Talk:Downside School

Proposed Merge

• I don't thing it's a good idea, cause it is totally different thing, isn't it? ---Mzalewski 19:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think that they should stay two separate articles.Staffelde 00:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• I too think they should stay seperate Djing1985 23:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what this referred to but if it was a proposal to merge with the page about the Abbey I agree that they should be separate. However currently it's a rela mish mash, you find out what former pupils are called on the Abbey page, not this one. The history sections start not with a slear exposition of when the school started but a summery of the history of the Abbey foundation. It all needs a thorough reworking - I came here to find out about the history of the school and really don't find it very helpful. PhilomenaO'M (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I've always been puzzled that the dates of the foundation of the order and the school seem the same. Was the school founded at exactly the moment the order was founded, or did it follow on later? At the moment the article reads like they are identical. Peteinterpol (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No good

The efforts of 139.133.7.37 are little short of vandalism.

1973

The text says " up until 2004 it was an all boys school". Some girls appeared in about 1973. 194.73.96.226 10:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)CCH.

William Rees-Mogg

Rees-Mogg did not attend Downside, he attended Charterhouse. Two of his children did attend Downside, not Jacob though, and his wife is one of the school's governors (as per http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/william_rees_mogg/article1368829.ece). O'Donoghue 11:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Nor did Christopher Butler (onetime abbot of Downside) attend the school. He was a convert, and had been an Anglican clergyman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.179.37.3 (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Uniform

Originally, there was no uniform at Downside. In about 1911, the current one

was introduced. It is very similar to those in Eton and Harrow. All three are

black and white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.138.253.153 (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the uniform at Harrow school is purely black and white on Sundays.

On week-days, a blue element appears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Location

Its precise location (Stratton-on-the-Fosse) lies between Norton Radstock and Shepton Mallet. Bath is some 11 miles away and the only relevance with Bath is that the school lies along the A367 which links Bath with the A37 near Shepton. The nearest important city is Bristol (only slightly farther than Bath) whilst the nearest actual towns are those I mentioned. Evlekis (talk) 06:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the lead as you suggested.— Rod ^talk 11:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

As I sit editing from Cabin 24 in Downside School, Rod, may I just say - excellent! Thanks. Evlekis (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources needed

81.148.109.16 should produce sources for the suicides and running away. Alternatively, another can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.55.83 (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Section on child abuse

We have an edit war brewing over the inclusion of the Child abuse section of this article, with User:Denhaagandy, an apparent SPA, repeatedly blanking it and User:Peteinterpol restoring. Denhaagandy appears to be claiming that The Times and The Guardian are not reliable sources (in direct contradiction of WP:RS, which states: "Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact"). Although my inclination is to take this straight to AIV and request a block (repeated section blanking, especially of sourced material, falls under the banner of vandalism), I am starting a thread here so that both participants can have one last go at thrashing out their respective arguments. For the record, I myself side strongly with Peteinterpol: the material has been cited to reliable sources, is relevent to the subject and has not (IMHO) been given undue weight. Unless Denhaagandy can provide a policy-based argument for removing this material (paywall sites are perfectly acceptable, per WP:SOURCEACCESS, and The Guardian isn't behind a paywall anyway), I believe it should be retained. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, and I welcome this opportunity to deal with this issue constructively within Wikipedia's procedures. I concur with the comments above, i.e. the material has been cited to reliable sources, is relevant to the subject and has not been given undue weight. One minor correction to the above: the source to which Denhaagandy objects is The Times, not the Guardian, but in any case the Times is undoubtedly an acceptable source. I do understand that it is a subscription site to which many will not have access (though such sites are acceptable as sources in Wikipedia), so I have added a citation to the page from the free Daily Mail that covers the same material about the child abuse case. Peteinterpol (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I never said the guardian was bad, only the Times. In General Newspapers are not the best of sources. If you read the Historian Tacitus on Claudius' speech before the conquest of Britain, yes it is a good read, but then we have found the real tablets of his speech and they bear no relation to Tacitus' account.

Richard White was rightfully jailed for what he did. But let's look at what downside did. They called in the police at the time and the POLICE decided not to take further action. Abbot John Roberts sent Richard White far away. There he received some years of psychiatric treatment. When the Doctors said he was ok, he was returned to the community some 10 years later. He then taught only the oldest students. No subsequent complaint was made against against him.

Ofsted reports on Downside have always been very good apart from the one last year, in part, I suspect, because of Richard White. Because of that report Downside took serious action. If you bothered to read the Telegraph pupils have expressed their dismay at their restrictions. But this is for safety for them and the school?

I object to the positioning of the article. People wanting to know about Downside do not need this as virtually the first thing that pops up. It does have its place. I would suggest towards the end and not 1.2. There are many more important things about Downside which I will add to the article.

The monks there do not spend their time on the Internet and so what you write about them is not defended. So you can pretty much say what you like and it will be believed. I think Hittler had the same view about Jews so please keep this in mind.

I welcome a rewording of the article and will participate in it, but please keep it succinct and to the point. Let us put it in the right place of the main article. I would like an apology from yunshuil for his or her mistakes. Also I would point out that no threats wer issued. The lady concerned was thanked by me because at least she responded with kindness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denhaagandy (talk • contribs) 12:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm a bit suspicious of what is going on with this page at the moment. Within a couple of hours of Denhaagandy being blocked, a new user called ‎Potty1234 has started repeatedly blanking out the same sections. Peteinterpol (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

andy called me.and i agree with him. it is important to note the child abuse, but this is related to some few individual and this is where i agree with andy. let us instead note it further in the article. it will not lose its prominence but as is the article is verbose and needs some editing. i assume this is what this forum is for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potty1234 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Surely this can come under the right to be forgotten, a concept discussed and put into practice in the European Union (EU). It is no longer relevant to the current state of the school and therefore by having this section in the Wikipedia tarnishes the schools good name. ~~KathRM~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by KathRM (talk • contribs) 16:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Is it sourced, did it happen and is the section accurate? Britmax (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Downside School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.edubase.gov.uk/establishment/summary.xhtml?urn=123910
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320084323/http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/Monks-abuse-scandal-damages-Downside-Abbey/story-14972451-detail/story.html to http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/Monks-abuse-scandal-damages-Downside-Abbey/story-14972451-detail/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110821072819/http://www.amdis.co.uk/conference.html to http://www.amdis.co.uk/conference.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Child abuse section - removal of content

One user is persistently removing the following content from the "Child abuse" section:

"Department for Education officials were said to be taking an urgent interest in child protection arrangements at the school. Inspection reports refer specifically to seven monks who have worked at the school at different times and whose behaviour has been "a cause for concern". The Independent Schools Inspectorate had previously criticised a lack of urgency in making improvements to child protection. The Charity Commission also sent a compliance team to work with the school on this, which it treated as "a high-risk case".[17] The Abbot responded by apologising to parents and reported that 50 years of confidential school records indicated that four of the monks had faced police action, two had restrictions imposed on them, and one was cleared and returned to monastic life. A review of school governance was already taking place.[3][18] The school now works closely with the Diocese of Clifton in matters pertaining to Safeguarding Children and the two most recent Independent School Inspectorate Reports (2012, 2015) have noted the School's full compliance with current regulations."

It is notable that one of the three major Catholic public schools in the UK caused child protection concerns due to the behaviour of seven monks employed at the school. This is part of the broader Catholic child abuse scandal and cover-up which continues to attract national attention. The section might need some updating, but the volume of content that one user is repeatedly removing is not justified. Do other editors have views on this? Peteinterpol (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree it should stay as significant recent history, and possibly needs updating. Rwendland (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 September 2017

I am trying to reqest the change below but putting it in the request template doesn't seem to work.

Reference 1 Edubase is showing as a deadlink & the number of pupils and the ratio of males to females it is used to support are out of date. The up to date information is on the UK Government "Compare a school" site - Downside School. Therefore please change:

• In the infobox - number of students from 425 to 348
• In the last paragraph of "History" - "approximately 65% of the pupils are boys and 35% are girls."approximately 60% of the pupils are boys and 40% are girls.

Changing reference 1 to "Downside School - Absence and pupil population". Compare a school. UK Government. Retrieved 20 September 2017. Thanks.— Rod ^talk 16:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Seems uncontroversial — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Editing of my Talk page content by another user

Another user, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Clive_sweeting&action=edit&redlink=1 has twice now amended a 'new section' heading to alter the meaning in a way I did not intend when I wrote it. That section was signed by myself with my user name. I have asked the user on their own Talk page to desist. Content on a Talk page by an editor is personal to them and must not be altered. I will report this if it persists. Peteinterpol (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I contest the persistent reference to this page as 'my Talk Page ' There is no ownership by contributors of pages they have initiated as I indicated in an earlier deleted entry. Could fellow editors ensure that irrespective of the issue being discussed this principle is upheld,16 october' 2107 Clive_sweeting

Who is using the phrase "my Talk Page" about this page, Clive_sweeting? I can't find a single example of it on this page. Peteinterpol (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits (September 2018)

An editor who may have a connection to the school judging by the PR type additions (which I have since copyedited for neutral point of view [1]) had also removed all mention of the child abuse scandal from the lead and considerably truncated the "Child abuse" section. I have restored the mention to the lead, but have not restored the detailed blow-by-blow material which had been removed from the actual section, since it still retains a succinct description of what went on cited to reliable sources. I'll leave it to other editors to decide how much, if any, of the deleted material should be restored. Voceditenore (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Voceditenore: I think your edits compromise well: it's clearly something they are (unfortunately for them) now notable for, but without giving it the undue weight it does not deserve. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Is the founding year 1606 or 1617?

From the school website (my bolding) we have

"The Benedictine community of St Gregory the Great was founded at Douai, France, in 1606 by a group of English and Welsh monks who were in exile because of the laws in England against Catholics at that time. As the community expanded, it started a school for English Catholic boys, who were unable to find a Catholic education at home: this was the very start of Downside School, in 1617. The monks were engaged not only in teaching but also in scholarly work, writing and lecturing, and in priestly and pastoral work.

Clearly they think they were founded in 1617 by The Benedictine community of St Gregory the Great which was founded in 1606. Several school directory websites list the founding year as 1606. I suspect that is the result of a sloppy reading of the school history, perhaps reading only the first 15 words.

• HMC
• boarding.org
• goodschoolsguide

I feel it's safe to go with the founding year of 1617 provided by the school itself. Very interested in hearing from other editors. Gab4gab (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree, Gab4gab. I was the one who changed the date to 1617 recently. I consider the school's own history page definitive. not random boarding school guides. Voceditenore (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gab4gab and Voceditenore, I have done some tidying up and restructuring of the article, and updated the founding/established to 1614 as per the school website but was confused as to why 1617 was listed in the article. I decided to have a look at the talk page and can see there were comments by you both regarding the founding - it seems the school must have updated their founding year, but I'm also seeing 1607 on some sources in search engine rather than the 1606, Steven (Editor) (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Cricket pavilion

Is it just me, or is that "photo" of the cricket pavilion a computer rendering of a pavilion over a real photo? CharlesSpencer (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)