# Talk:Monmouth School

Weak source [1]
KJP1 (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I've added him, although there's currently no article. He's notable, partly on his own account, perhaps more as the life partner of A. E. Dyson. I'll do a Start class shortly, but if any editors have further information, that would be helpful. Tony Dyson is much better documented. KJP1 (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

p.s. Note to self, already exists as Cliff Tucker (executive), a redirect to Dyson. KJP1 (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

This, and Haberdashers' Monmouth School for Girls, need updating to reflect the Autumn 2024 amalgamation, [2][3]. We now have one institution, Haberdashers' Monmouth School. Do we want a new article, under that title, and these left as “historical” articles on the old schools? Or one article, incorporating material from the existing articles, that covers all of it? Thoughts welcome. KJP1 (talk) 06:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

As a temporary fix, I've tweaked the leads and the History sections of this and of the Haberdashers' Monmouth School for Girls articles, to reflect the current position. But there are things that don't quite work, e.g. they both carry their historical single-sex status under Gender in the Infoboxes, when they are now co-ed. But it seems a bit weird to so describe them when the articles are titled Monmouth School for Boys/Girls respectively? They both need more work. But a decision is needed on whether we keep these articles and start a new one for the new institution, or do one new article to cover all three. KJP1 (talk) 08:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm loathe to have one single amalgamating article as it would either be very long, or lose some of the rich detail from the existing articles. I'd therefore suggest a new short article for what is, essentially, a new school. SillyWilly (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
SillyWilly - And you have your wish, although not through my intervention. Your Talkpage interventions for the early 2000s suggest you may have attended the school. So did I. I think the article does it some justice. I wonder if it could make FA? KJP1 (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

So, we now have: Haberdashers' Monmouth School - covering the school from the Autumn 2024 amalgamation; Monmouth School - covering the boys' school from 1614 to 2024; and Haberdashers' Monmouth School for Girls, covering the girls' school from 1892 to 2024. Are we content that future content, such as the Fees update I've just done here, should actually go in the article on the new school, and that this page and HMSG become historical articles, dealing with the pre-2024 schools' histories? They will both need some revision to reflect this. KJP1 (talk) 07:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

This is an odd one because both predecessor schools have long histories and, in the case of the boys' school, a long article. I think there's a case that the successor school is not yet notable and shouldn't have its own article at this point. If there were only one predecessor school, I think it would be clear that content on the new school should remain in the existing article (as we routinely do post-academisation, for instance); but as it is, we'd have to double it up. Sorry, not an answer, but interested in others' views. Can help with tense clear-up etc once consensus is established. Tacyarg (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Appreciate the offer of help! The tense clear-up etc. will be a bit of a chore. Yes, it's a complex one because the Haberdashers got very into re-branding from about 2015, so for a brief period you also had Monmouth School for Boys. I think enough could be found on the new school to make a Start article; the amalgamation/co-education/re-brand changes got a reasonable amount of coverage. I'll have a quick go at that. In the meantime, we can wait to see if there are other views. KJP1 (talk) 09:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Primm1234 - Hi, first off, thanks for your interest in the article. It's always good to find editors with common interests. I have a few queries/observations:

Edit summaries - your first edit didn't have a summary and your second simply said "updates", although the edits weren't actually updates, more often being stylistic changes. It's always best practice to summarise the nature of your changes in a edit summary, so other editors can see what you've done.
Changes and Manual of Style (MoS) - per the above, English being a highly flexible language, I'm not sure there is much point in amending individual wordings on grounds of personal stylistic preference, unless they are correcting obvious errors or making obvious improvements. An example is the School  House caption where you changed "Henry Stock's School House of the late 19th century" to "School House, late 19th-century by Henry Stock". It's particularly important where you actually introduced an error, as you did here; "Nothing of the original school buildings from the 17th century remains as the school was completely rebuilt" to "Nothing of the original school buildings from the 17th century remain as Monmouth School was completely rebuilt". Other examples are your capitalisation of "Master", "Library" "War Memorial" etc., which shouldn't be capitalised. On this point, you also changed "fuelled by the liberal positions of the local newspapers" to "Liberal" positions, introducing another error, as the capitalisation implies adherence to the Liberal Party,  rather than to a liberal philosophy. Can I ask that you go back and revise these. There are other examples. I think this point on stylistic changes is still more the case where the article has achieved, through a peer-review, Good or Featured article status.
Verifiability and accuracy - It is very important that content is supported by the sourcing. Taking an example you changed the entry for David Lewis, 1st Baron Brecon from "Conservative politician" to "Conservative MEP". This certainly isn't supported by the source and I personally think it unlikely, as Brecon's career was surely over by the time of the European Parliament. This is one that will definitely need changing back, unless you have an alternative source that supports it. Another example is in relation to the New Cross purchase. The source you've added doesn't support the content - and also looks to be a blog and thus not a reliable source. This is another that will  need to go. A third is the caption you've given to the Victor Spinetti image - there was no such school as "Habs Monmouth" in 2009, even in abbreviated form.
Citation style - the convention is to adopt the style currently in use. In this case, for web sources, this is the {{Cite web}} template. Can I ask that the sources where you have merely placed the url inside square brackets be corrected to use the template.
Overlinking - I see other editors have made this point, and there are examples here. You've put in multiple links to Henry Stock, when we only need one / linked World War II twice within one sentence, etc. Can I ask that these be revised.
Alumni notability - You've added James Peill. First, he doesn't have his own article and the local consensus (see Talk), is that this is a requirement for inclusion. Second, the source you've given doesn't support the content, i.e. it doesn't say he was educated at Monmouth. Can he be removed.
I'm reluctant to reverse your efforts, as they have introduced improvements, for which thanks. But the errors/inconsistencies do need correcting.
Regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@KJP1: many thanks for your message. May I make the alterations you suggest on Monday? as I don't have sufficient time this weekend to do a proper job. Best Primm1234 (talk) 10:11, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Certainly - KJP1 (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
@KJP1 trust my revisions are now okay - I do hope so! Let me know, please, if I've missed anything. And, thanks again for your constructive criticism. Best Primm1234 (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Primm1234 - it’s looking much better again, thank you. The only issues that immediately occur are a couple of missing cites. We still need one for the bit on Henry Lennard in the Years of foundation section, and for James Peill in the Alumni section. If they’re to stay, we really need a couple of Reliable Sources supporting the content. KJP1 (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
@KJP1: thanks to you too (your constructive criticism always of great help). Not only is it looking much better again! but may I venture to suggest it's looking way better than before.?!
But, what to do about these cites..? James Peill is an Old Monmothian and Lord Dacre sold the lordship of the manor of Hatcham (citation request misplaced) to the Haberdashers' Co., which acquired "surrounding land at New Cross in Surrey" separately.
To my knowledge, there is no neat reference/citation (apart from at https://members.haberdashers.co.uk), as these 17c property purchases across the historic Kent/Surrey county boundary were made piecemeal by the Company, using the timely bequests from both Thomas Jones and Robert Aske (whose family already owned some of them).
Let me know how best to rationalise in the circumstances svp.
Best, Primm1234 (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Primm1234 - The key issue with both of these is Wikipedia:Verifiability. It isn't enough that you know James Peill is an Old Monmothian, or that you know that the manor of Hatcham was sold by Lord Dacre. When we add content to Wikipedia we have to make sure that any reader is able to check that what we have written is Verifiable through published reliable sources, independent of the subject. So, the bottom line is - if such sources aren't available, the content should not go in. I appreciate that this can sometimes be frustrating, but it really is the bedrock of Wikipedia. Otherwise, we're just another blog. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
@KJP1 - totally understand... and I think/hope you've twigged that my edits are made with sole purpose of improving Wiki. For the time being, let's not worry about how the manor of Hatcham devolved (albeit quite interesting to some...) - not helped by the fact that the Hatcham estate (or whatever one wants to call it!) straddles two counties.!
Ref. James Peill, does this help: https://www.linkedin.com/in/james-peill-2390a9a5? If not, I'm stumped!
Yours aye, Primm1234 (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
PS. please tweak as you see fit... Primm1234 (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Primm1234 - unfortunately not, as Linkedin is neither independent nor reliable. Were I on that platform, I could write any old nonsense about myself, and it would likely be published. Entirely appreciate your motives for editing and, as I've said, your edits did improve the article, for which thanks again. But until sources can be located, I'll take out Mr Peill and the noble lord. KJP1 (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
@KJP1: publishing "her truth" on LinkedIn, didn't work out too well for Rachel Reeves!
Before resorting to the nuclear delete option, surely a fellow Wikipedian interested in Monmouth School could help verifying James Peill?
Best, Primm1234 (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Primm1234 - perhaps, but only if they have a reliable source. Otherwise, even if they saw Mr Peill every day in the cloisters tuck shop, it’s merely reminisce. I could write, quite truthfully, that Otto Maciag and Mike Eveleigh considered me, respectively, the worst artist and the poorest singer it was ever their misfortune to teach! But without a cite it can’t go in. KJP1 (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Hahaha! We are amused!!! Best Primm1234 (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2025 (UTC)