|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 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)
The efforts of 22.214.171.124 are little short of vandalism.
The text says " up until 2004 it was an all boys school". Some girls appeared in about 1973. 126.96.36.199 10:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)CCH.
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 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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 184.108.40.206 (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 220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)