Talk:Stonyhurst College

Archive

I have archived old discussions on this page, which can be found here: Archive 1

Orexis bouleutike (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have created a talk archive on a separate page: Talk:Stonyhurst College/Archive 1. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 23:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

GA fail

I'm sorry, but I am quick failing the GA nom of this article for inadequate referencing. There are entire paragraphs and sections without references. Please fully reference the article before re-nomination. Thanks. Nikki311 00:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject banner comments

• WikiProject Schools: Looks solidly-written and well-referenced with plenty of references and pictures. All it needs to be GA is a review request. Adam McCormick (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria: importance reflects the architectural status of the building more than anything else.
• WikiProject Catholicism: the college occupies an important place within English Catholicism, and in particular Jesuit history, thus deserving a higher importance rating 163.1.126.5 (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Eighth Victoria Cross Winner?!

According to Hewitson, Stonyhurst College, Present and Past (1878, Fishergate, Preston), page 265, among Stonyhurst's alumni is a man named Lieutenant General Hon. Henry Hugh Clifford VC CB. He won the Victoria Cross for gallant conduct at the Battle of Inkerman in the Crimean War. Either the author has confused him with the other Hugh Clifford who went to Stonyhurst and made a mistake, or the College has a forgotten VC winner. I've looked him up on the internet but cannot find any mention of his schooling. The family appears to have had strong links to the school and is related to the Weld family (grandson of Thomas Weld, benefactor of Stonyhurst - so likely that he would be schooled there). Can anyone clear this up? I may contact the Association office or Mrs Graffius, the curator, about this (when I get chance).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.197.117 (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Hewitson confused him with his cousin. 7 VCs after all. 163.1.126.5 (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Classroom Names

I've added the ones I know. Could someone plese fill in the rest. 86.156.197.117 (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Importance rating

I have upgraded this article to high importance which brings it on a par with Ampleforth College. As a leading Catholic school with important alumni the school easily justifies the high importance rating. Dahliarose (talk) 10:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Correction

I have had to re-correct the question of Lancashire being a Roman Catholic County. I have demonstrated above [see archive of this page] that Lancashire was not a catholic county or predominantly a catholic county whatever Muir says -see the 1851 religious returns. Chasnor15

---

Lancashire may not have had a majority Catholic population. The idea is that the locality in which Stonyhurst lies did have a strong Catholic presence, whether or not the county as a whole did is not the issue. In any case the majority of Lancashire's population lived in the growing south - Manchester/Liverpool area, which is very different to the rural area around Stonyhurst. I have looked at your comments above, but I still cannot see how it affects the area where Stonyhurst is. I don't think Muir is just talking about the 19th Century. John de Bayley was licensed to have an oratory on the site in the C14th - the area's Catholic history goes back a long way!

Orexis bouleutike (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Splitting and Summarising

I have been splitting the article as it has become too long. The new articles form the Stonyhurst College series. I am aware that the summaries I have left in place of the previous material are somewhat inadequate, so please do improve upon them, but note that all the information which was there has been moved to a new location - it has not been deleted. This also enables further expansion, especially to the history section, which I intend to contribute to myself over the summer.

Orexis bouleutike (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I have finished splitting and have removed the "too long" box. I think the page is much easier to navigate and comprehend now, though I hope to improve upon it still further. I did create a separate article concerned with the headmasters from St Omers to the present, but it was nominated for deletion so I have split the list between this page and the St Omers one. I hope the article feels and looks better!

The references still need to be improved so that the article can gain 'good article' status. I have re-positioned the pictures as they are laid out on those articles which have GA status. Also a crest would be good if anyone has an image of it.

Orexis bouleutike (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Stonyhurst Website copies Wikipedia article!

I was very interested to read an article on the Stonyhurst website about its observatory, more so when I recognised the wording and realised that the observatory's potted history had been lifted directly from this page (compare the dates). Is that allowed? http://www.stonyhurst.ac.uk/article_1138.shtml

Orexis bouleutike (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes ... anyone can copy wikipedia ... its what it is for! But wikipedia cannot take others work and present it as original or infringe others copyright Victuallers (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Some requests

1. In a recent article of Edward Oldcorne it says "Oldcorne's portrait, painted after his death for the Gesù, survived,". What is Gesu? Is this the Jesuits? The quote is from the Catholic encyclopedia of 1913.
2. Do you have that portrait of Father Oldcorne or do you know where it is? I notice you say that you have one of Henry Garnet or Ralph Ashley etc. - Is it possible to get photo's of these? Could they be loaded on wikipedia?
3. Brilliant school wikipedia articles - I see you have not made GA yet .... but you will! (I have seen literally 100s of school articles). Oh and I think the importance id wrong. You are not High but Top. Victuallers (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely there is no need to have Alumni/ae? Alumni is quite acceptable when describing a group of both sexes.. 129.67.138.26 (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Concerned, Oxford

Pre-GAC review comment

Although the article has seemingly improved greatly since its last GAC nom, especially in regards to its sourcing, there is a problem with the current citations in that most of them are not formatted properly per WP:CITE. Pertinent information is missing from a majority of the citations, including but not limited to author, publisher, published date and access date. For examples of citation templates (which are not required but very useful), see WP:CITET. Also, are the works listed under "Sources" used as sources? If so, they need to be cited specifically (including necessary information described above). If they are not used, the section should be renamed "Further reading". These issues need to be taken care of in order for the article to be promoted to GA-class. María (habla conmigo) 18:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll sort this out now... Orexis bouleutike (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Stonyhurst College

Stonyhurst College userbox

This user is an alumnus of Stonyhurst College

To add your user page to this category, use the following userbox:

User:Orexis bouleutike/Userboxes/Stonyhurst College

Orexis bouleutike (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Too long

This article is far too long for what is, frankly a second division public school. Stonyhurst College is not an Eton, Harrow, Bedales, Winchester etc. and yet it has an article far longer than any of these more prominent schools - even Downside and Ampleforth - the other major Catholic British public schools have much shorter articles despite being more famous - someone please rectify this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyaubreydevito (talk • contribs) 18:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Surely the onus is on the editors of the articles for those schools to improve them? Why should this be shortened? This is a source of information; isn't that what an encyclopaedia is meant to be? And who are you to judge what makes a good/famous school? 94.197.242.248 (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Look mate, I realise that I am probably chatting to someone associated with the school, hence your stance but I must reiterate that the length of this article superficially suggests that the institution has a high level of notoriety - which simply isn't true. I don't want you to take my word for it, but instead please refer to the Tatler good schools guide 2010. This guide is considered to be the definitive source for judging a schools prestige and, Stonyhurst is not present in the latest edition, nor indeed in any other edition I can recall. If you follow the link you will see my point: http://guides.tatler.co.uk/WCS/Schools/2010/ Of course long articles are good but everything should be put in perspective and for Stonyhurst to have an entry longer than Eton's is bizarre, for what is currently, not a 'premier league' public school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.246.34.95 (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. I'm sure you can find short articles on important subjects and long articles on trivial subjects. Length of article does not indicate importance. If there is specific information in this article you think is non-encyclopaedic or non-notable, please identify it. Otherwise, if you think the Eton article should be longer than this article (e.g.), go and add to the Eton article. -- Dr Greg  talk  15:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, Wikipedia is here to provide information. Any judgement as to the importance or interest of any piece of information or article is by definition subjective.

It is curious that someone who thinks this article to be unimportant / uninteresting still finds it interesting enough not only to look at but to enter into a discussion about. I would have thought if the article is of no interest one would simply not bother to read it.

A number of people have clearly put a great deal of time and effort into a subject that is a) of interest to them and b) indisputably of some importance to the Jesuits in the UK, English recusant Catholic history as well as the wider development of Jesuit education around the world. I think that is more than enough to justify the article if justification were necessary.

As to the importance of the school, there are a number of authoritative ways to rank / rate a school, though most serious educational attempts to do so are controversial. Marketing opportunities provided by The Tatler (A society and fashion magazine) is certainly not one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.140.161 (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, firstly 'Dr Greg', those who contribute to wikipedia or edit wikipedia accept responsibility for the whole site, of course folks are always going to work to their own academic disciplines and cerebral strengths but I fear that this particular article is written like a brochure by those connected with the school. As this is probably the case both the neutrality and credibility of this article are thrown into question. It seems as well that y'all failed to understand my point about Stonyhurst having a longer article than Eton's so I will illustrate my point with a comparison with analogous pairs of articles: (i) Alan Redpath and David Cameron - both conservative MP's but one would balk if Redpath had a longer article than Cameron's (ii) Steven Gerrard and Jay Spearing - both footballers for Liverpool FC but again one significantly more famous than the other (iii) Leonardo da Vinchi and Dinos Chapman... I would go on but I feel that I shouldn't have to... Everyone else on wikipedia manages to adhere to these unwritten principles, that are so blindingly obvious that these disputes are (thankfully) very rare, so why can't you guys?! Also if I might add; it does seem like the article contributers are over compensating for something by making this article so very long. Secondly anyone who knows anything about Public Schools in the UK knows that they are to be judged by notoriety - I am not talking about some league table based on GCSE results! Of course we all hark back to the days when judging a public school's credentials was done only by reaching for a copy of J.G. Cotton Minchin's 'Our Public Schools' but depressingly the Tatler good schools guide is the only decent guide around and, being a high society magazine in many ways makes it a most suitable reference. 86.176.70.174 (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The line of argument seems to be in two parts; a)Stonyhurst is not a high society school therefore b) Stonyhurst should not have a longer entry in Wikepedia than schools that are high society schools e.g Eton because there is an unspoken agreement that less well regarded subjects have shorter articles than better regarded subjects within the same category.

So let’s deal with these in turn:

a) I think it safe to say that a school of whatever sort is still primarily a school with its primary business and responsibility being the education of its pupils, as such any school should be judged primarily on the quality of education it provides. The recent substantive and authoritative inspection report on Stonyhurst makes it very clear that the school provides a very good education. The Jesuit ethos of Stonyhurst would mot likely bar or at least undermine the school in seeking to have a ‘High Society’ reputation so the school is entirely consistent with its own aims in offering extensive bursaries to less well off students and thereby becoming less ‘High Society’ than it might otherwise be given its ‘Public School’ History. As such it is also entirely consistent to judge the school more on the quality of education it provides that on a subjective reading of its social fashionability. i.e. To insist on ranking schools by their social status is only one way of ranking schools and to many peoples minds clearly not the most important and therefore clearly not to be enforced on Wikepedia or anywhere else, except of course in Tatler where the main interest is social status consistent with that magazines central interest in social status.

Stonyhurst is a leading choice of school among the catholic upper and upper middle classes, hence the numebnr of aristocrats and members of the gentry that make up the old boy list. I would suggest that there is a number of considerably less smart or 'posh' schools in that list. It's history speaks for itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.196 (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

b) The argument that within Wikepedia subjects within categories should have a length proportional to their perceived significance is entirely out of keeping with Wikepedia which exists to make available as much information as possible on any subject at all.

I think it is also important to bear in mind that quibbling over the social status of various British independent boarding schools can look somewhat obscene when set in the international context of Wikepedia i.e. in a world where the presence of real poverty that causes real suffering makes the distinction between these schools look somewhat insignificant / petty compared to the chasm between rich and poor globally. A chasm that education ought to be seeking to reduce and therefor a point not irrelevant to the discussion of any school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.138.67 (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Or even better why not take your concerns to the Wikipedia editors (who have already listed this under their 'Good Articles'). That should bring this rather bizarre discussion to a close. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.138.46 (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sister school

Beaumont College is said to be a sister school, although it closed down in 1967. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The word "formerly" has now been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.109.117 (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The sister school has disappeared now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.251.193 (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Morton

Morton seems to have died a natural death in 1500. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 11:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Old Stonyhursts 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) 13:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Anachronism

In undertaking some casual copyediting in the Libraries subsection here, I saw one of those inappropriate news items by which Wikipedia is too often distorted:

"The Stonyhurst copy of the Chronicles of Jean Froissart, captured at the Battle of Agincourt in 1415, are currently on loan to the Royal Armouries in Leeds, where they are the centrepiece of a new exhibition."

A quick search revealed that the subject exhibition ended on 6 April 2008. The particular edit was made on 28 January 2008, meaning that the misinformation had been published for nearly four years. For God's sake, where were the people who have this article on their watchlist? Have the administrators never considered banning edits using the word "currently", which is, of course, a nonsense in a non-static, undated non-paper encyclopedia? Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

GAR likely needed

There are multiple valid maintenance tags on this page (added by four separate editors), which indicate that the article has issues with sourcing, tone, and boosterism. In particular, there seem to be a lot of primary sources and the tone seems to be somewhat story-like. If this is not fixed soon, this article may have to go to WP:GAR. Epicgenius (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I second this Czarking0 (talk) 05:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Stonyhurst College

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

This has been tagged as needing GAR since July. It was originally promoted in 2008. There are four maintenance tags on the article (excessive self-published sources, academic boosterism, promotional tone, and excessive detail), apparently each added by a different editor. Two editors have also agreed on the talk page that GAR is needed. From my own cursory review, I've found a handful of uncited paragraphs and a number of page needed tags. I have not gone through the article exhaustively, but the concerns raised appear reasonable, so I am bringing this to GAR. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Also notifying @Epicgenius and Czarking0: who expressed support for GAR on the talk page. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the tag. I support further investigation in GAR and thank you for bringing it forward. I have occupied with other tings at the moment so I probably will not be able to give this the attention it needs Czarking0 (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delist - Yikes, just yikes. I don't think further comment is needed. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delist: major PoV issues. I'm particularly struck by the description of the Gunpowder Plot as a "controversial event". I would also strongly suspect that parts of the article are out of date, especially that about taking ten GCSEs as standard, which is cited to a 2008 source and is definitely not the norm nowadays, even in elite academic private schools. Other prose and MoS issues throughout, which would be a problem at GAN. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.