Talk:Repton School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Can we either explain, or link to an explanation of why the UK term 'public school' is not the same as the US term? Thanks, Mark Richards 06:03, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Recent reverts[edit]


Just to clarify my recent reverts, this seems overly negative and not neutral, and I'm not overly convinced on a lot of the sources - a brief check shows there is quite a bit of reading into what is being said happening here. Of course, I'm willing to discuss compromises if you wish. Mdann52 (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest you revert the edit you just made and then just delete the text you object to. As it stands, by going back so far, you have reverted several constructive edits, including typo fixes and the removal of dodgy sources and assertions, as well as the material you are concerned about. I also have concerns about this article - it's structured like no other School article on the site, to say the least - and other issues and historys seem to have been shoehorned in. Regards.14GTR (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit because there is something worthwhile in discussing historic treatment of gay people within the institution.
You raise two worthwhile issues:
  1. the distinct heading - I felt this was necessary because the section ranged over longer periods than any of the sub headings.
  2. Content - it is, in my view, appropriate for a article on this institution to comment on the historical treatment of gay people by the institution and the cultural dominance or otherwise of homosexuality. It has been refereed to twice in secondary sources (one published by Oxofr Univerity Press) and is backed by recourse the the archives of the institution itself
I can accept that the nuisance and or prominence of the matter you might wish to address (and will not object to that) but strongly feel this is now an historical aspect which needs and merits covering. This amounts to saying: I think this content belongs in the article (edited for a more passive tome if needs be) and/or without the section heading if the chronology of the other headings can be preserved; but I do not think it is correct to exclude this aspect of history, and to do so verges on the discriminatory.
I see your point - but I question if this is to do with the school? It's part of the history, yes I would admit that, but is it worth plastering it all over the article? Most similar schools probably have similar issues, and they don't include similar sections. Because of this, I don't see the worth of including it here as well.

I will think about this; for now I am content to leave omitted. If I do consider that it should go back in a more, for want of a better word "subtle" way, I will ask you to review it.

Citation Issues[edit]

I have removed the section on fagging due to ambiguous citations and neutrality issues. It seems that for many of the claims made on this page, it is difficult to track down the source of the story. Many references are not working, or too general. I welcome others to help improve this. User:Greetwell —Preceding undated comment added 11:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Section blanking as has been done here by @Greetwell, justified by reference to a lack of citation, where in fact there is citation and a well widely acknowledged history of both corporal punishment and of fagging (not least in a book published by the institution and in Dahl's biography) seems inappropriate.

Both are sourced historical things which happened, with details of named locations within the school, number of strokes used, and titles awarded to students on the outcome of a fight. Doubtless things have moved on (no policy explicitly prohibiting these things is available to source to to my knowledge). But a history should be exactly that: not a collection of favorable highlights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optimus ma (talkcontribs) 14:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Would appreciate being advised what specific statement(s) you found to be unsourced and or not neutral, @Greetwell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optimus ma (talkcontribs) 15:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Repton 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:

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 19:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Repton School sued for negligence for failing to protect pupil from a ‘rapist’[edit]

All references to this have been removed by (User:Martinevans123). I think this is not the correct way to handle this. Though I can agree it may not deserve its own section.

I think this because the Charity Commission has just called officially for those with safeguarding concerns to report them to the police. That is an unusual step. There have been sustained issues around safeguarding including failing safeguarding inspections over the last few years. That particular court action is novel in that it seeks orders for disclosure from a court about investigations about a serious incident which touches and concerns this concern by Charity Commission and call for further investigation.

I can see that this may not require a section all by itself, but it should, given the recent events, be included.

--StoneyLittleton (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that I'm not removing stuff from this article in defence of a supposed, or actual, child rapist. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)