Talk:Ampleforth College

Dom Henry Wansbrough OSB
Would anybody like to start an article on Henry Wansbrough? I may even do so myself if I ever find time. I am sure an article on him would be far more worthwhile than many on here.--AlexanderLondon 14:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If you do, I can tell you that in 1973 he chopped down a tree in my mum's garden while wearing swimming trunks Manormadman (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Manormadman

A pretty accurate article, kudos to the writer

Old Amplefordians
I have just created sub-headings for the Old Amplefordians due to their large number. It has occurred to me that the volume of notable Old Amplefordians might warrant a separate article entitled List of Old Amplefordians as with a number of other schools that have comparable numbers of notable old pupils (e.g. Eton, Harrow, Charterhouse, Dulwich College etc). Would regular contributors to this article think this appropriate Kwib (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like it would be a good move, but the whole list is unreferenced as it is so I would suggest that the entries need referencing first as those without references that show they attended the college should be removed. Keith D (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Lists of names
Lists of names in this article should be sourced in accordance with WP:BLP. As there is no way of constantly maintaining linked articles, this applies to names which have a Wikipedia article as well as those that do not. Any name listed with no verifiable citations should be removed. Refer to WP:NLIST for guidance. Fæ (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Old Wykehamists, Old Etonians, etc. to become "Alumni of... "?
Please see the discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 10. Moonraker2 (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Old Amplefordians rename
At present there is a discussion relating to the renaming of this category. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at this discussion page. Please note that the discussion is not a majority vote so contributions should be based on Wikipedia policies and independent sources. Cjc13 (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The close of that discussion was "No Consensus" for Old Amplefordians. A second discussion has been started at this discussion page. Cjc13 (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Sexual abuse
A number of recent edits have seemed to fall below Wikipedia's standard of NPOV.

Some seem to sideline, down-play or remove negative elements of this article, in particular in the section on Sexual abuse: eg ; ;. I suggest that this is not in accordance with Wiki policy:

Other edits have added useful information to the article which appropriately balance negative elements of the article: eg here.

Rather than get into an edit war I have reverted the last (IP) edit and will take a wiki-pause for reflection.

Further editing by third parties and all comment here welcomed :)

Regards,

Springnuts (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Houses
Do we really need to list the head of each house?-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 14:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No we don't, per WP:WPSCH/AG, note "Notable teachers/faculty/staff". They should only be mentioned if they are notable in their own right. Acabashi (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Ampleforth College. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811015655/http://abbey.ampleforth.org.uk/index.php?id=1184 to http://abbey.ampleforth.org.uk/index.php?id=1184
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110218230513/http://www.goodschoolsguide.co.uk:80/school/ampleforth-college.html to http://goodschoolsguide.co.uk/school/ampleforth-college.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080301230619/http://www.ampleforthcollege.york.sch.uk:80/general/development_plan_full.htm to http://www.ampleforthcollege.york.sch.uk/general/development_plan_full.htm#3
 * Added tag to http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/oxcare_reports/download/(id)/217654/(as)/SC007916_SC.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090215002848/http://college.ampleforth.org.uk:80/ to http://www.college.ampleforth.org.uk
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110218230513/http://www.goodschoolsguide.co.uk:80/school/ampleforth-college.html to http://goodschoolsguide.co.uk/school/ampleforth-college.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ampleforth College. 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 tag to http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/ryedale/4818554.Ampleforth_College_to_admit_Year_9_girls
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://goodschoolsguide.co.uk/school/ampleforth-college.html
 * Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140402142426/http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2006/182-06 to http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2006/182-06
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090215002848/http://college.ampleforth.org.uk/ to http://www.college.ampleforth.org.uk/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090215002848/http://college.ampleforth.org.uk/ to http://www.college.ampleforth.org.uk/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.goodschoolsguide.co.uk/school/ampleforth-college.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Sexual abuse revisited
. An ip user has deleted a heavily referenced section- I have asked him to explain his concerns here. He alleges BIAS- can I invite admins to protect the section and discuss the whole issue in a wider context.--ClemRutter (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I see the (other) IPs point. Several reasons, none of which were reflected in the original remover's edit summary.
 * Controversy sections are rightly discouraged as they put too much emphasis on the negative.
 * Both of the controversies involved other schools and the incidents are covered in their own articles.
 * This is a 200+ year old school and both pieces are relatively recent. The controversy section is almost as big as the entirety of the remainder of the article. Besides putting too much emphasis on negative events that only affect a brief portion of the school history, that portion is RECENT.
 * My suggestion would be to incorporate the links to the articles on the events into running prose in the appropriate sequence in the history section, possibly adding a small amount of copy to localize information provided by the wikilinks. Controversy is history and there's no need to separate it from the rest. 174.254.192.80 (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As there has been no serious edit warring, I would not be inclined to semi-protect the article for now.
 * I can see the point of the IPs' objections because a fairly large Controversy section could be seen as giving WP:UNDUE weight to one set of events. However, the reliable sources exist and are relevant, so there is not any good reason to completely remove them.
 * I agree that the fee-fixing issue, which affected 50 schools, doesn't need the depth of description presented here, and would benefit from being truncated to the initial sentence plus a reference. The rest of that section is not specific to Ampleforth and the general information is available via the main link.
 * I disagree that WP:RECENT applies here. We write articles using the available sources, and when more modern events are more heavily featured in the article, the solution is normally to find more older sources to provide the balance one would expect for an article about a 200+ year old institution. On the other hand, it is normally easier to find sources for events in modern times, and there is a danger of giving undue emphasis to trivial recent events. Nevertheless, in this case, the allegations of sexual abuse specifically at Ampleforth are well-sourced and serious – so much so, that I very much doubt that any long-term view would ever treat the issue as a trivial or even minor part of the school's history. I don't agree that the issue can be adequately covered within the History section without severely distorting it.
 * My counter-suggestion would be for those wishing to condense the amount of text in the Sexual abuse section to provide their proposed version of the section here, indicating which content and sources they feel could be removed, given the 13 sources that are currently used in the article. --RexxS (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for acting so promptly. I have no desire to enter the debate further, can you keep this on your watchlist though. This analysis provides the starting point if others wish to take it further. ClemRutter (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for acting so promptly. I have no desire to enter the debate further, can you keep this on your watchlist though. This analysis provides the starting point if others wish to take it further. ClemRutter (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this article is approaching WP:UNDUE but this content is easily justified under WP:NOTE. At this time devoting a larger than usual proportion of the article to it may be justified, down the line it can be trimmed down as it becomes less notable. Needless to say revert was correct, clearly a controversial edit that should have gone through the talk page. The argument in the edit summary that the college and abbey are seperate legal entities is technically accurate but completely irrelevent: it affected pupils at the school and has been referenced in a number of inspections. Support the conclusion that it would distort the history section and that it is significant and well sourced enough that it will remain notable in the long term. Also agree that much of fee-fixing is not relevant to Ampleforth and covered elsewhere.

The IP editor did make one good point. As of today legal proceedings are ongoing; as innocent until proven guilty, content on the recent action by the department for education must be neutral and work off the assumption that the school is not at fault. I also am inclined to agree that there are some NPOV issues, although not to the extent claimed. I'll do a few minor edits on the page and post a condensed version here as per when I find the time. Editor/123 18:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Having a go over it now. A lot of the quotes are highly critical and already summarised in the article, removing some of them as they don't add anything, take up a lot of space, and are very one-sided: easiest way to fix WP:UNDUE.

Changed the following:

"appalling" allegations to just allegations; they aren't quotes so isn't WP:NPOV

Sentence following Nolan report from "monks gave the appearance of co-operation and trust, but in reality continued to cover up the abuse" to "however allegations continued to be handled internally"; it was the abbey rather than the monks and the reword is more NPOV

"The Department for Education in November 2020 found that..." to "The Department for Education released a report in November 2020 following an inspection, claiming that...". Given that the report is being legally contested we should stick to "claims" rather than make factual assertions.

Removed following:

Harvey Grenville, leader of investigation and enforcement for the Charity Commission, said, "It is of paramount importance that beneficiaries, and others who come into contact with charities, are protected from harm. We are not satisfied that the trustees of these charities have made enough progress in improving the safeguarding environment for pupils in the schools connected to the charities. For this reason, we have appointed an interim manager to expedite changes in the safeguarding arrangements at the schools".

This is all summarised in the preceding sentences, adds nothing so considering it WP:UNDUE

Deirdre Rowe was appointed acting head in 2018, but resigned ten months later after a highly critical inspection report found that the school did not meet standards for safeguarding, leadership, behaviour, combating bullying and complaints handling. In November 2020 the 162-page independent inquiry into child sexual abuse (IICSA) report said “the church’s neglect of the physical, emotional and spiritual wellbeing of children and young people in favour of protecting its reputation was in conflict with its mission of love and care for the innocent and vulnerable.” and the Vatican's failure to cooperate with the investigation “passes understanding”.

The source does not mention anything about deidre rowe and is not specific to ampleforth, going off above I'd say this can be removed as per WP:UNDUE. I also moved the bit about Madden at the start of the paragraph up to where it is first discussed to avoid repetition.

Not changed for now, need consensus:

The Chair of the Inquiry, Prof. Alexis Jay, said that the schools for decades tried to avoid giving any information to police or authorities, with monks being "secretive, evasive and suspicious of anyone outside the English Benedictine Congregation", prioritising "the reputation of the Church and the wellbeing of the abusive monks" over safeguarding.

Remove? It's non-specific to Ampleforth and as a quote is quite damning. I can see some merit in it though, personally not sure but think it needs discussed.

Let me know what you think! Editor/123 19:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The ABBEY
I placed the following question on the talk page for the AMPLEFORTH ABBEY wiki article. An editor there kindly suggested that I might consider posting that question here as well. I can see from the previous talk section above (on the COLLEGE page) that much discussion has already occurred around the issue of sexual abuse. It would actually seem that those of you who worked for this section on the COLLEGE article might be the ones to properly add a section to the ABBEY article. Thanks for your comments! HERE IS THE QUESTION I POSED ON THE ABBEY TALK PAGE: A question which slightly perplexes me: There were three noteworthy Benedictine abbeys in the UK with allegations of child sexual abuse as detailed by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) (Downside, Ampleforth, Ealing). Downside and Ealing have the abuse properly noted in their ABBEY wiki articles AND and in their school articles. Ampleforth, however, ONLY includes that information in their Ampleforth COLLEGE page. I am ready to add a section to the main Ampleforth ABBEY article detailing the child abuse allegations made about Ampleforth monks, but I am pausing to inquire as to why it is not already there?MonasticScribe (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree that this needed including, obviously a very significant part of the Abbey's history. My only concern is that the addition increased the size of the article by about 30%; given the subject is over 200 years old, I think this is giving it WP:UNDUE weight. In fairness, the article could definitely be expanded, however looking at it in it's current form I think that the child abuse section could do with being slimmed down, even just for the sake of readability. Going to do a light tidy up, send any feedback here! John wiki: If you have a problem, don't mess with my puppy... 13:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edit. I think the text now edited under "abuse" on the abbey article rightly conveys the abbey's responsibility in the abuse without WP:UNDUE. The rest of the article definitely needs expansion given the abbey's prominent history in the UK and even internationally. MonasticScribe (talk) 07:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

NPOV: Safeguarding and Failed Ofsted Inspection
TL/DR: as per WP:ASSERT and WP:BALANCE we need to make it clear that the Ofsted report is disputed wherever it is mentioned. All reliable sources cited include the assertions of both Ofsted and the school, afford both accounts a similar amount of prominence, and do not suggest either side is correct.

I've been doing some cleaning up of the safeguarding section as I think there are some NPOV concerns as touched on in the two most recent talk sections.

Before starting, I think we should consider dispensing with the WP:Recentism template on the top of the page. Yes the article is clearly weighted towards recent events but (1) they clearly meet the notability criteria and (2) this is simply unavoidable unless someone wants to do a more in-depth history of the school, difficult given you have to separate the history of the school and the abbey.

My concern with NPOV is mostly about the Ofsted report (1)(2) and the weighting of the content on it. It is clearly notable and a fair amount of the article is dedicated to it. However, the school has very strongly disputed the findings (see here).

The first thing to note is the gravity of the disputed areas. Given the claims are particularly damaging we should tread carefully. It is very easy for wording to fall foul of WP:IMPARTIAL.

The next problem as I see it is that this is more than a flat denial: the statement very specifically challenges Ofsted's claims with an entirely alternative narrative and have referred to evidence that would appear to support this. As far as I can tell Ofsted have not responded to or challenged the schools statement and reliable sources don't appear to take a side. Given the serious dispute over the matter we should treat them as equally plausible as per WP:ASSERT.

Building on that, all of the reliable sources in the article cited on the matter have included the schools account and give roughly equal weight to both accounts. This appears to be the case for most sources I could find. As per WP:BALANCE, "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence". As the prominence is roughly similar it would be WP:UNDUE to mention the Ofsted report without also mentioning the fact that it is disputed. John wiki: If you have a problem, don't mess with my puppy... 13:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)