Talk:Ampleforth College

message: 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)
thread_title: Dom Henry Wansbrough OSB

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Old Amplefordians

message: 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)
thread_title: Lists of names

message: Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 10#Former pupils by school in the United Kingdom. Moonraker2 (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Wykehamists, Old Etonians, etc.  to become "Alumni of... "? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Category:Old Amplefordians rename 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sexual abuse 

message: Do we really need to list the head of each house?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No we don't, per WP:WPSCH/AG#OS, 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)
thread_title:  Houses 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: .
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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Sexual abuse revisited 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  The ABBEY  

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV: Safeguarding and Failed Ofsted Inspection