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both. I forgot to mention that my MO is to put {{GOCEinuse}} at the top of the page when I'm working, an to replace it with {{under construction}} overnight or when taking a substantial break. Please feel free to edit while the under-construction banner is there; it's just a signal that there's still more to do. --Stfg (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Origins" section: clarification tag: I think the relationship of the "tributary" thikanas to whatever they are tributaries of (the Durbar?) could be made clearer. Are they dependent on, subservient to, contained in, appointed by, ...? I've finished editing that section, so please feel free to make a section edit to clarify this if you can. --Stfg (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Founding ethos" section: some failed verifications here. Apart from thoses tagged, I completely removed this, which was FN26:

"Doon School is popular for building an 'aristocracy of service'". Daily News & Analysis. 2010-06-05. Retrieved 2012-02-20.

as it says nothing about Foot marking the milestones in the development of each student. Also, as it's an interview with Dr Peter McLaughlin, it could be considered a primary source, and promotional. --Stfg (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Both statements about Gurdial Singh are adequately sourced by the new himalayanclub.org citation, but the new citations for "these masters all came from very traditional British schools" are unacceptable. One says that Foot had been headmaster at Ottershaw, the other that Martyn had been at Harrow for 10 years. It is WP:OR, even if true, to say that these are "very traditional"; and the statement is not sourced at all for Holdsworth and Gibson. --Stfg (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Founding ethos" section: Please could someone with access to The Doon School Sixty Years On check the long quotation here, as there may be a couple of typos. The version here says "In short he learning to exercise taste ... At 16, he acquired taste ...", where we might have expected, more grammatically, "In short he is learning ..." and something like "At 16, he should have acquired taste ...". --Stfg (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Corrected from version provided on Day 2 below. --Stfg (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Page numbers needed: I haven't added {{page needed}} tags, or the article would become flooded with them. Suffice to say that very few of the citations, even from books, have page numbers, and they need them. --Stfg (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Headmasters" section: I've removed the following from the end of the first paragraph:

and other terms like tuck shop (school café) and call-over (attendance) are common to Eton, Harrow and Doon due to the background of Doon's headmasters.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://forbesindia.com/printcontent/26972 |work=Forbes India Magazine|title=A New Recipe For Nirula's |publisher=Forbesindia.com |date= |accessdate=2012-03-06}}</ref>

"Tuck shop" is a very common term for a school (sometimes not even school) confectionery shop in many parts of the English-speaking world (it's even in wiktionary). Call-over is public school terminology (meaning something closer to roll-call than mere attendance, I think). The source, which is rather promotional, does not confirm that these terms came from Britain (though they obviously did) and doesn't mention call-over at all. --Stfg (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

(Just checked call-over with a friend. It is a time when everyone in the school or a house is supposed to be present so as to ensure that all are safe and sound and not AWOL. It's like a roll-call without calling the roll. :)) --Stfg (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Headmasters" section: "From the beginning, Foot was enthusiastic about the idea of social work." Social work in what sense? Could perhaps expand with a sentence or two to say what specific measures. What's currently there is just apologetics about (perceived or actual) elitism. In the next paragraph, referring to disciplined living, I've deleted "which further propagated the idea of social service which Foot had originally introduced", since disciplined living and social service are quite different things. (Even a hermit can practice disciplined living).

"Ramchandanihas been credited with modernising the school by improving its outdated infrastructure."[1] Removed as failed verification -- it's a primary source anyway.

Removed Times of India "Stop Bullying Children" source [2]: failed verification and basically irrelevant to this. --Stfg (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I am now working on the issues you've pointed out. --Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  20:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

(To Stfg) I notice you haven't questioned (in Origins), "on the condition that he would use the prestige of this position to raise funds for a new type of school in India." Where do the accompanying references mention this fact? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point. When you find things like this, please don't wait for me to spot it. Copy editors generally don't do full citation checks. Just tag it (while the in-use banner is absent, of course) and/or bring it to this talk page. In this case I think you're right, so ...

• "Origins": citation needed for "... became a member of the Viceroy's Executive Council of Lord Irwin on the condition that he would use the prestige of this position to raise funds for a new type of school in India". --Stfg (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Day 2

Thanks for all the things you've done overnight (night for me, anyway). One thing we could perhaps do is that each time you deal with an issue I raise, just indent someting inside that bullet, even if it's just the one word "Done" (but of course anything else you want). Then I can strike out my comment if I agree it's dealt with, or discuss further if not. That will keep us on top of the status of the issues.

I want to make a comment about what's going on in the lead regarding the demographic. The purpose of the lead is to summarise what is in the rest of the article, not to contain detailed information that is presented nowhere else. This is part of the GA criteria too, so you need to resolve it now. It does seem to me that details like parents running petrol stations and suchlike is tangential to the school itself, and that allowing such material to occupy over 25% if the lead is giving it undue weight.

Also, the wording "Doon school students have often been thought to come from an India-wide aristocracy; however, ..." rather suggests a line of thought that goes something like this: "There's a POV out there; let's refute it". That in itself runs the risk of appearing to be POV. Let's make sure that this article doesn't turn into a class battleground. If demographic information is desired, I would strongly suggest to put it in a section of its own, and to keep it strictly factual. --Stfg (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly my point Stfg. This outdated fact from 2006 serves no purpose whatsoever. It's prudent to keep this out. Fowler just wants to rub it in somehow and that's not going to happen as it'll be misleading. Wasting such lead space is no good. Anyway, Stfg I've resolved some of the issues you've pointed out and I request you to proceed with the rest of the article. I will mark your points 'DONe' once I've resolved them. Thanks --Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  11:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I have already made Stfg's main point in this post of 9 April 2012, when Merlaysamuel was on Wikileave and when other, less combative, editors where posting here. I readded material in the lead because Stfg had given permission for just those edits. I don't think Stfg is saying that the material I added is not factual, or that a 2006 statistic is outdated, only that the lead should summarize what is already in the article. I am happy to add that material in the article and then summarize it in the lead. As for the "India-wide aristocracy" bit, it is sourced, but I may have synthesized two sources; it is easy enough to rephrase it without the POV. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

To clarify: yesterday's comment was not intended to approve the inclusion of the demographics (which isn't for me to decide), merely to stand aside for anyone to edit the lead and to await resolution of the issue before dopey editing the text. What you said on April 9 seems to be mostly about citations in the lead, an issue which is covered at WP:LEADCITE. My point today about demographic data in the lead is not about whether you can source it, but that I think it's undue weight to include so much detail in the lead. (I haven't checked whether it's factual, and haven't yet formed a viewe as to whether it is too old to be useful.) If you wish to draft a section about demographics for later in the article, sourced and NPOV as you say you can, I would think it fine. For the lead, at most a summary phrase should be enough, I'd have thought. --Stfg (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Fowler, it is your misconception to think I'm being combative. I'm merely adhering to Wikipedia's policies which you seem to have kicked into oblivion. --Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  12:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is to inform all the editors that I've just uploaded the Codes and Policies of THe Doon School here. This will solve numerous disputes and issues, I hope. Stfg you have pointed out that the Foot quotation is unclear. I request you to go to Page 9 of the booklet here, you will find the whole essay. In fact, there are more essays in that. I hope this will resolve some issues! --DoscoinDoon (talk) 11:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks very much, DoscoinDoon. That should help a lot. I'll check the essay on p.9 next thing. --Stfg (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Day 2 bullets

• "Campus" section: Art and Media School shortlisted: it would be better to say specifically which awards. One source mentions World Architecture Festival 2011, the other WAN Awards 2011 - Education (WAN probably stands for World Architecture News, since it's on their web site). Are these two separate awards, or just slightly different names for the same one? --Stfg (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

According to this, this and this it should be WAN award! --Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  14:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Academic life" section: "Doon is currently hosting students from Ballarat Grammar School, Brunswick School, Groton School, St Edward's School, Oxford, St. Mark's School (Texas) and Stowe School.[3][4]". Originally I tagged this {{As of?}}, but in fact both of the sources relate only to St. Edward's School, Oxford. The first is about an exchange pupil who has returned. The other is very long and in a format that appears not to permit a search function, but it is the St.Edwards Chronicle issue of 2009-2010, so not current. Hence removed as failed verification and WP:RECENTISM. --Stfg (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Athletics" section (renamed "Sports"): last sentence was:" The tournament has since achieved international repute and is now popular among South-Asian countries.[5]". Removed as failed verification: the source is an Indian school's website and does not say that. --Stfg (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• "School songs" section: it would be very good to put a parenthesis after each song title, stating the language and an English translation). --Stfg (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Historic ties" section:
  • Removed "As a result, many Doscos from the 1940s through the 1970s are also Welhamites." (Stating the obvious).
  • Removed "Doon has also had historic ties with Eton College since the days of British Raj.[6]." (The source merely mentions that the first headmaster and one early teacher came from Eton, so this is overblown.)

--Stfg (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Schools with similar names" section: I have removed "Some schools have even adopted Doon's idiosyncrasies at face value: for example, the Delhi Public School offers "Marker Cups" to those who get the highest "marks" in examinations;[7] Doon's Marker Cups, which also are awarded to those who score the highest in particular subjects, were named for the Marker family of Pakistan who donated the Cups.[8]" Although it seems very plausible, the source does not confirm that Delhi Public School derived its custom from Doon. The tone here was rather contemptuous, this detail is scarcely notable, and the school referred to doesn't belong in this section as it doesn't have a similar name. --Stfg (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

John Mason (schoolmaster)

This article is about a former head of the Doon School. It is currently up for deletion. You've all done some excellent work on the article for the school. I wonder if you have access to sources to help with the article on John Mason. Dahliarose (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how notable he is, especially in light of the major blanketing of Wikipedia with Doon School trivia (all in the last few months, all by one or two editors). There are many many schools in India, some much (much) older (see here for example). They all have lists of headmasters, many better known, but I don't see pages for them. This has come up for deletion only because someone imagined it worthy of a page. It probably should be deleted. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It's great to see some editors working on these Indian school topics. This is one of the most prestigious schools in India. For comparable UK schools we usually have articles on the headmasters of the last century. See for instance List of head masters of Eton College. The lack of articles on Indian headmasters is more to do with the inherent bias on Wikipedia. We have thousands of articles on non-notable bog standard American high schools, for instance, and non-notable transient celebrities, but comparably fewer articles on prominent people in Indian life. Dahliarose (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, but by the same token, there is an inherent bias in articles on Indian education for a handful of schools favored by the elite, Doon among them. If bias is the problem, there are many, more historic, schools in India, which either don't have articles or have stubs languishing in neglect. Here is a list. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that's because those are the schools for which more sources are readily accessible online. There really should be many more articles for Indian schools than we already have, especially when you consider the size of the population. Dahliarose (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Fowler&fowler: Surely, the best way to rectify that bias is to add material about more schools. If you subtract information about the favoured schools, you will just perpetuate any western-centricity in Wikipedia's overall coverage of schools. Anyway, the question for the John Mason article shouldn't be concerns of bias towards some schools, but simply whether he is notable enough for a bio. --Stfg (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Dahliarose for posting here to bring this matter to our attention. The afd is the place for disputing notability. Moonraker (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

First all-boys public school?

Merlaysamuel (talk · contribs) has now posted the blurb, "1935 – India's first public all-boys school, The Doon School, was founded." for eventual appearance on the On this day, September 15 feature on Wikipedia's main page. I have responded on the corresponding talk page. The On this day project page says it "defers to the supporting articles" (in this case primarily The Doon School). Well, where does this article describe Doon as "India's first public all-boys school?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

To make matters worse, the infobox of the Doon School page says the school was founded on September 10, 1935, whereas the Origins section says, "On October 27, 1935, the Viceroy, Lord Willingdon, presided over the formal opening of the school." Will Wikipedia be celebrating all three dates on its main page this fall? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't, off the top of my head, recall any sources that said that. (Furthermore, our lead sentence says its a "a boys-only private boarding school..." I understand the difference in the UK, but that's still an odd mix if OTD uses that wordage.) I don't mind being proven wrong, but if in doubt, take it out (and this is really iffy to me). Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 13:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Fowler and Nole, please look at the links I've provided at the bottom...Thank you --DoscoinDoon ^DoscoinDoon 11:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Grammar

My recent edit where I changed "None of them are" to "None of them is" was reverted by Nolelover. Though I still continue to believe that the correct version is 'None of them is' because None means 'No one' and it only makes sense to say "No one of them is...". I am looking forward to hear from other editors regarding this. --Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  07:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Just looked up the Oxford dictionary entry. At the bottom, it says it's correct to use both the versions. But I distinctly remember reading elsewhere that "None of them are.." is sloppy english. Opinions? Fowler, any suggestions? --Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  07:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please see wikt:none and compare the examples None of these men is my father and None of these people are my parents in the usage notes. None has more meanings than just no one, as you see there. In this case, we were at meaning 1. There's nothing sloppy about "are", providing it's used at the right time. --Stfg (talk) 07:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! So meaning 1 means we use 'None of them is' ?? --Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  08:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

No, Stfg is talking about meaning 1 i.e. "Not any (one) of a given number or group of things. With singular or plural concord." In other words, both "is" and "are" can work, depending on the context (register) and emphasis. I would add: "Not one" is more emphatic than "none of," so the meaning is akin to, but less emphatic than, "Not one." There is a view out there that prescriptive grammarians of the 19th century favored "is," but that (I believe) is not entirely true. Examples abound of each form from each century. The specific answer to your question is that "is" is more formal and academic in tone (and, in my view, a little more emphatic in the context) than "are." Which form you want to choose is up to you (and Nolelover). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

For your reading pleasure, I've created a rough and ready answer in the form of quotes from a classic, grammatical views and Google searches. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Merci beau coup! --Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  16:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you indeed, Fowler&fowler. That's a wonderful account of it. --Stfg (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Having looked through that user page, some of what is quoted seems to be saying that "None" can be treated either as singular or plural. Like Merlaysamuel, I was taught at school that "none" is properly singular and that when writing formally "none are" is too colloquial and should be avoided. Nothing has ever persuaded me to turn away from that advice, although I occasionally forget it and need to correct myself. Moonraker (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the King James Bible (the RSV uses a plural verb there too), john Milton, Robert Lowth and Hugh Blair are reason enough to think again about that schoolroom notion. Schools have quite recently taught (and some still may): (a) that you should put a comma where you would take a breath in speech (which may be the reason, why all too often you, see commas in silly places); (b) that a sentence ending in a preposition is something you shouldn't put up with; (c) that it's a sin to ungrammatically split an infitive; (d) that serial, Oxford, and Harvard commas are categorically wrong. --Stfg (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Goodness, I didn't realize one word could spark so much discussion :) Now, the reason I reverted was because when we switch the meaning to positive, "They is related to..." is worse than "They are related to". I do see the point that "none" can be singular (I had been taught that it is plural) so if y'all decide that it is proper English, I'm completely fine with "is". Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 21:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

:) Perhaps I over emphasized the formal context above. Among books published by academic publishers (university presses) in the last 25 years, "none of them are" appears at least half as many times as "none of them is" does. So, even in the formal/academic context, "none of them are" is quite respectable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

PS, Stfg, I like the self-referential humor in each of your points! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I find it reassuring that about two-thirds of academic writers prefer "none of them is". It would be interesting to know what the split is for each major subject, as many of our present-day academics write badly. In my experience many of the worst offenders are found in a small number of disciplines. Moonraker (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

My point is not about the authors but the publishers. If the academic presses really thought "none of them are" was incorrect, their editorial staff would have gently prodded the authors into changing it. The Google data on my user subpage (and this is blatant OR) seems to suggest that "none of them is" becomes popular only in the 20th century. This could be an instance of over-compensation in an age of increased literacy, akin to over-enunciation found among newly educated people from backgrounds of non-standard speech. Anyway, for our purposes, both Merlaysamuel and Nolelover are correct. They both seem flexible on this point. They can work something out. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It is certainly time for the academic presses to put more effort into correcting "newly educated" people who write badly. I suppose you are right that academic publishers look on "none are" as acceptable English, while a majority of academics still prefer "none is". As you say, the preference may be quite recent. If any editor of a learned journal found "none am" in an article, it would soon be corrected... to "none is", I suspect! Moonraker (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Development

I have just come across a news story in which Doscos were involved in a hit-and-run case, killing one man in a road accident. Please read this and this by The Times of India. I believe we should incorporate this incident somewhere in this article. Opinions? --Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  19:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm doubtful. If all schoolboy hit-and-run accidents got a mention in the Wikipedia articles about the schools the hit-and-run drivers were attending, why not also mention all those convicted of serious crimes in their old school article, and where would it end? I should have thought such news was relevant to a school article only when it related directly to the school itself. The Eton College article is still lacking a section on "Etonian murderers" or "Etonian fraudsters"... Moonraker (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

P. S. - I should say that significant crimes committed at the school would merit inclusion. I wonder if WikiProject Schools has a policy on this? Moonraker (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Moonraker. If dangerous driving were endemic there, it would be different, but one such incident doesn't reflect very much on the school, does it? --Stfg (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It makes sense to me. I merely wanted your opinions. Thanks! --Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  06:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

What about consensus?

Today Merlaysamuel changed that "none are" back to a "none is". I don't see the consensus for that. Merlaysamuel himself raised the question and cited Oxforddictionaries.com, which says

It is sometimes held that none can only take a singular verb, never a plural verb: none of them is coming tonight rather than none of them are coming tonight. There is little justification, historical or grammatical, for this view. None is descended from Old English nān meaning ‘not one’ and has been used for around a thousand years with both a singular and a plural verb, depending on the context and the emphasis needed.

(Bold, italics and quote marks are theirs). Merlaysamuel also asked Fowler&fowler for suggestions, and he obliged with a very scholarly contribution that gave several admirable sources, all bearing out the correctness of the "none are" usage. The fact that the pair of Google searches show "none is" to about twice as common as "none are" is about as significant as the fact that potato is about four times as common as mango among the same publishers.

I would have thought, frankly, that there are more urgent things to do for this article than to indulge in pedantry based on half-remembered schoolroom over-correction. This article has far too many citations that do not support the statements they are attached to, as I identified in the copy edit notes above and in tags in the article. I have requested, but not received, an explanation of an edit that inserted three such false citations. Far too many of the citations are to the school website and other primary sources, which is probably why the article looks more like a prospectus than a real encyclopedic article. What about all that?

I will keep this page on my watchlist for 48 hours more, so as to see any replies, including any that have been slept on. After that I plan to remove it. --Stfg (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with you, I have also indicated about the sources which are not supporting the content.Justice007 (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be pedantic, not the least pretentious. I just wanted to expand my horizons. Anyway, I am now starting work on the References and will clear out anything unrelated to the text. Also, Stfg is the abundant use of redundant (:)) references making it look like a Prospectus? How can that be? Only text has the ability to do that. And if that has happened, please do point out where. I am starting the work now...--Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  12:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This is the kind of stuff making it look like a prospectus. Unfortunately, I thought this stuff would come out in a GAR but I see that we are very far from that. Stfg, I want to thank you again for your work here. I'll work on this article as much as I can, although that won't be much for a while. We'll get by. Justice, you can go ahead and say "I told you so" ;) I knew there was a problem, but I hadn't gone through enough of the refs in the questionable sections to think that it was a terribly big deal. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 12:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Just want to give my thanks as well Stfg for your precious time! I'm cracking on! --Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  12:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

(I'm very confused by the threading here. Please could we use standard indentation?) For "prospectus", consider something like:

The school has often invited prominent figures to give speeches and talks to the students; these have included heads of state, politicians, ornithologists, naturalists, artists, writers, economists, diplomats and industrialists.[118][119]

and ask yourself who, honestly, is interested in reading that, and why. I think you may find the answer to prospective parents, and not many other people. Yes, it's the text itself, not the sources, that define the style of article. But if you source extensively from the school's web site, you're likely to end up with that kind of thing. --Stfg (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense. --Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  14:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Stfg. There are far too many statements the truth of which is not borne out by the accompanying citations; those citations, moreover, are often made to the school's own web site. I believe the school's web site can be used for some factual details, such as the school's annual fees or the average number of students, but not for interpretations, and especially not for ones of the school's history. I would proceed by removing all such citations, replacing them with a "cn" tag, looking for alternative sources, and upon determining their absence, removing the statements altogether. Consider the "founder," for example. There is good reason why there is little independent verification available for school web site's adoring portrait of him; it is that he belonged to the Westernized Bengali elite which, by the 1920s and the arrival of Gandhi on the Indian political scene, was already fading into political oblivion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

PS All statements claiming a first in history for Doon School should be approached with skepticism. Consider for example, this one appearing on the school's web site: "His mission was to constitute India's first public school in an era when 'Chief's Colleges' were the ultimate school experience." The fact is that by the 1935—the year of the founding of Doon School— even "nationalistic" schools (and I mean private ones requiring students to pay tuition fees) had been in existence for more than 75 years. The first such schools were the "Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental Schools" inspired by the Aligarh movement, the early ones founded by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan in the 1860s. Then, in the 1880s, in reaction to the founding of the Muslim schools, the Hindu the Dayanand Anglo-Vedic Schools System was founded. It controls nearly 500 public schools in India today. In the 1920s, both the Jallianwallah Bagh and Gandhi's call for non-cooperation, led to a spate of founding of "civic" (non-religious) nationalistic schools.

In other words, the sheer history of British-influenced Indian high school education, which goes back nearly two hundred years and which includes subsidized schools founded for Indians by the East India Company before 1857 and by the Crown after 1857, private and parochial schools founded by various British societies originally for the schooling of domiciled Britons and Anglo-Indians (Eurasians), but opened to Indians by the 1920s and 30s, and private schools founded by various streams within Indian nationalism, makes it well-nigh impossible for a school founded in 1935 to be able to claim a first. Such a claim should not get an easy pass. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Fowler but I just looked at all the references and noticed the areas in which we are dependant on the school website. Here they are:- Entrance and Admission info (inevitable and trustworthy); a bit of History; names of societies and extra-curriculars;some architecture and facilities. On the whole, I noticed that references from school website do not even comprise 1/4th of the total citations. But I do have a question for Fowler. Wasn't Doon the first to cater to Indian students? I know you have given a whole list before which comprises schools like La Martiniere, St. Paul's et al but didn't they only cater to British students? I am not sure really...--Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  06:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I think Fowler&fowler accurately and briefly detailed the facts of the history, really he went properly into the way which was needed in beginning?.Good effort.Cheers.Justice007 (talk) 09:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Justice007 for the compliment.

(To Merlaysamuel) Well those uses (names of societies, admissions info, and architecture) are all OK. The history bit I'm not sure about. Perhaps others will weigh in. As for your question, the short answer is: no. The long answer is

(a) the first British-style schools for Indians were all state sponsored schools (i.e. schools built and run by the government from funds usually obtained by taxation of the population). These were founded by the East India Company during the period 1820 to 1857 and by the Crown thereafter. (Here is something I wrote four or five years ago that will give you the background.) In many old cities in India, the "Government High School" is likely such a school, even though today it is woefully short of funds, its tumbledown Company era building a reminder of its former glory. Many Indians of a certain era, say 1860 to 1947, who became famous because of their innate talents (and not family wealth) went to these government schools.

(b)Then there were other schools, both private and parochial, which were founded during the Raj (i.e. after 1858) as the British presence at first increased and then stabilized. Many of the residential ones, especially ones in hill stations, were for British and Anglo-Indian (Eurasian) children only. Examples of these include those founded by the Irish Christian Brothers or the Society of Jesus (Jesuit Fathers), such as St Joseph's College, Nainital, and those founded by various Anglican societies (examples: Bishop Cotton Boys' School, Bangalore (founded 1865), St. Paul's School, Darjeeling (founded 1866), both of which claim to be called "Eton of the East" on their Wikipedia pages, and Sherwood College, Nainital (founded 1869). Many day schools, however, were open to Indian from the very start. Some of the residential schools did open their doors to Indians by the 1920s, although others didn't until 1947.

(c)Various strands of Indian nationalism, mainly religious, responded by establishing their own schools. These too were modeled on the British public school but claimed to have various redeeming Indian characteristics. Among these were the MAO (Mohammadan Anglo-Oriental) schools founded in the 1860s by the Aligarh movement and the DAV schools founded in 1880s by the Arya Samaj.

(d) If the schools in (c) stood for a religious nationalism, then the ones founded in response to Gandhi's and others' call in the 1920s stood a "civic" or "progressive" or "radical" nationalism. An example of this more radical school is the National College, Lahore founded by Lala Lajpat Rai. My guess is that Doon came at the end of this last nationalistic wave. The Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan schools, roughly contemporary, too had immaculate "Indian" creds. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for such an elaborate response, but I'm still getting confused somewhere. I just checked the respective pages of the schools you've mentioned (opened before 1935) and all of them say the same thing:- that they were founded to serve the needs of British and Anglo-Indian kids. It's a different story that later they began accepting Indian students. Therefore, originally, they were not founded for Indian public students unlike Doon... --Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  09:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I notice Mr. Fowler has not responded to Merlaysamuel's quandary. In the meanwhile, I came across a 1985 New York Times article which asserts that Doon was, indeed, the first "public school" in India for (quoting verbatim) "public servants who would later assume positions of responsibility in a newly independent India". The same article was carried by Ottawa Citizen two days later. NYT link, Ottawa Citizen link --DoscoinDoon ^DoscoinDoon 11:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I am so sorry Merlaysamuel is all tied up in a quandry. Perhaps he will reread what I wrote upstairs. The British schools are not the only ones listed. There are the DAV and Anglo-Arabic schools founded in the 1860s, 70s, and 80s. As for the NYT story, I suggest that we add the following sentence: "The Doon School was founded by British educators (that way we can get rid of the convenient fiction about the Bengali pseudo-nationalist who founded the school from the grave) as the first "public school" catering to the British inculcated ambitions of some rising Indian technocrats and enforcing discipline strictly, even cruelly, by having its big boys occasionally beat up the little ones and, depending on the occasion, do lord knows what else." I believe it is accurate and sourced entirely to Steve Weismann. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mr. Fowler for your lucid and, up to a point, compelling suggestion, but if you reached a conclusion it escaped me. The whole school considers Mr. Das as the founder and that is the way it should remain. Yes, he died well before his dreams materialised but it was essentially his brain child. To say that it was founded by the British educators is wholly your comprehension, and a wrong one to say the least. And to say "by having its big boys occasionally beat up the little ones"...suggests you are living in an era long gone by. Yes, I agree, there was bullying at Doon, just like any other boarding school, but now no more! Not one bit, I say. And it's not that Doon was exclusive to such cases, my friends have been to Eton and Harrow (and many other boarding schools around the world) on exchange programmes and told us that those schools sometimes have to deal with the same problems. And I'll leave alone the cases in India, in schools such as Welham's, Mayo and Sanawar, where I have seen unimaginable bullying first hand! So please, I request you, stop saying things about Doon you cannot vouch for. Thanks! --DoscoinDoon ^DoscoinDoon 09:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The citations in the article for Das being the founder seem to be all from newspaper articles, so I have tried to find better ones. The Indian Year Book, volume 29 (1942) says at p. 419 "Doon School – This school which is established in the Chand Bagh and Skinner's Estates at Dehra Doon owes its origin to the initiative and enthusiasm of the late SR Das." In a much more detailed study, Constructing post-colonial India: national character and the Doon School (London: Routledge, 1998), Sanjay Srivastava refers at p. 41 to "...the body founded by Das for the purposes of establishing the Doon School, the Indian Public Schools Society". Moonraker (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

GAR

Dosco, it wasn't just the references. There's much more than just that. Can I ask, again, that we put this off? I'll be done this week with what has kept me busy for the last 5 weeks, and then we can make another big push. IMO, this GAR is still a little premature. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I second Nolelover. Let's make one more final run and then nominate it --Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  00:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I have some copyright concerns with some recent uploads on Commons related to The Doon School, and have tagged the images as appropriate. CT Cooper · talk 17:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I have removed the GAR request then. I will begin working on the article again in the next couple days. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 02:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we should have let the GAR remain. Solely because it takes ages before someone starts a review and till then we could have worked on it/improve it, thereby, saving time which'll now be lost in re-nominating it again and then waiting for someone to start the review (which can take weeks, if not months). Anyway, I am only too happy with the chief editors' decision...--DoscoinDoon ^DoscoinDoon 07:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but since GAR's aren't listed chronologically anyway (to the best of my knowledge) it wouldn't make any difference. If someone wanted to review a school article they'd have taken it, regardless of how long it had been waiting. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 19:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Like --DoscoinDoon ^DoscoinDoon 09:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Notable faculty

Ok, well then we'll hash it out here :) To state my position unequivocally, I am strongly opposed to a gallery of notable faculty. For one thing, galleries take up a lot of space and with no prose there's no explanation. Most of the people listed in the section are already discussed in better ways elsewhere, and since you brought up Baltimore City College#Notable faculty members and Amador Valley High School#Staff (which only has one entry) I'll compare to those. In BCC, none (or very few) of the faculty members are mentioned at all in the rest of the article, and only one has an image. To contrast, in Doon most of these have their own mention in other places and so putting this gallery just seems like trying to list these great men one more time. One more thing: Sudhir Khastgir's picture isn't free so it needs to be removed regardless. As far as I can tell, there is no reason to have this gallery; a list is one thing, but it needs to be more than just the founders and a couple headmasters who are already given a few lines of prose. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 19:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nolelover (omitting Mr. this time :P) at one level. The gallery can be easily dispensed with for the said reasons. But, I believe it should be simply converted into a list like the stated Featured articles. Also, there are more people that should be stated here like Vikram Seth who taught at Doon before his writing career soared and, perhaps, Salim Ali (not very sure about him but can check in school records..) who was a constant visitor at Doon. I guess we can incorporate all of that once we convert it into a list. The gallery certainly hinders adding more people who don't have any pictures on Wikipedia. --DoscoinDoon ^DoscoinDoon 10:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

That's another very good point; what happens when someone doesn't have a picture? Should we have a list, which I'm not opposed to, one or two free images to illustrate might be fine. Only using images creates a lot of problems. And yes, please don't bother with the "Mr." I'm probably only a couple years older than you. :) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 13:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Nole, I concur with you. We can remove the gallery and, instead, make a list as Dosco suggested.--Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  18:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to incorporate the changes as per consensus. --Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  18:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, and the list looks fine (can we change the titles to "1 Notable people 1A Alumni 1B Faculty" so we don't use "notable" three times in quick succession?). Just make sure that we have more people than the ones already talked about earlier in the article. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 01:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  11:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Founders

A school web site can get away with the conceit that the school had a founder. This, however, does not seem to be the view of reliable sources. Here is what David Macdougall says in his book, MacDougall, David (2006), The corporeal image: film, ethnography, and the senses, Princeton University Press, p. 100, ISBN 978-0-691-12156-7:

“ Compared to many boarding schools in India, such as La Martiniere in Calcutta (founded in 1836) and Lawrence School in Sanawar (founded in 1847), Doon School is a comparative newcomer. It was opened in 1935 on the grounds of the former Forest Research Institute and was the creation of a group of moderate Indian nationalists led by a Calcutta lawyer, Satish RaMan Das, who, although he died before the school actually opened, had lobbied for it assiduously during the 1920s. Das envisaged an Indian school patterned on the British "public school," which he felt had effectively trained young men to become responsible and resourceful administrators throughout the British Empire. But in contrast to British schools, he wanted an Indian school to be nonsectarian and responsive to Indian aspirations. He and the school's other founders saw Doon as the training ground for a new generation of Indian leaders who would take over the reins of administration and government following Independence. By copying the model of the British public school, the founders were attempting to show that Indians could compete with the British on their own terms without relinquishing their national or cultural identity. This reflected the views of many Indian leaders and intellectuals of the time, but certainly not all. Characteristically, Nehru welcomed the creation of the school, but Gandhi would have nothing to do with it. ”

Similarly, Steven Weissman, in his New York Times article,"India's old school tie: Harrow by the Himalayas,", November 12, 1985 says: "The Doon School, their alma mater, had much to celebrate 50 years after its founding by British educators as an Indian version of Eton or Harrow." A school might need the myth of a single founder who is a nationalist, but the sources do not seem to regard Satish Ranjan Das, a member of the-by-then insignificant moderate nationalist Westernized Bengali elite, as the founder. Apparently, British administrators in United Provinces in the early 1930s had more to do with the school's founding, including the requisition of the Forest Research Institute property, than the dreamy Mr. Das's ghost. It is best to discard the school's founder myth. Until this is sorted out, and until the sources are more reliable, I am tagging the article with a multiple issues tag. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the school's own documented history is not a reliable one? Although the "British educators" certainly gave Doon its character (rotten or not is beside the point, Mr. Fowler) they are, however, not considered the founders. Consider this image, however silly in your opinion. Also, there are equally reliable sources which consider S.R. Das as the founder. The prospectus states he is the founder and see books such as this. Barring all these trivial references, the school itself has documented S.R. Das to be its founder. It's a completely different thing that you don't consider him as the founder, or as a member of the "founders". But the fact is you or I can never know to what extent he lobbied and prepared for the school in 1920s, in order for him to be recognised as the founder. The books and articles would often say 'founders' implying the pivotal role of early headmasters, which should be highlighted in the article but, to remain true to the encyclopaedic nature of the article, the founding of Doon should be solely attributed to S.R. Das, just as Doon does. I suggest not to waste any more time on this Founders argument when we have more pressing issues with this article. For all we know, this might be another attempt of the bias-laden Mr. Fowler to lead us astray..... I don't even know why I graced your pointless argument with a comment. It's amazing how a person randomly shows up and tries to highlight the 75 years of ineptitude of a school which has failed to recognise its true founder. Almost makes me laugh... --DoscoinDoon ^DoscoinDoon 11:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

A school's own documentation is not a reliable source, just as its web site, which typically dumbs down that documentation, is not. That is why Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources. The founders that the secondary sources refer to are not the early headmasters (of your cooked up WP:OR), but rather, people such as Sir Joseph Bhore, Sir Frank Noyce, Sir George Anderson (educational commissioner in the early 1930s), and Sir Akbar Hydari, who pulled the school society out of near-bankruptcy and turned it around. Without them there would have been no school. Foot and Martyn, were recruited by the Viceroy (Hardinge?) after the school became a certainty. They had nothing to do with the founding. They were merely school masters drawing a salary, and dependent on it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• We have to use a bit common sense,when someone even gives the idea of something, and it is established, that means he or she is the founder of--.There should not be problem and there is not at all need to add the multiple issues tag on the mainspace of the article, it is not legitimate,for that there should be a template (Citation needed),if necessary.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on secondary sources indeed, as you rightly pointed out, but for information such as the founder of the school there can be no better reference than the school's own documented history. The gentlemen you name must have surely helped Das, or other people after his death, for the founding; there's no denying that, but they're not considered the Founders. It was essentially Das's brain-child. It's almost like UPenn was founded by Benjamin Franklin but he received much help from other American statesmen. Franklin alone is considered the founder of UPenn. I reckon you're getting mingled in semantics and over-complicating matters. I am frankly unable to grasp your real motive here over this innocuous point. It's a non-discussion really.--DoscoinDoon ^DoscoinDoon 12:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with Justice. Where was the neutrality being disputed in the article, Fowler, if you bother to point out? Also, what was the template for? Was it to prove whether S.R. Das is the founder or not? Then it's really redundant!--Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  12:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

That S. R. Das is the founder is a POV, one not shared by the reliable sources I've cited above. The notion of using "common sense" to interpret meaning goes against Wikipedia policy, which relies on reliable sources, both for a citation and for the interpretation of a term. The major dictionaries of the English language don't regard a founder to be someone "who gives an idea of something." That person is a dreamer, a visionary, a conceiver, but not a founder, especially not the founder. Here's the Complete OED, (on-line edition June 2012; requires subscription): founder (n) 1. Obsolete usage. 2. One who sets up or institutes for the first time; one who gives its first beginning to (an institution, sect, etc.). 3. One who founds or establishes (an institution) with an endowment for its perpetual maintenance. Websters Unabridged (subscription required): founder (n): one that founds, establishes, or builds <the founders of the college>; found (v): to establish (as an institution) often with provision for future maintenance. In which of these senses did Das found Doon School? Franklin, on the other hand, not only drafted the constitution of the College of Philadelphia (later Penn), but also as the president of the board of trustees, oversaw the requisition of an old Quaker hall for the College's first building and was around for the first 25 years. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

PS Btw, do we have anything written by Das? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

PPS Sorry, you can't remove a POV tag, just because you don't like it. You need to establish consensus for its removal on the talk page. I am presenting arguments which you have thus far not countered with either clarity or precision. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Whew...

1. Ok, first of all gentlemen, let's try to keep this aboveboard? Dosco, ad hominem attacks like "bias-laden" and "pointless" are completely unnecessary, not to mention unhelpful. Please refrain from that. We are all trying to make this article better.
2. No, the school's website is certainly not a reliable source for their own history. I'm sorry, but that is a cut-and-dried matter. Yes, we use common sense in these matters, and primary sources will suffice when we have nothing else but to say that the school will not whitewash their own history to some extent, however minor, is ... naive. I would not expect them to do anything else, honestly. We use independent sources for a reason.
3. Now, there seems to be something of a split among those sources about Das's role in the school's founding. Obviously he was not alone in his task, since he died before it opened. If this was his child only, the school would have died with him.
4. However, his is the name we most commonly see in conjunction with the school's opening. Until such sources are provided with other names (please forgive me if I've missed those sources), saying Das "spearheaded the effort along with other educators who took over after he died" doesn't seem unreasonable. Yes, he seems to be the big name, but he certainly can't get all the credit for the years that work went on while he was dead.
5. I agree with Fowler that Dosco's addition to the lead is not a proper representation of the source at all. Dosco, saying that "Dougall probably includes..." is OR/SYNTH. It is not up to us to try to read between the lines of the book. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, sorry for so explicitly expressing my opinions against Fowler&Fowler. Anyway, I have taken Nole's view - "It is not up to us to try to read between the lines of the book" - and removed the line "The new school was welcomed by Jawaharlal Nehru (who later became India's first prime minister), but Mahatma Gandhi (the architect of India's independence) had no interest in it" because in the book Dougall writes "Gandhi would have nothing to do with it". It may be the case that he was disinterested, rather than, uninterested. Nobody can know for sure. This line was tweaked and inserted into the lead by Fowler, who tried to read "between the lines" and thought Gandhi was not interested. Show me more proof that Gandhi was averse to the establishment of such a school! --DoscoinDoon ^DoscoinDoon 14:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

No you haven't followed Wikipedia policy. "Have nothing to do with" means to avoid. "Had no interest in it" was just a milder euphemism for the same thing, rather than saying he was avoiding the school, which, given his ideals, he likely was. I'm sure he was invited many times and he refused. However, he visited many other, more nationalist, schools many times in the 1930s and 40s. I will now be inserting "avoid" instead of "had nothing to do with" in Macdougall's quote. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Au contraire, given his ideals he would have visited the school. After all, Doon endorsed Secularism and Equality which hitherto had been compromised by schools such as Mayo which only allowed princes to be admitted. Also, what do you mean by 'I'm sure he was invited many times but he refused'? It's a logical fallacy. Were you alive at the moment? If such had been the case it would've been widely reported by the Indian media? --DoscoinDoon ^DoscoinDoon 15:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, Nolelover, I really am not even looking at the sources mentioned but only what I've learnt about the school's history at Doon for the past 4 years. I mean, what are we really looking forward to, that the school itself will continue to consider Das as its founder while its Wiki article will rope in others who, obviously, helped after his death? Also, who are these others? Do they exist or are merely Banquo's ghosts? Where are the references? As I said earlier, what do we know about the Das's work which earned him the title 'founder'? Anyway, my sincere apologies to everyone (including Fowler) if I'm making all this sound like a battle-scene, but you must imagine the amusement I experienced when I heard someone saying Das is not the only founder but there are 'others', something which sounds weird after what we have learned at school :P. Of course, someone must have helped executing Das's will but that does not mean he/she becomes the 'foudner'. Do forgive me, but I really believe this argument is entering into realms of fantasy...--DoscoinDoon ^DoscoinDoon 15:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Well he is the master of English,while he did not understand the meaning of this simple sentense;

"when someone even gives the idea of something, and it is established, that means he or she is the founder of-" here "established" which means,

• to found, institute, build, or bring into being on a firm or stable basis: to establish a university; to establish a medical practice.

• to install or settle in a position, place, business, etc.

• to show to be valid or true; prove: to establish the facts of the matter.

• to cause to be accepted or recognized: to establish a custom;

The idea of Das has been brought into reality,and that we have to figure out from the sources, which is already done.We should try to understand. In my veiw,DoscoinDoon is quite right in this regard. I am still disagree for tagging the multiple issues tag on the main space of the article, it is violation of the wiki policies,for one word "Founder" is or not, you can not tag the whole article under WP:NPOV,but I am not going to remove it again, till reaching the consensus, though that is totatly illegitimate. He is also talking about reliable sources,that are there already, primary or secondary,if he has concerns about that he should add the citation needed template to the said content or word rather than whole article, I consider it is not good faith.Justice007 (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Per WP:reliable sources,a reference from academic book has been added and cited, that can be seen and read on page 24, line 8,

"The second even of major significance through which we may trace the life and thoughts of Doon's founder occured in November 1927." I like constructive contribuion.Cheers.Justice007 (talk) 08:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Justice007, the sources need to be provided here, so that they can be examined in this talk page discussion. Provide them as I have upstairs below, not in hurried and undecipherable editor summaries in the main article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Updated. 182.68.130.85 (talk) 11:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• That has been done by Merlaysamuel, see be below.Justice007 (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources that support the plural "founders"; other issues

"founders"

References and quotes for the use of the plural, "founders"

It seems that what S. R. Das founded, was not the school, but the Indian Public School Society (IPSS) just before his death in 1928. The IPSS founded the school in 1935. The more scholarly sources say just that, as do the early sources. Prominent people associated both with the IPSS and with founding of the school were Sir Joseph Bhore, Sir Akbar Hydari, Sir Fran Noyce, Sir George Anderson, the Maharajah of Bikaner, and three Viceroys, Earl of Reading, Lord Irwin, and Earl of Willingdon. Judging from the sources, the myth of the sole Indian founder, who to boot was nationalistic, was created after India's independence in 1947. Interestingly, Das's own Wikipedia page, Satish Ranjan Das, does not make the error of positing a single founder. It currently says, "Das led a group of moderate Indian nationalists in the creation of The Doon School. ... He and the school's other founders saw Doon as the training ground for a new generation of Indian leaders who would take over the reins of administration and government following Independence. By copying the model of the British public school, the founders were attempting to show that Indians could compete with the British on their own terms." That isn't just what the page says now, it has been stating that since 2006! References and quotes: Souza, Alfred De (1974), Indian public schools: a sociological study, Sterling Publishers, pp. 23–24, retrieved 24 June 2012 (only snippet view on Google Books). (pages 23-24; boldfacing mine): The headmasters of the Chiefs' Colleges, it should be noted, were themselves moulded by the British Public Schools. They fully shared Sargent's view of the public school as a specialised institution for the selection and training of the public servant elite of the country. Pearce took the lead in the transformation of the Chiefs' Colleges by starting with Scindia School at Gwalior. The effectiveness of his initiative was considerably enhanced by the founding of the Doon School in 1935. Mr RS (sic)1 Das, Law Member of Lord Irwin's Executive Council, whose sons had been educated at British public schools, founded in 1928 the Indian Public Schools Society. The objectives of this Society to establish schools in India on the lines of the Public Schools in England open to all, without distinction of race or creed or caste or social status, with a view : — (a) to develop in an atmosphere of Indian traditions, culture and social environment, the best features of the English Public School, such as its discipline, esprit de corps, the building up of character, team work, physical development and spirit of chivalry, fair play and straight dealing ; (b) to develop a spirit of Indian nationality by destroying all social, communal, religious or provincial prejudices among the students and fostering a spirit of comradeship among them. The Indian Public Schools Society founded the Doon School and Mr AE.Foot of Winchester College (sic)2 (one of the British "Seven") was invited to take over the school as its first headmaster. Like the Chiefs' Colleges, the Doon School enjoyed the patronage of the princes and the British government. Among those associated with the founding of the school were nearly 20 Maharajas and other minor princelings, Sir Joseph Bhore (a Member of the Viceroy's Council), Sir Frank Noyce, Sir George Anderson (Educational Commissioner w/ Government of India) and Sir Akbar Hydari and the school was formally opened by the Viceroy, Lord Willingdon. (Footnotes: 1. He was S. R. Das 2. Foot was educated at Winchester, but was teaching at Eton at the time he was hired for the Doon job; footnotes mine.) Srivastava, Sanjay (1998), Constructing Post-Colonial India: National Character and the Doon School, Routledge, p. 25, ISBN 978-0-415-17856-3, retrieved 21 June 2012 When Das passed away, the 'enormous task' of transforming his 'dream' into concrete reality was readily taken up by a group of men prominent in official and Indian princely circles. The names which crop up most often in this connection are those of the Maharaja of Bikaner who succeeded Das as Chairman of the IPSS, Sir Joseph Bhore (an Indian who was then Railway Member of the Viceroy's Council), Sir Frank Noyce, Sir George Anderson (then Educational Commissioner with the Government of India), Sir Girija Shankar Bajpai and Sir Akbar Hydari. Read, Sir Herbert (1938), The Indian year book, Bennett, Coleman & Co., p. 402, retrieved 24 June 2012 (Google books snippet view only) (page 402; boldfacing mine) "The efforts of the Indian Public Schools Society, which owes its origin to the initiative and enthusiasm of the late Mr. SR Das, have culminated in the establishment of a school at Dehra Dun. The school is attempting to develop, in an atmosphere of Indian culture and social environment, the best features of English Public Schools. It was opened by His Excellency the Viceroy (Lord Willingdon) in October, 1935. The School is located on the two estates known as Chandbagh (on rent from the Government of India) and the adjoining estate, known as Skinner's, which has been purchased by the Society. There are at present about 265 pupils »ho are distributed in four houses. Mr. AE Foot continues to be the Headmaster. He is assisted by nineteen masters, of whom six have been appointed from England. The school prepares candidates for the Senior Cambridge examination and thereafter for the United Provinces Intermediate Examination, and subsequently for entrance to the Indian Military Academy, and Medical and Engineering colleges or for English Universities. Some boys take the Cambridge Higher School Certificate. The school is open to all boys In India without distinction of caste, creed, or colour and the school will aim at providing a thorough general education for boys between 11 or 12 and 18. The maximum age for admission is 13. The Board of Governors of the Society which maintains the school, includes the Hon'ble Sir A. Ramaswaml Mudallar (Chairman),Sir BL Mitter (Vice-Chairman), Sir JO Lalthwaite, John Sargent, MSA Hydari, Rai Bahadur Amarnath Atal, Rai Bahadur Chhuttan Lai, Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee and AC Turner (Honorary Treasurer). His Excellency the Viceroy is the President." Kumar, K. (2004), What Is Worth Teaching?, Orient Blackswan, p. 45, ISBN 978-81-250-2522-1, retrieved 25 June 2012 In any case, the colonial government rarely lost an opportunity to praise any initiatives on the part of the native community to set up schools. The Victorian ideal of 'self-help' gave moral verve to governmental approval, and the art of imperial budgeting for the colony provided the financial rationale. The combination of the government's appeal on the one hand, and the anxiety of the propertied classes on the other, led to the emergence of separate institutions for the children of these classes. The model for such institutions came from England's famous residential public schools. The early attempts to establish such schools in India were made by English administrators and Indian feudal interests in the latter half of the nineteenth century. By the early decades of the twentieth century, the aim of setting up public schools in India had crystallised enough to bring together feudal and commercial interest groups. The list of contributors to the Indian Public Schools Society for the opening of the Doon School included both the groups. Wilkinson, Rupert (1969), Governing elites: studies in training and selection, Oxford University Press, p. 182, retrieved 25 June 2012 (page 182; italics mine): In 1926, Colonel William Brown, a retired officer, pointed the way by starting at Dehra Dun a non-denominational private school open to all and run on public school lines. That Colonel Brown soon had more Indian applicants than vacancies was not lost on Mr. SR Das, a prominent Indian lawyer. In 1928, he founded the Indian Public Schools Society and raised £75000 (about £400,- 000 in 1968 values), but died before his plans could mature. In 1933, Mr. FG Pearce, energetic and imaginative head master of Scindia College at Gwalior, persuaded the sardars (chieftains) of Gwalior to open their college to all comers and to introduce democratic public school discipline. In the meantime, Sir Joseph Bhore (an Indian Christian) who, after graduating from University College, London, had had a distinguished career in Indian public life, joined with Sir Akbar Hydari ICS, a scholar of Balliol College, Oxford, and an outstanding administrator who was to become Governor of Assam, in collecting additions to the SR Das fund, with which they opened a new school at Dehra Dun in 1935. Society for the Advancement of Education (1935), School & society, vol. 42, Society for the Advancement of Education, retrieved 25 June 2012 An Indian school modeled on the public schools of England, especially Eton and Harrow, with masters borrowed from these schools was opened in Dehra Dun on September 10. It is known as the Doon School and is the first of its kind in India. The idea, according to The Christian Science Monitor, originated ten years ago with the late SR Das, law member of the Government of India, with the assistance of two Viceroys, the Marquis of Reading and Lord Irwin (now Viscount Halifax). The work of inaugurating the school has since been taken over by the Indian Public School Society, and the Earl of Willingdon is patron. The head master is AE Foot, who was an assistant master at Eton for eleven years, teaching natural science. JAK Martyn, history master, comes from Harrow, and HW Barritt, another master, from Wellinborough. The staff also includes Indian teachers of experience. It is to be inspired mainly by the English public school tradition. There are at present a few schools which seek to impart an education on the model of the English public school. (Note: There is no mention here of the nationalistic founding ethos of Doon School, which, I believe, has been greatly exaggerated since India's independence, especially in the popular press.) MacDougall, David (2006), The corporeal image: film, ethnography, and the senses, Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-0-691-12156-7 (boldfacing mine): (page 100) He and the school's other founders saw Doon as the training ground for a new generation of Indian leaders who would take over the reins of administration and government following Independence. By copying the model of the British public school, the founders were attempting to show that Indians could compete with the British on their own terms without relinquishing their national or cultural identity. (page 102) Since both were originally designed for the scientific purposes of the Forest Research Institute, the site was seen by the founders as eminently suitable for this approach to education. (page 103) The scientific attitude of the school's founders is perhaps more apparent today in a kind of brisk efficiency than in appeals to speculative thinking. (page 107) This was also the vision of Doon's Indian founders, who wanted the school to produce a new generation of leaders ... (page 128) This culture was as much a creation of the students as of the school's founders, teachers, and headmasters. Srivastava, Sanjay (1998), Constructing Post-Colonial India: National Character and the Doon School, Routledge, p. 189, ISBN 978-0-415-17856-3, retrieved 21 June 2012 (page 29) For we must remember that while they spoke of modernity and individuality, the founders of the Doon School, mostly belonged to a professions-based intelligentsia ..." (page 32) The Times of India correspondent covering the opening ceremony of the School, presided over by Viceroy Wellingdon, noted that the founders of the School 'being shrewd bargainers ... [had] obtained this valuable property ... for probably a quarter or even one-fifth of the amount it was originally worth'. (Note this was in 1935 some seven years after Das's death.) (page 32) The founders of the Doon School had, then, grasped these opportunities to move towards the realms of progress, ..." (page 53) The ghost of the irrational, unscientific native had pursued the founders of the Doon School with just as much vigour and had occupied their thinking with just as much vehemence as it shadowed the thinking of the Headmaster in 1990. (page 89) There is an interesting parallel here between the discourse of the founders of the Doon School, and colonial thought which culminated in the establishment of public schools in various hill stations during the Raj. Society for the Advancement of Education (1935), School & society, Society for the Advancement of Education, retrieved 21 June 2012 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |oage= ignored (help) (page 455) It is not the intention of the founders of the Doon School to copy the English system with little or no adaptation to the local atmosphere. The express purpose is to develop in an atmosphere of Indian tradition, culture and social ideas.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Last updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Question: I and other editors have provided more sources which support the Founder, with the name of Das. But those sources which you have provided that are not stating the names of founders, is it logical thing that The Doon school and so famous in India, Pakistan and around the world, has been estabished by multiple founders, that no one knows their names, even the academic authors.If there were more founders then must they have names like Das,and my question is that if there were other founders too?, what were their names,and when they die, before Das or after Das??.And why Indian media is unaware of it, and why on government level, Das has only been recognized as a founder?. The Doon school's head masters and The Governing Board's members are so simpleton that they know nothing about other founders?.Do you think they hiding the truth?, but what for, in them or in whole India no one is honest and bold to reveal the reality what your mentioned authors claiming without giving names??.For God sake, we should not search the unnecessary things which do not support founders in the way of reality.Please look to all references cited in the article thoroughly, and be fair,honest and neutral to judge the facts and realities in the concept of the school history.If you still persist on sources provided by you, than I for the best of wikipedia articles, suggest that, if we all agree, we can add one sentence, after this passage " he is credited as the institution's founder,(while some sources state founders without mentioning names) because of his assiduous lobbying" for the school's founding in the 1920s as". Or any alternative passage which can be accepted per NPOV. Thanks. Justice007 (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC) I have now added the names of the founders. Others who read the article will be the judge. There is a lot of revisionist history around Doon school. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Last updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Other issues

India's first public school?

References and quotes on whether Doon School was India's first public school.

It has been claimed in earlier versions of this article as well in several sources cited in this article that Doon School is India's first "public school," where by "public" they really mean "private, secular, and one that was open to all Indians from its inception." By way of background, I should add that starting in the early 1800s, British style schools had opened all over India. Some (the oldest) were government schools, which have turned out some of India's greatest sons and daughters, some were parochial schools (Catholic, Anglican, Arya Samaj, Muslim MAO), some had started out as schools for Europeans (although by the 1920s many had opened their door to Indians), etc. These schools don't count when these sources talk of "public schools." However, Doon still does not seem to be India's first public school. References and quotes: Souza, Alfred De (1974), Indian public schools: a sociological study, Sterling Publishers, p. 22, retrieved 24 June 2012 (only snippet view on Google Books). (Page 22): Among the schools which were immediately accessible to the general public from their very inception are Doon School (1935) at Dehra Dun, Modern School (1920) at New Delhi, Birla Public School (1944) at Pilani, Birla Vidya Mandir (1947) at Naini Tal, Yadavindra Public School (1948) at Patiala, and Vikas Vidyalaya (1951) at Ranchi. Sharma, Ajay Kumar, A History of Educational Instituions in Delhi, Sanbun Publishers, p. 31, ISBN 978-93-80213-14-9, retrieved 24 June 2012 (page 31): "The third trend was the opening of elite boarding schools in Delhi. These were founded on the boarding pattern of European hill-station schools. The first attempt was made in Lahore, then at Ajmer; the third was at Delhi in the 1920s. The beginning was made by Modern School (New Delhi). The concept was that this elite institution should have a mixed character, where education be provided on a Western model emphasising the Indian cultural ethos, with a boarding and day-boarding system. The various elite classes of Delhi supported this exclusive experiment which was entirely funded through private investment. It had a far-reaching impact on Delhi's educational set-up, and many other societies opened such institutions, ..." Singh, Khushwant; Hameed, Syeda Saiyidain (1995), A Dream Turns Seventy Five: The Modern School, 1920-1995, Allied Publishers, p. 25, ISBN 978-81-7023-499-9, retrieved 24 June 2012 (page 10) Several of the schools which today belong to the public school category have evolved from the former Chief's Colleges. Those were institutions of secondary education which were established by the British, following the national uprising of 1857. Their primary purpose was to influence the princely families and gain their political support. They were placed under the supervision of the Political Department of the government. Rajkumar College, the first Chief's College, was founded in 1868 at Rajkot. Mayo College, Ajmer was founded in 1873, Sadul School, Bikaner in 1893, Rajkumar College, Raipur in 1894, Scindia School, Gwalior in 1897, Daly College, lndore in 1898; and two others—Colwin Talugdars at Lucknow and Jagirdar's at Begumpet—both in 1913. Aitchison Chief's College was established in Lahore. ... Another group of schools were founded to impart a general education and military training to sons of army officers and military personnel. Residential schools, such as Lawrence School Sanawar (1847) and Lawrence School Lovedale (1858) were meant exclusively for Europeans and Anglo-Indians. There was nothing in the public school mould which was accessible to the common people until the appearance of Modern School on the educational scene in 1920. This was ten years prior to the time that witnessed the transfer of Chief's Colleges to modern public schools. This began with a movement initiated in the 1930s by F.C. Pearce of Scindia School, H.W. Barritt of Rajkot, C.H. Barry of Aitchison, Smith-Pearse of Raipur and A.E. Foot of Doon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Last updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Doon school and Indian nationalism

References and quotes for Doon School and Indian Nationalism

Was the Doon School ethos nationalistic? It seems that the world of the icons of Indian nationalism was far removed from the world of Doon School. The governing ethos of Doon School was opposed both by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and (through a spokesman) by Rabindranath Tagore: Srivastava, Sanjay (1998), Constructing Post-Colonial India: National Character and the Doon School, Routledge, pp. 211–212, ISBN 978-0-415-17856-3, retrieved 25 June 2012 (pages 211–212): Opposition to the School and the system of values it represents, though fragmentary, came from notable quarters. In 1937, two years after Doon's establishment, Gandhi put forward his scheme of 'Basic Education', a pedagogical project of great ambition. For it constituted a holistic treatment of the self, through incorporating the immediate reality of social existence including manual work into the sphere of education. ... Gandhi himself was to outline his position on schools such as Doon with engaging directness. In August 1939 T.L.H. Smith-Pearse, then Principal of the Rajkumar College at Raipur and one of the founders of the Indian Public Schools Conference (IPSO), wrote to Gandhi seeking to enlist his support in the cause of public school education (Handbook on the Indian Public School 1964; 16). Gandhi responded that he remained unconvinced by the arguments put forward by the IPSC and that in time 'the Basic Education experiment' would 'provide ample data for the school of your dream' (ibid.). Srivastava, Sanjay (1998), Constructing Post-Colonial India: National Character and the Doon School, Routledge, p. 212, ISBN 978-0-415-17856-3, retrieved 25 June 2012 (page 212) Other prominent critics of the School included K.R. Kripalani, Rector of the school at Tagore's Shantiniketan, and Morarji Desai veteran Congress politician and Janata party Prime Minister in the post-Emergency years. Kriplani declined an invitation to associate his institution with the IPSC on the grounds of 'a fundamental difference between their outlook on education; and further, on the grounds that his institution did not aim to produce 'leaders', but, rather 'self-respecting, harmoniously developed human beings' (ibid.: 22) who could challenge colonial rule. But perhaps the most vociferous criticism came from Morarji Desai, doubly remarkable for the fact that he voiced it at the School's annual Founders Day in 1976. Breaking with tradition. Desai spoke to the school in Hindustani and in a speech of unrelenting admonition warned that the audience must expect to hear some 'harsh truths'. Rebuking the School for maintaining its system of entrenched privileges for a minority, he warned that if it were up to him he 'would not allow even a single public school to exist' Rich, Paul John (1989), Elixir of empire: the English public schools, ritualism, freemasonry, and imperialism, Regency, p. 39, ISBN 978-0-7212-0754-4, retrieved 25 June 2012 The umbilical cord with England was a strong one. The Indian Public Schools Society, an embryonic Woodard-style St. Nicholas Society, debated whether heads (i.e. headmasters) should come from India, concluding that "previous experience in India would be rather a disqualification." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Last updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Multiple issues tag

A multiple issues tag (in this case POV about a single founder, and singularly sloppy sourcing) is not removed unilaterally by one editor, Merlaysamuel, or even by many, by attempting to carry on a talk page conversation in inscrutable edit summaries in the main article. It is removed by arriving at a consensus for its removal on the talk page, consensus which is achieved by offering rigorous arguments and reliable sources. Merlaysamuel has already been chastised by many people, including the last copy-editor, Stfg, for shamefully shabby sourcing, one that, in my view, borders on the disingenuous. I have thus far treated him with kid gloves because I think he's in high school (as I have DoscoinDoon, who has admitted to that fact). But beware that regardless of educational preparation one remains a newbie for only so long. I have reinstated the tag. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• You are not legitimate to add multiple issues tag on main space of the article, it means you are challenging entirely article's sections including its contents.It is bluntly violation of the wiki rules as I know,everone is correct and right to remove the tag which has no legitimation, for that there is no need of consensus.Justice007 (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

That's right, if you have any issues with certain sections tag them for verification, not the whole article.(Given your antipathy towards Doon, you would eat up the whole article but I meant tagging the sections within the rules of Wiki...) You can't just go on tagging whole articles at your whim....--Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  12:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sources supporting S.R. Das as the 'Founder'

References for S. R. Das as the founder

I'd like everyone to read Page 24 here. It clearly says: "SR Das died in 1928, 'but his ideas but his ideas and aspirations illuminated the way for those who took up the task' of establishing the school". It further states that various benefactors financially helped in its establishment, to whom Fowler mistakenly refers to as Founders. Read Page A201 in Encyclopaedia of Indian Events & Dates here. It says Doon "owes its existence to Satish Ranjan Das" No, Minister: Memoirs of a Civil Servant Page 88:- "...it was established in 1935 through the efforts of S.R. Das" Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh Page 2434:- "owes its founding to the vision of S.R. Das" The Asiatic review Read Page 403...what Das did in order to found Doon. Economic and political weekly (1996) Read 403 :- "The moving spirit behind the foundation of the Doon School was Satish Ranjan Das..." Selected works of Motilal Nehru, Volume 5 Page 212 :- "Das helped found Lady Irwin and Doon School, Dehradun" The Teleraph - "established in 1935 by Das, a lawyer..." The Telegraph, Calcutta :- "Das set up Doon School" Read The Hindu's magazine Frontline article here. It says:- ".....which would have made its founder, Satish Ranjan Das, proud" Please read the last paragraph of the article titled Our Founder's, 2009 (Page 3) written by Doon School's current headmaster here. He clearly says: "The Doon School’s Founder, SR Das, never lived to see his vision for this school become a reality. But it was such a powerful vision that others dedicated their lives to taking it forward and to creating The Doon School.....Our Founder would have been proud of us." Please note the use of the word Founder and not Founders. Also the title reads Founder's not Founders' Now, would we pay heed to what the press/media writes or Doon's headmaster says!? --Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  11:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Further read Page 20 also please. here. Das as fournder of Doon. Justice007 (talk) 12:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC) I have produced impeccable academic sources, scholarly books published by internationally recognized academic publishers such as Princeton University Press and Routledge. I have already produced the first book cited above (for which Merlaysamuel has provided no name), by Sanjay Srivastava, which uses "founders" at least half a dozen times. No amount of smoke and mirrors original research about what I have interpreted will help change Srivastava's choice of words. What has Merlaysamuel dumped here in the remaining sources? Swill produced by third-rate publishing houses in India, books that don't even have ISBN numbers, or unreliable newspaper stories. The second book, the self-styled Encyclopaedia of Indian Events & Dates, page A201 of which we are urged to read, says on its page A3, "It is believed that the 365-day calendar year was adopted as early as 4241 BC. Some historians consider it as the (sic) oldest known date in Indian history." Would Merlaysamuel like to use this spectacular piece of intellectual refuse and correct the India page history section, which states the birth of the Buddha (ca 500 BC) to be the beginning of recorded history in India? Keep peddling the trash and you'll get the GA status in a hurry. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC) The third source, a ponderous self-indulgent "memoir" by a retired civil servant in India (who mysteriously on a civil servant's low salary, wink wink, can afford to send his son to school in England), states, soon after anointing Mr. Das as founder, "Admission to Doon is much sought after, so much so that children are registered while they are still in their mother's womb and achieving admission is celebrated with pride in the same manner as that by English mothers upon admission of their children to Oxbridge." Really, in the mother's womb? Under what name are they being registered? Can we insert this too? Same quality of sourcing as Das being the founder. And perhaps also advertise English mothers' pride in the Wikipedia Oxbridge page? This is getting to be fun. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Sanjay Srivastava is probably confused, because in Justice's reference he says "the 'founder' of the school, SR Das", thereby clearly implying that the school considers only Das as the founder. In other places, he has used 'founders'. It'll be a folly to go by these "impeccable academic" sources and ignore what the school has to say about its own history.--Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  15:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Guys, may I request everyone to cool down? (Blimey, this is turning out to be quite an interesting summer-break :P) It's really funny how all of you are arguing over a non-point. If anyone has any doubts as to who the founder was, I suggested ringing up the school. They'll tell you it was Das. It's time we move over this sloppy argument. Also, much as I believe that Das was the founder of Doon, I would still love to hear what other names can be cooked up under "Founders". It's amusing no one has bothered to enquire which other people comprise the "Founders". Till now, they've just been collectively referred to as Founders by all the writers/editors. But who are they? It stands to reason that there names should have cropped up somewhere in history under Founders but it does not happen. Also do Dougall, Srivastava mention any names, under "Founders", except SR Das? AS far as I can see, it's a clear NO. Even if people are arguing there was more than one founder, please tell me who are the others? Das is the sole founder --DoscoinDoon DoscoinDoon 15:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC) My note Fowler, non of your provided references support that Das is not founder of Doon, metioning " founders" is a just of that, the time when he founded the Doon or idea of Doon school, companions of him, who supported his idea, some contributed financial help, some encouraged him,they are might be also called founders, and it is not strange. As like in army, there are many generals, but one is the chief of staff, and that is the head. Similarly, independence of (for) India and Pakistan, struggled many leaders with Ghandi and Jinnah, but only they two called main leader and founder in their countries. Before your concerns about founder, there was a question of "the Doon school or "The Doon school", both have reliable sources, as the reality and fact, officially is The Doon school, I confirmed myself from the school by phone. And you are same persisting not to accept the reality, and ignoring the whole institution,its governers, academics,professors,and official statements, that consider Das as a founder of Doon school. Please provide clear cut sources in which should be mentioned that Das is not founder of Doon school or other founders names. And do you think?, ISBN numbers can make something reliable, when everyone can pay 30 dollar to get it without any question!.Please do not make people laugh and stop baseless discussion.Cheers.Justice007 (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Like--Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  16:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC) The authors don't have to mention names. No Wikipedia policy suggests that. Plainly, they consider many people involved in the founding of the school. The Bengali idealist, Das, who apparently talked a lot, but failed to produce anything written, is not the sole founder, no matter what the school thinks, or what its headmasters, past, present, or future, think. Official versions of history are irrelevant to what Wikipedia considers truth, which is dependent only on reliable secondary sources (such as Macdougall or Srivastava). The government of India thinks all of Kashmir is a part of India. Wikipedia, however, regards it to be disputed territory. That is because reliable secondary sources do. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC) What you call reliable sources come with their own discrepancies. For example, the point where Sanjay Srivastava slips back to the single 'founder' mode, or in Corporeal Image (Page 104,108,118,119) where Dougall says "Founder's Day" instead of "Founders' Day". Surely, if he had been serious about the idea of many founders, he would have paid special attention to the placement of the apostrophe!?--Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  18:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC) The discrepancies, if any, are minor. Macdougall is simply calling the day what the school calls it, because he is describing the event therein, which celebrate one founder (regardless of whether Macdougall agrees with that notion or not). He says clearly on page 100, "He and the school's other founders ..." There is no room for doubt that he thinks there are other founders. Same with Srivastava, he says on page 24, (the first leisurely description of Das), "The founder of Doon School, its official history tells us ..." He too says clearly in many places, not least in the lines quoted in my sources section above, where the founders are described as purchasing the property at one fifth the actual cost. That happened long after Das had passed away. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC) PS [Retracted off topic comment; apologies to Merlaysamuel.] Surely, if the two most reliable sources are talking of multiple founders, there has to be a way of accommodating that point of view. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Fowler, you are searching only the skin of hair, but this is wikipedia encyclopedia, not a laboratory of any surgeon. One of the rules of the wikipedia, common sense is also existing, we can use that to better understand the meanings, policies and descriptions, rather than harping the empty drum. I know you are not going to understand and accept the facts and realities provided in the most reliable sources, because even you do not know how and when to be tagged any article. I do not think you have checked the all references that are cited in the article, there is clear vision and picture of one founder, that is Das, take a look at these.1 23 (can find on all pages) 45 6 7 (founder's day) If you are still persist on your self-conception, then you must realise that there are three editors disagree with you and that is also consensus , you have to keep in your mind. God bless you with your knowledge.Justice007 (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Might I suggest that you read WP:RELIABLE SOURCES#Some types of sources, where it is stated, "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." Might I also suggest that you read WP:DEMOCRACY, where Wikipedia policy about seeking consensus is stated, "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary, but not exclusive, method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Please before mentioning the policies,first yourself understand what those policies exact mean and what is the proper concept of the policies?.We here all editors are discussing,not forcing the policies in wrong way as you are trying to do?.We have provided most reliable sources encluding academic books, I think you don't see that?.And above mentioned policies, please read that thoroughly and trying to understand in right direction with the help of your online Oxford dictionary.Justice007 (talk) 09:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Oh I see, you are attempting sarcasm. That will stand you in good stead at the time of the GA review. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Oh are you so sure and confident yourself, about........??.Justice007 (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC) [Refactored off-topic comment. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)]

Copyright problem removed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://books.google.nl/books?id=oFRF6vs5algC&pg=PA100&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or reverted and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justice007 (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

[I have redacted my off-topic comment here. Apologies to Justice007.] Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Talk pages are full with that kind of blunders,that are written in hurry,you can not judge someone with this kind of mistakes,similarly I can not say to you look at "looking through "you" talk page.Now you stop your professorship, and mind your own business. Justice007 (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, what about : 1) encouraged a move toward establishing The Doon school, (as a paraphrase of "Characteristically, Nehru welcomed the creation of the school" 2) Mahatma Gandhi was not interested about it. That is in the main article. [Redacted my off-topic comment here; apologies to Justice007.] Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Sometimes, noun and verb functions are very closely associated in specific meanings,however,when you figure out the passage meaning,or rewrite the text, it is not necessary that characteristically same words should be used,when someone, something or person welcomes or support,it means he or she is encouraging the thing or the person,it is very logical to understand, if you see or read the English poetry,the words have multiple specific meanings which you can not find in the dictionaries,but sooner or later dictionaries will add the words with new meanings. Please do not make things complicated,you have the right to copy edit everywhere,if you think rewritten passage by me is not supporting the characteristically meaning,you change it in better way,I do not mind, but don't claim that you have mastery on the English language with howlering all over others.I hope this helps.Justice007 (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

[Redacted] When Macdougall says, "Characteristically, Nehru welcomed the creation of the school," he is talking about a time after 1935, the year of the founding of the school. How [redacted] does that mean, "Nehru encouraged a move toward establishing the school?" a statement situated in a time well before 1935? [Redacted; apologies to Justice007. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)]

[[Redacted my off-topic comments; apologies to Justice007]. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Fowler, can you stop patronizing Justice? Your comments clearly border on rudeness and squalid sense of superiority. It may be that he's not proficient in English, but instead of grammatically correcting his edits you launch a condescending tirade against him. Now, who's being elitist? You've committed the very sin you accuse us Doscos of. In a sense, the poisn'd chalice has returned to plague the inventor--DoscoinDoon ^DoscoinDoon 05:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

[Refactored my intemperate and off-topic comments. Apologies to DoscoinDoon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)]

I'm in no mood of gracing your parochial remark with my opinion or justification. As for the founder argument, I'd say there's no point wasting time in that. Even if you add it to the article, it'll be changed in a jiffy by my 499-odd brethren, if not me. Or even the 5000-odd around the globe. Also, care to tell us who you think the other founders are? Anyway, might I humbly make a suggestion? In this age, where Nobel prizes and Booker prize are marred by nepotism, and have lost their charm, it is too naive for you to say that none of the Doscos have received prizes like that. If you actively follow international media, you might have come across a dozen articles propagating this truth. I just wanted to share with you something I long ago read in the UK Telegraph:

“ In truth great books are rarely awarded the Booker, because they don’t need it. Great works of art survive without the help of judges or prize money. They don’t have to win a trophy to make them last. And so literary prizes become a way to give a sense of permanence to a book like John Banville’s The Sea or Howard Jacobson’s The Finkler Question – a book without much lasting value. To memorialise something forgettable. ”

So, just forget about who wrote the books, be it Doscos, and just enjoy the good literature/poetry. After all, there are so many Jews who enjoy Wagner, who was a die-hard anti-Semitic. I don't mind your reservations against Doscos, but I am averse to your idea of equating good work with these materialistic awards. After all, Gandhi never received the Nobel Peace Prize and see, those Norwegians belittled it by awarding it to Obama. I am not just saying this for Doscos, but for any individual. Some guy might have done double the work in some remote corner of India, and yet he might be unaware about the very definition of this prize. --DoscoinDoon ^DoscoinDoon 07:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

[Refactored my off-topic comments]]. As for your brethren edit-warring with you, how long do you think you will last before you are banned for meatpuppetry? I don't disagree with you, but why then are you pushing inane things like an alumni lists or the notion of a single founder (regardless of what the school says)? Alumni lists are nothing but lists of notability, little awards that you in turn are handing out to the listed. As for the founder, why should one person be accorded that recognition when a dozen did the hard work (some even "double the work") for establishing the school? Why are you so keen on awarding that prize to Das? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for meatpuppetry!? First, I just checked what meatpuppetry is and it clearly says bringing some new editors to support your stance. You must be really kidding about this? You think I'll waste my time bringing other editors (or Doscos) to support me here? Nah, not worth the time. I am not going to create a battle-scene out here. I generally said that if I don't change it, some other Dosco will because that'd be false information. You might have thought it implies sockpuppetry :p but NO! Also, don't you think that somebody in our school would have spoken up in the last 75 years. After all, why would we be hesitant to acknowledge someone who helped found our school? May be Das was the one who did triple the amount of work while he was alive, and that's why he's recognised as the founder. May be, he was the chief-force, the first impetus, behind this project....also, why don't Srivastava and Dougall ever tell us the names of other founders, if there were any? It's only because they've casually clubbed together Das's friends and wives under "founders" because they executed his will or carried his legacy. Anyway, I'm not going to further waste my time here saying Das was the founder but my stance remains such. Also, I just saw your user page which says you're a professor, and if that's true, it means I might be less than half your age. So, just wanted to apologise if I came across as an impertinent brat in my posts above. It's just that I was whipped-up by the the sheer ridiculousness and pointlessness of this argument. --DoscoinDoon ^DoscoinDoon 08:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Knowledge does not depend on age,you and Merlaysamuel have done good and appreciable work on The Doon school. There will be no any compromise against reliable sources,nor someone can apply his or her personal choices of writing style,we are here to edit and correct the errors,which are happend in hurry, typographical or other reasons.

I am delighted to see your soberness,wisdom and manner of understanding.God bless you.Cheers.Justice007 (talk) 10:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't care for apologies and don't think in terms of insolent brats, only worry whether Wikipedia's core goals and policies have been followed or not. I have no doubt that "founders" is the correct term and the most reliable sources (by Wikipedia guidelines) regard it so. I will soon be listing some more issues with the article. Eventually I will be posting at WT:INDIA in order that others may look at the article. As it is, it being edited by school-insiders, WP:SPAs, who don't do much else besides edit this article or ancillary ariticles. It may be that it will need an WP:RfC, for I see other India school-related articles soon throwing up similar problems. India caste-related articles, edited by caste-insiders, many of whom too are SPAs, have already shown issues of puffery, unreliable sourcing, and image-related grandiosity, issues not dissimilar to what this article has brought up. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

PS Justice007, please indent your posts according to talk page guidelines. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The "founders" bit is definitely not going in because the sources you mention are themselves confused. Plus, it will be false information. And, as for your other plans, I wholeheartedly look forward to it :) --DoscoinDoon ^DoscoinDoon 12:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

An RfC will indeed be interesting. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• I several times request you,please first read yourself then refer it for or to others.Are you confused for anything?.Look at all your comments,non of those has any concept of the wiki rules.You just mentioning those without legitimate reasons.If you have realy concerns,please go to WP:DRN.Justice007 (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I have now refactored my off-topic or intemperate remarks. Apologies to all. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My activity

For the next week, or at least Monday morning through Friday, I will be completely offline. At risk of elevating my own importance to this article and its quest to GA, I'm going to ask something that I've never done before: that all of you stop editing the disputed sections completely. At this point, no one is changing their positions in the slightest and the personal attacks and general unpleasantness are only dragging this article further from a successful GAR--remember that one of the criterion is that the article is not subject to many disputes. No, you don't need to listen to me at all, but I think everyone would benefit from a short break. I won't bother trying to toss my own opinions in when I haven't done and don't, at present, have the time to conduct a full search. I hope to see all of you again soon. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I see you as unbiased, and I'm happy to comply. I did try to get in my point of view, but quite unsuccessfully. All my edits were removed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Unrelated images

• There should not be added the images that are not related to The Doon school.Justice007 (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

My review

Alright, I want to apologize to everyone for taking my sweet time on this; I have a busy summer, and Wikipedia has been a very low priority. I will actually be gone for another week starting tomorrow, and won't really be back to my normal activity levels until the beginning of August. Now, before I begin, I want to mention something that Fowler said in response to my request for everyone to take a break--that I am unbiased. Obviously that's not entirely true all the time, but I do want to emphasize this in regards to Indian history. I have no feelings whatsoever about Das, Doon, India or Indian nationalism, so I trust everyone understands that I came into this discussion with a completely open (and unknowledgeable) mind. That India was once British (and therefore Indian nationalism must refer to the movement to become a separate nation) is about the extent of the Indian history I know.

Now, I have gone through every reference posted above, as well as all edits going back to the middle of last month, and in short I believe that Wikipedia would be best representing the available sources by saying that Das founded the IPSS as a way to make Doon a reality. He may or may not have come up with the idea of the school (I would guess he did, and I think that the school is using "founde[r/d]" in this sense), but was certainly influential in making it a concrete idea. He was assisted as first, and continued to be assisted by other founders who Fowler was able to find for us--men like Bhore, Noyce, Anderson and Hydari. No, these people probably do not warrant more than a sentence listing them in the history section, but it would be wrong in my opinion to say that Das did this all by himself and is the only legitimate "founder". Fowler's source are complete, and the sources that say imply that Das was the only founder are often subject to two criticisms. One, they rarely if ever use the word "only". In other words, they mention Das but don't actually exclude anyone else. Second, they just don't appear to be as reliable. In general, newspapers are fine but when reviewed books and the like are around--which they are here--we should be using those. As far as what Doon itself says: that's irrelevant. They are a primary source, and by any policy would be considered an inferior reference to the scholarly articles that Fowler pulled up. Yes, Das was certainly important, and should be the first name associated with the school's opening. As far as I can tell, he had the idea and used the IPSS to push this through. However, saying that no other men were involved to the extent that he was is disingenuous. I will try to answer any comments made before tonight, but no promises; I'll be back Saturday morning. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 18:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Nolelover says "Fowler's source are complete". A more careful look at the sources relied upon by Fowler&fowler (two of which I had previously quoted on this page) shows that he or she searched most of them for the word "founders" and then quoted to us only the passages thrown up by that, which strikes me as a prejudicial way to go about the study. It may give an appearance of scholarship, but it has more in common with a politician's approach to evidence. Another participant in the same discussion could search the same sources for the word "Das" and give a different impression of what they say. For instance, Fowler&fowler produces five passages from Sanjay Srivastava (1998), at pages 29, 32, 53, and 89, but he fails to report any of Srivastava's references to Das, such as what is said at p. 41. Moonraker (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

A further thought, I do not agree with the criticism "they rarely if ever use the word "only" ", because I should be surprised if anyone could find any reliable source anywhere which says "Winchester College was founded only by William of Wykeham" or "The Queen's College, Oxford, was founded only by Robert de Eglesfield". That isn't how founding an educational institution works, and only a small number of schools and colleges can look back on a single person who was single-handedly responsible for their foundation. Usually someone is honoured as "the Founder" and other benefactors are honoured as well. In the case of the Doon School, by all means let's say that Das founded the Indian Public Schools Society, which founded the school, for which there are good sources, but we can also say that he is honoured as the school's Founder. I see no reason to add to that "He may or may not have come up with the idea of the school", that is no more than vague speculation for which there is probably no source, and we do not need to wonder what the purpose of the IPSS was, it is well known and can be referenced. Moonraker (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Good explaining and critical question to----.Thanks Moonraker,well done.Justice007 (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Moonraker, as the sock of a banned editor, Xn4 (talk · contribs), you should be careful about messing with India-related pages. People will go easy on you as long as you stick to Wiltshire- or British schools-related pages, but that is the extent of the community's patience. Please don't push your luck. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

PS Please see the second half of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Xn4/Archive. I don't think you understand the seriousness of your violation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with Moonraker and, to some extent, Fowler. Obviously, Das could not have done anything after he died and, therefore, we should include the names (like Noyce, Hydari) suggested by Fowler in the list of people who helped found Doon. But, again, 'Founder' is only attributed to Das and, hence, we should keep it that way. People like Noyce, Hydari cannot be called "Founders" along with Das on Wikipedia, if the school continues to celebrate Das as its founder. Somebody said above, that primary sources mean nothing but, in cases like these, you really can't rely on information in books (who are themselves inconsistent with the use of the word 'founder' in many places), but only on school's documented history. But, certainly, credit should be given to people Fowler has suggested as well... DoscoinDoon ^DoscoinDoon 09:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

After we have added the text along the lines of that proposed by Nolelover, we can add a sentence like, "However, the Doon School, in its official history, regards S. R. Das alone as the founder of the school." The official history bit can be cited to Srivastava, not to the school's official history. I have mentioned it in my list of sources above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

PS I should add, my own view, from looking at the sources and reading between the lines, is this. The school, regardless of its official history, was founded in the waning days of the Raj as an outpost of the "British public school" in India, and as a training ground for Brown Sahibs who would aspire to leadership. It had many founders, among whom were three British viceroys, some 20 princes, and various civil servants, both British and Indian. In the early sources, Das is mentioned as the man who came up with the idea of establishing many such schools throughout India. After India's independence, and the commencement of rule by the nationalists (i.e. the Indian National Congress), this founding ethos became untenable (or at least unpopular), so Mr. Das was quickly promoted to "founder," and the others were thereafter all but ignored. The selection by Jawaharlal Nehru of Doon as the boarding school for his domestically troubled grandchildren Rajiv Gandhi and Sanjay Gandhi—the offspring of the (by then) strained marriage between Indira Gandhi and Feroze Gandhi—gave both publicity and some nationalistic credentials to the school. After 1984, when Rajiv Gandhi, until then a little-known Indian Airlines pilot, himself became Prime Minister as a result of his mother's death, the coverage of the school in India's social news reports increased substantially and, what is important for us, perfunctorily. I'm not saying all this should be added to the article, but it is the background one should keep in mind when writing such an article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The main "early sources" seem to be the volumes of The Indian Year Book, which shows an interesting progression from what's said in 1938 at p. 402 ("The efforts of the Indian Public Schools Society, which owes its origin to the initiative and enthusiasm of the late Mr. S R Das, have culminated in the establishment of a school at Dehra Dun") to what's said four years later in 1942 at p. 419 ("Doon School – This school which is established in the Chand Bagh and Skinner's Estates at Dehra Doon owes its origin to the initiative and enthusiasm of the late SR Das..."). When reading between the lines, what isn't said can't be cited, but it would be interesting to know when the school first began to honour Das as Founder. There's a minor parallel here with Chand Bagh School, which honours Ghulam Jilani Khan as Founder, even though he was one of a group of Doscos who worked over several years to create a Pakistani version of the school. Moonraker (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this. That is a good point. The Indian Yearbook notwithstanding, the anointing of Das (if indeed it happened) may not necessarily have happened between 1938 and 42, but, in my view, it likely did happen between 1935 and 1950. When I find time, I'll look at more sources, including more volumes of the Year Book. The parallel with the Chand Bagh school is interesting too. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)