Talk:Royal High School, Edinburgh

WP Schools
Reassessed to high importance based on age. Article needs referencing to make a B and more topics. You must have an impressive alumni list? Welcome again Victuallers 14:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Augustinian origin
I'm a former pupil and have never heard of a Franciscan connection to the school or to Holyrood Abbey, which predated the Franciscan order by a century. I've changed 'Franciscan monks' to 'Augustinian canons', with whom the early school was associated, and have cited Dr. Murray's official school history as a source. Lachrie 17:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

George Campbell Hay
I'm deleting the poet George Campbell Hay from the alumni list. He's doubtful because he's known for having been an Old Fettesian. Hay's Wikipedia entry says: 'He was educated at Fettes College (which he despised) and the University of Oxford.' He did bequeath his library to RHS, but I think that's because he was a teacher rather than a pupil. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography says nothing about Hay's schooling, only about his teaching, which included a stint at RHS: 'In 1934 Hay won a major scholarship in classics and took a degree at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, afterwards taking a teacher's training course at Edinburgh and teaching briefly at the Royal High School there.' Some institutions adopt a loose definition of alumni which includes former teachers, so I'm not one hundred per cent sure deleting him from the list is the right thing to do here. Suggestions would be good. Lachrie 14:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

George Smuga
He's not there. I think he's on a sabbatical. Someone should put that in... J8149ZZ (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. He has been seconded to The Scottish Government.

Thankies x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.184.47 (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Uniform
Is this section really notable? Where do the facts about a "uniform drive" originate from, could anyone give further information on this, as I have not heard this. Thanking youxx

Shorten
This article *needs* shortened -- it's ridiculously long for a sub-important comprehensive in Edinburgh. If nobody asks upon this, I'll start removing non-important sections in an attempt to shorten this article. 77.97.225.178 (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, it's very hard to read or navigate -- everything is just randomly placed. 77.97.225.178 (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree totally. 92.236.244.140 (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't. The Royal High School was the most important school in Scotland for several hundred years. Obviously it's going to be a long article. If necessary you can create sub-articles. Xanthoxyl (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The school is a national institution with a long history. The length of the article reflects that. The content is valuable and should be reorganised rather than removed. Lachrie (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the section on the uniform history, as I feel it to be something of an irrelevance to the article. However, I feel that this article would benefit from being split to form a "History of the Royal High School" in which uniform history could be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.182.48 (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * School dress is important to historians of fashion. Before removing content, we should create the sub-articles into which it can be transferred, so the information isn’t lost. Lachrie (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They information is never lost, it's always retained in the Wikipedia history pages. School dress is not so important, perhaps only sections about current dress and small mentions of previous dress should be included. Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message!  20:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The uniform is, in fact, treated as an important part of the school culture and the information provided cannot be found online elsewhere. There is no good reason to remove the paragraph. In addition, information which is buried in a page history is effectively lost from the point of view of almost all users. The page is, in my view, unusually complete as compared with other pages, rather than "excessively long", and 60KB poses no problem to any modern browser. I ought to point out that anonymous users have recently been warned about blanking this page -- and persisted in making disruptive edits. Lachrie (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you read what I said, I said we should shorten it, to only include what what be relevant to the article (modern (now) uniform, small paragraph about past uniform). Any comments like "students take pride in the uniform" can't really be placed here, as for a start it's not neutral. Thanks! Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message!  21:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just tried to shorten it, any problems, feel free to place here or my talk page! Thanks! Some neutrality still is pending fix, and length of article overall could be reduced. Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message!  21:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Military
Many schools in existance during the time of the World Wars will have lost a number of their former pupils to the various conflicts. It should be noted that not many have a list of the dead on their pages. Articles should reflect modern schools in 2009, not act as an "In Memoriam" page. 84.71.187.76 (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Great Expectations
 * I agree, only notable figures should stay there (if any). Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message!  21:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree at all. While it is not a major school today (though it is often the national pilot school for the public system), it has had a central role in Scottish history (which is why its importance is rated as "High" on the template) and this is already a list of notable people. Lachrie (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggested split
I'd suggest moving the list of alumni to a new page, List of alumni of the Royal High School (Edinburgh). It would also contain the military honours. Xanthoxyl (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We probably do need to hive off material to make the main page more readable. The lists are a good way to organise information, but they’re getting so complete now that the main article is becoming a little unwieldy, so creating sub-articles for some of them is probably the best solution. So long as we’re transferring content, not arbitrarily deleting it, I don’t think anyone can reasonably object to making the change. There are precedents for splits like that in articles on other institutions. If it's done right, it would be an improvement. Lachrie (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll split it now. Xanthoxyl (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Royal High Rugby
The club has merged with Corstorphine RFC in the last few years. As a club it is historically important in its own right (although it has declined in recent years), and probably should be at a combined CRFC article.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

classical teaching
As far as I'm aware, this school doesn't do classics anymore. Should this be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.224.230 (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It still teachers higher classics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.181.49 (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Musis Respublica Floret
The traditional translation is "The State Flourishes with the Muses" which seems perfectly acceptable. User:Zimzimbadabim replaced this with "By the Muses, the State/Republic Flourishes". I'm wondering if it was really an improvement. As English, it strikes me as less idiomatic. If we're going to use an alternative rendering, perhaps a positive case could be made here first for its superiority? Lachrie (talk) 05:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggested image
Dcoetzee 03:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Non-denominational
Scottish schools, like most in Europe, including this one, were originally established and run by the churches. Sectarianism remains to some extent an issue in education. In 1918 Catholic schools were brought into the state sector. In Scotland state schools are usually either non-denominational or Catholic. The fact that a school is non-denominational is therefore not insignificant. Hence its inclusion in the infobox. 121.45.147.142 (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You are required to follow the consensus established at the recent Request for Comments. Please see WP:CONLOCAL, which clearly states that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." --Guy Macon (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * No, not at all, not where an overly general rule is being misapplied, without due sensitivity to a national context, as here, where it would detract from the clarity of an article, and potentially an entire set of articles (if every non-denominational school in Scotland is to be stripped suddenly and arbitrarily by unknowing outsiders of what is to its primary readership an official and meaningful designation). 2001:44B8:273:2900:443E:765A:2239:5C6 (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting opinion, but it goes against Wikipedia policy, which says the exact opposite. Again I refer you to WP:CONLOCAL, which clearly states that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale". --Guy Macon (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a clear misapplication of Wikipedia policy. Reality trumps such an obvious misapplication. No Wikipedia editor in one country has a licence or authority to redefine or wish away common usage or official usage in another country at a whim. The highly specific term "non-denominational" has a long history of common and official use behind it in education, and its significance is properly understood by the institutions which employ it and those readers most likely to want to read about the said institutions in an article on the subject such as this. 2001:44B8:273:2900:443E:765A:2239:5C6 (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It isn't a "whim". It is the decision of the Wikipedia community. You do have one option though; you could post an RfC at Template:Infobox school asking that Scotland be treated as an exception to the existing consensus (more specific RfCs overrule more general RfCs). But until you demonstrate that the consensus of the Wikipedia community is other than what the community decided in the last RfC, you are required to follow the consensus of the community whether you agree with it or not. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Your claimed rationale is false and absurd. The supposed consensus of an online community (more likely a tiny and unrepresentative group of ill-informed, agenda-driven editors) can't alter the objective reality that the Royal High School is officially classified as (and universally acknowledged to be) a non-denominational school, along with many thousands of others. You want to delete meaningful content only because you don't understand its actual significance. You shouldn't be trying to edit articles on subjects about which you know nothing. 2001:44B8:273:2900:443E:765A:2239:5C6 (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to open an RfC of your own for an exception for Scottish schools, but the RfC closure was quite firm on this point. I would start by gathering references on why noting non denominational schools in a secular is important, but Wikipedia operates on consensus, your personal attacks will get you nowhere.  Winner 42  Talk to me!  03:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

This is just a form of bullying. I am not interested in participating in some kind of byzantine bureaucracy. I am far too busy (like most Wikipedia editors) to spend hours and days educating clueless people trying to impose false standards on subjects which they don't understand under the grandiose name of "policy". I am merely trying to protect the intellectual integrity of this article.

These repeated hostile deletions of relevant information on this page are simply outrageous. Please do not persist in this obvious error. It is the responsibility of Wikipedia editors to reflect the larger reality of the world it describes, not for reality to conform to a small clique of Wikipedia editors claiming an obviously false consensus! What is being attempted here is essentially vandalism, an instance of blind cultural imperialism. This is is an example of the kind of routine nonsense - the gaming of rules - which drives more intelligent editors away.

Apparently you want to purge religious references from articles on institutions, including those like this one with origins in the medieval church! This is naive. Education in most Western countries has long been dominated by the church, and few nations historically have had a formal separation of church and state which is now claimed for France and the United States. It is therefore critical that the religious character of many schools outside those two peculiar national traditions be readily identifiable. Non-denominational is a term which reflects a complex evolution is certainly not synonymous with the mere absence of religion. 124.169.48.54 (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

If you can't argue your case on the merits, and defend the deletion from this article on intellectual grounds, and have to resort to gaming the rules like this, it shows you don't have a real argument at all. Only an appeal to pretended "authority", which is spurious. The onus is on you. If you can't defend your own "policy", you are morally obliged to withdraw it. Take it back to your little self-convened "committee" and tell them you've discovered a need for exceptions, or abandonment of this idea in its entirety. You can go away and think again. 124.169.48.54 (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The rules exist for a reason if you believe that a larger consensus exists, prove it (see WP:BURDEN). But if you don't wish to achieve consensus for your edits and follow policy, then Wikipedia is not the place for you. I would consider a personal website or blog. Winner 42 Talk to me!  04:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You have no business lecturing others. You're clearly unqualified to edit an encyclopedia. Truth and accuracy trump "policy", and you are not even following the very Wikipedia "policy" that you falsely claim, as you are clearly in breach of it yourself. "Non-denominational" does not mean "non-religious". Wikipedia exists to impart factual information, which you are only deleting here because of your own misunderstanding of the term "non-denominational". 118.210.42.39 (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * As the article Nondenominational Christianity makes clear: "Nondenominational (or non-denominational) Christian institutions are those not formally aligned with an established religious denomination, but are historically Protestant, or that remain otherwise officially autonomous."


 * Non-denominationalism is an aspect of the school's character. The term encapsulates its historical evolution, which has now even transcended its founding religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:273:2900:4FE:7CAB:7BC7:A869 (talk) 06:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Not only are you wrong in the spirit of Wikipedia, you are wrong in the letter of the very policy that has been quoted in defence of your disruptive deletion:


 * Request for Comments: "This RfC only applies to biographies of living persons, not organizations or historic figures."


 * The Royal High School is a specifically non-denominational organisation, not a living person of no specified religion. So you are wrong on all accounts and must revert your ridiculous deletion of "non-denominational" from the infobox. Otherwise you are in breach of the very policy you are falsely pretending to enforce. You would also show some decency by reverting the article yourself, rather than waiting for me to correct your mistake yet again! Frankly your attitude and behaviour have been outrageous. 2001:44B8:273:2900:4FE:7CAB:7BC7:A869 (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * A frightening thought is if you have been inflicting the same damage on similar articles about other institutions elsewhere on Wikipedia, with the same wrongheaded thinking and bullying attitude, based on your personal misunderstanding of a recent "policy" innovation, they may now require a lot of correction. 2001:44B8:273:2900:4FE:7CAB:7BC7:A869 (talk) 06:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * @ IP 2001:4488:etc: Please try not to take these kinds of disputes so personally. The policies around infoboxes tend to be stricter than normal because their contents may be scraped for databases, and it is better to exclude anything which might cause confusion. Starting an RfC on the subject of how to classify schools' policies on religion is not necessarily "byzantine bureaucracy" and it might be helpful. Xanthoxyl  &lt; 17:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Two points here: So after thinking about it I'm going to go ahead and replace the entry. If need be, a long footnote explaining the unusual situation in Scotland could be added, if that would be helpful. Xanthoxyl &lt; 07:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Non-denominational" is a technical term in the Scottish education system and not equivalent to "none". In practice it means (or meant) Presbyterian, and certainly it means Christian, as school assemblies usually include Christian content. I didn't attend the Royal High School, but I did go to other "non-denominational" schools and we had to sing hymns almost daily. Here's a recent news article: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-25921394. I suppose more detailed discussions of this could be found.
 * The RFC linked above doesn't apply to organizations. I notice that, in the closing comments, someone claims it could, but the official description specifically says it doesn't underneath.


 * Actually there are non-denominational schools all over the world, officially designated as such. Really I think it should be obvious enough that non-denominational doesn't mean non-religious. See "Category:Nondenominational Christian schools". They're not peculiar to Scotland. The term non-denominational is deeply meaningful and historically resonant. As a distinctive religious culture, these schools are usually of Protestant origin, although the Royal High School is so old that its foundation goes back to the Augustinians of the Roman church and predates the Reformation. So does the concept of non-denominational even need to be explained in detail here? An article on the subject was already linked in the infobox. It's a pity the edit-warriors wrongly trying to delete the term "non-denominational" from the infobox apparently made a rash assumption and didn't even bother to read or understand the linked article. 2001:44B8:273:2900:4FE:7CAB:7BC7:A869 (talk) 08:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * As a Wikipedia editor, you are required to follow the consensus established in the RfC. The RfC clearly states that it applies to ALL ARTICLES. Nobody cares why you refuse to follow consensus and refuse to post a more-specific RfC to see if the community agrees with you. All we care about is that fact that you refuse to follow consensus. That makes your behavior a problem that needs to be dealt with, by blocking you from editing Wikipedia if necessary.


 * You may place anything in the religion entry of the infobox that is an actual religion as long as it is supported by sources. You may not edit the page to say "Religion = non-denominational" no matter what your sources are, because "non-denominational" is not a religion. Don't do it again. "Non-denominational christian" would be acceptable because it is a religion, or you can pick anything else anything else that is an actual religion. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If a hypothetical school made some form of polytheism a requirement for all students, and banned everything else, then that fact would have to be mentioned under "religion" even though polytheism isn't a religion. So that argument doesn't really work. Anyway, I've added "Christian". Xanthoxyl  &lt; 16:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Nation Colours
I am an FP. I left in 1968, the year the school moved to Barnton. The internal subdivisions of the school for sporting and other competitive purposes were NATIONS not HOUSES. I believe the 'house' colours you have are incorrect. from memory Angles were pale blue, slightly turquoise, Britons were the deep blue colour, Picts were red and Scots green. If there are no objections, I propose trying to edit this in about a months time. If the new school (Barnton) have chosen to change the colours, then please post back. Jobadi (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC) Jobadi (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I do agree about changing the houses to the correct term Nation if it has not already been done, but another nation was added a couple of years ago and I think the colours have changed for some of the other ones. PinkPuffyPower759 (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Uniform
The uniform rules and restrictions have changed a lot these past 2 years. If I can find the document with the new rules, I will update it or ask someone else to do it.

(E.g. blazers are no longer required for most students, ties are no longer required for most students, much looser rules in other areas, etc.) PinkPuffyPower759 (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)