Talk:Repton School/Archive 1

Untitled
Important school with several world famous alumni and a considerable number notable in the UK. Lacks refs. It is just a "start". A better history would help Victuallers 20:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Spelling mistake correction - "exisits" to "exists"
Removal of "prestigious" from "Strong support exisits for calling the first new house Brook House after the prestigous house of the same name that closed in 1997." ''Biased comment. Every House at Repton is prestigous to its inhabitants!'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.127.162 (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sports section: Removing "excels " (value judgement) and reference to "recent years" until we can find a date for these starting. Hockey has been played at Repton since at least the end of WW2! --Gilgongo (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Dubai school
Where it says it is the 'first of its kind' could that perhaps be clarified. For example, I know of other boarding schools that have extended abroad - Harrow has its own boarding school in Bangkok. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.231.221.94 (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Citations etc
I have put on the claim that Repton is one of the UK's co-educational public schools. To put it bluntly it is not. In general it is hard to establish a school's fame unless it is Eton College or Westminster School etc.

I have also put on the Public school bit. If you look on the Public Schools (UK) page, you will see that this is ill defined and you may also be aware that the preferred nomenclature (as on Repton School info box is "independent school". One may also ask who would have the authority to declare a school a public school? Ramw2 22:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your first point. Why, if the school currently admits both boys and girls, is it not co-educational, and what has that got to do with establishing its fame? On your second point, if Repton is "... a school relying, for all of its funding, upon private sources, predominantly school fees" then it is certainly an "independent school" under that definition. I would think that it having been founded (and existing independently as per the above definition) for over 400 years also makes it, by common consent if no other definition exists, a "public school." If anyone disagrees with this, then we can keep the citation requirements in, otherwise I'll remove them. --Gilgongo (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I wasn't explaining myself very well. I was not disputing that it is a co-educational school, I was disputing that it was "one of the most famous co-educational public schools...". As I said above, in general, this is a very hard claim to make, especially when I would think that most of the general public would have heard of for example, Marlborough College, or Wellington college. I seriously doubt that very many of the general public have heard of Repton.

On the public school issue I am simply saying:

1) The schools themselves classify themselves as independent schools, rather than public schools.

2) According to the page, Repton was granted the rank of public school. Who granted it this? Who would have the power to grant it this status? The term public school itself is open to many different interpretations.... Ramw2 (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you on point 1. On point 2, such "granting" is, if not impossible, at least unattributed so it should be removed. Whether the school is famous is also a value judgement beyond the scope of Wikipedia I think. However, I still find it hard to imagine that Repton would not be described as a "public school" by popular consent, since its history and status is very similar to that of Eton, Harrow, Marlborough, Wellington, et. al. I would therefore say we should amend the opening paragraph to read as follows:


 * "Repton School, founded in 1557, is a British independent public school located in the village of Repton, in Derbyshire, England. Some of the remains of the oldest buildings date back to the 6th century."


 * Since the definition of "public school" is vague, I think the link to that article in the text will suffice.
 * --Gilgongo (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Page edit - 12th July
Removal of "School House was created in 1997 by merging Brook House with The Hall" ''Comment does not fit in with current style of article. This will be edited in later when the article is expanded. Don't worry! We cannot forget Brook!''

Brook House will rise again and nuke those expensive flats into the ground. Actually you can still see it on Google Earth - must be an old picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.160.196.3 (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Untitled
Rugby was first played at Repton in or about 1974, after a visiting South African master (whose name I have forgotten but who taught Economics or History), persuaded the Sports Committee, against considerable opposition, to allow him the use of one pitch. Until that time possession of a rugby ball was considered a crime albeit not actually against the letter of the School Rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.201.31 (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Culture and Slang section
I removed this section as the slang is irrelevant and unencyclopedic, and those so-called ancient school rules are supposedly present in EVERY SCHOOL. Especially the one about "a certain prefect being able to graze a goat on piece of grass x, smoke a pipe, marry the Head Man's daughter, wear a sword, drink port during exams, grow a moustache and whiskers etc etc etc" are perfect examples of urban myths. Charming, omnipresent and total bull. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.145.163 (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the section on slang, but kept the ancient rules section out. This is because the listing of slang definitions is permitted [Wikipedia guidelines]. Please see also [WP:CON] - this issue should have been discussed first. --Gilgongo (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The section on slang has been removed again without any discussion by an unregistered user. I am therefore re-instating it. Again, please see WP:CON. If you want to remove the section on slang, please say why you wish to do so. I oppose its deletion because these terms qualify as the same as the jargon of various industries and fields. The guidelines say that such articles must be informative, not guiding in nature, and I think that the list does not contravene that guideline. In my opinion, the words are also not worth defining in the Wiktionary project, so their removal here lessens the sum of knowledge about Repton School. --Gilgongo (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I also beleive that the section concerning 'slang' is of importance for no other reason than it informs individuals who are visiting or are starting the school, and like many, use Wiki as a quick and efficient reference point. A specific aspect of Repton slang has arguably become a British cultural phenomenon: 'Stig'. An expression that is now used on the popular television show Top Gear. It has been confirmed by Jeremy Clarkson and the producer, (also an ex pupil) that this title originates from their time at Repton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.141.191 (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

As an Old Reptonian and contemporary of Clarkson I can attest to the currency of Stig, meaning one of diminutive stature, at the time. I would further urge the inclusion of a this section as useful to students of Roald Dahl as he used many Repton slang words in his books. Grubber (tuck shop) springs to mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitre72 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Jeremy Clarkson
How can Jeremy Clarkson be a "notable alumni" when he was expelled from Repton. Surely a notable alumni is one who completes his/her education at the institution demonstrating that the institution contributed to his or her success and not one who is expelled. Jeremy Clarkson's expulsion clearly shows the school saw him as a distraction, and problem for the school as well as him not having benefited anything from his time at Repton. Maybe someone from Repton can explain why his inclusion in the list of notable alumni's should benefit Repton, when infact Repton saw no benefit, infact the opposite during his school years. --93.97.181.187 (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Replying as an ex student: After discussing this topic with the librarian and archivist of the schools records, he stated that Jeremy Clarkson was not actually expelled. This is a myth created by I presume Clarkson. The librarian did suggest however that he was advised to leave, which does not actually imply expulsion as one may think. To be advised to leave the school is a suggestion from the Headmaster and Common Room, usually enacted because they are unsatisfied that an individual is getting the best out of their education within the school. I am not the librarian and thus cannot further this statement with fact, I suggest you contact him, however I have also spoken to somebody who was in the same house as Clarkson at the time, who also states that Clarkson was not expelled.

The title 'notable alumni' does not in itself imply that an individual has to have a clear record to be consider within this category. The word 'notable' has various meanings, some being famous, worth note, famed, distinguished etc. This would suggest that Jeremy Clarkson is in fact a 'notable alumni'. I state this with a personal dislike for Clarkson's candid nature, and thus am not being biased. To suggest that Clarkson did not benefit from his school experience is an obscure opinion at best, predominantly because the majority of life experience result in some form of benefit. I hope this helps.(24/02/11) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.131.90 (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Clarkson is an alumnus of Repton, whatever the manner of his leaving, and is undeniably notable for his success even if, perhaps, not for his cultural contribution. Keep him in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitre72 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Old Reptonians 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) 14:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Article Clearup
I am starting a clear up on this article. A lot of what is in the article is unreferenced and having just researched and created the pages for both Repton Abbey and Repton Priory, I've found a lot to the history to be incorrect. It relies heavily on the School's own website which is a self published source in contravention of Wikipedia's Verifiablity policy and which itself has an incorrect history -the website is basically an advertisement attempting to gain more paying students and so the history has somewhat been cherry picked and glorified in places which has unfortunally left some blaring factual inaccuracies both on that website and here on this article.

I'm starting the process to try and clear up the article here. If anyone finds any additional independent, verifiable, sources I'd be grateful for them. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Repton School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121113055539/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/schoolsports/6948162/Repton-School-uphold-reputation-for-hockey-excellence.html to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/schoolsports/6948162/Repton-School-uphold-reputation-for-hockey-excellence.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest in recent edits, May 2016
The Accounts @Repton_School_Uk and @BoobyTwiggg have been editing this page.

The first of these accounts is seemingly the institution itself; the second account name by containing 'Twigg' and its edit history seem to disclose association with the senior management of the school. With others, have adjusted some of their edits where bots did not reverse them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optimus ma (talk • contribs) 09:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/rdahl.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

C17th- C20th
This page could do with more information in the school between 1600 and 1900. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optimus ma (talk • contribs) 10:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent reverts
Hi,

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
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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Untitled
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)
 * It goes back to when most sons of the gentry were taught at home by private tutors. So a boarding school was a 'public' school. Valetude (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality
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)


 * Note: just for context, and to make sense of the comment above, this Section was originally entitled "Repton School sued for negligence for failing to protect pupil from a ‘rapist’)". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2020 (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)

I happened to stumble across the Repton School article and several sections are clearly not neutral. The article looks very much as though a person or persons have a grievance against the School and that they are expressing it within the article. The 21st Century section is a good example, it has a list of items, some such as an incident with alcohol and another on attractive alumni which have no place on an encyclopedia article. Others about sexual abuse should be moved to that section already created. Many other areas of the article need a clean up or review. Pyeongchang (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I have nominated it as a POV-check and can be discussed here.Pyeongchang (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I completely concur, having also stumbled across this article at Recent Changes. My concerns are as follows:
 * The 'Sexual abuse' section is far too high up in the article's layout, and should come after most of the basic encyclopaedic content about the school, including it's archaic fagging practices.
 * Information within 'Sexual abuse' section and its many subsections is non-neutral, and puts WP:UNDUE weight on details events that were dismissed in court, or where court action is yet to be heard.
 * Sub-heading titles within this section are overly long e.g. "2020 sexual assault, gross indecency and indecency trial"
 * Health and safety issue should be closely linked to the sexual abuse stories - perhaps one section entitled: 'Controversies'?
 * the '21st century' section focuses mostly on trivial detail, and also seems designed to slant towards painting a non-neutral image of the school.
 * General section organisation is poor, and the 'Old Reptonians' section should be renamed 'Notable alumni' in common with all other school articles, followed by an explanation that these are called Old Reptonians.
 * I suspect there are other issues, but these all struck me at first glance. (COI declaration: Repton School is not far from where I currently live). Nick Moyes (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I have put some of these suggestion into place. StonyLittleton — Preceding unsigned comment added by StonyLittleton (talk • contribs) 19:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Nick Moyes, I think all your suggestions are good ones. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Various folks have worked on this article lately to bend it into better shape. The less encyclopaedic references are gone, the ordering of sections more like other such pages, and a number of unsourced allegations have gone. What is missing is a bit more positive content to balance the article out, maybe? It is better, but maybe it is hard to look at it fresh now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StoneyLittleton (talk • contribs) 11:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)