Talk:Loretto School

Assess

Mid importance because of alumni and the claim (though unreferenced) to be Scotland's oldest boarding school. More substantial encyclopaedic content is required. Tell us more about the history and what makes the school notable. We don't really need to know about the school uniform in the introduction! More content and references required to advance to a B class. The infobox should be changed to the standard UK schools infobox.Dahliarose 23:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. A new contributor to this article, I shall try to address some of the issues here over my spare time next few weeks. 81.178.38.169 (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Any idea how the school came to be named Loretto; usually schools with the name Loreto or Loretto are Catholic schools. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Link to history inclduing derivation of name added.Ancienterracht (talk) 09:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don Boyd abuse allegation; no mention?

Why is there no mention of this case in the article? It was a big deal at the time and attracts ongoing coverage becasue of the prominence of the alleged victim. Don Boyd claimed he was sexually abused, the teacher was charged but the case was dropped.

References

[name redacted, 79, was charged with sexual offences against two boys, then aged 11 and 15, which allegedly took place 40 years ago when he taught at Loretto School.]
A suitable boy
Sexually abused during his time at Loretto School, Don Boyd returns to Edinburgh and launches a book incorporating his abuse
'I am in total shock. It feels as if I am being hung, drawn, and quartered' Retired teacher hit by abuse allegations shuts door to Herald inquiries

--John (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a mention. --John (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided a NPOV edit redacting the teacher's name as I also did in Boyd's Wikipedia article and which I notice has been subsequently blanked. I don't think that it's a notable issue (not least because frankly Boyd himself is not very notable) and I don't think it needs mentioning but if it is to be mentioned can we least make it NPOV please and avoid naming and shaming, especially as Boyd himself never pressed charges nor was the teacher ever prosecuted and has since died.

I should perhaps mention I am a cousin of Don Boyd and was at school with him at the time (although not in the junior department and we never shared a room together or anything nor for that matter, speaking strictly for myself, did I ever happen to have the pleasure of the teacher involved although I did wank promiscuously all the way through my time there and don't really see how I could have been expected to get through it otherwise but that happily came naturally to me and I didn't really need a mentor myself except at CCF camp of course which was always absolutely brilliant).

I shan't revert a blanking but I will revert all edits which dishonourably attempt to name and shame the teacher involved. 81.178.38.169 (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC) (William Reid Boyd)[reply]

I see John has cut the bit about Boyd's article coinciding with the upcoming release of his failed film My Kingdom but that is quite correct. | The orginal article ran this footer

'My Kingdom, directed and co-written by Don Boyd, has its premier at the Toronto Film Festival 2001 (September 7-16). '

I've made it clear that I shan't oppose a total blanking but I don't see why John should be allowed to selectively blank sections of it he presumably finds unacceptable. At least he should make it clear here why he is doing this. Until then I shall revert 81.178.38.169 (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've already warned you at your talk about WP:NPOV. If you read that (it's one of our core policies) my edit should make more sense to you. You might also want to look into WP:3RR. --John (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't want to involve myself in an edit war and certainly not involve myself with these WP: argot notices which you must know are fast becoming an international joke (see the recent essay in The Economist). What you have done here with your edit is first of all pose a rhetorical question on the talk page 'why no mention ...' which received no attention (by implication answering your question, because it's not very notable) and then you go ahead anyway with what you call a 'mention' supported by four references no less and then when a fellow contributor essentially suggests it's not very sporting WP: to speak ill of the dead and provides a neutral and unbiased edit of the facts you proceed to selectively blank a portion of it. That is curious. 81.178.38.169 (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The position here, however strange it may seem to you as a newcomer, is that if something is verifiable then we may include it in a neutrally worded way. I asked here and nobody objected, so I put it in. Removing the name isn't ok as there is no evidence that anybody living will be adversely affected by this information, and it is pretty important and well-referenced. Adding the information that you have repeatedly done, that this story coincided with a film, that the film was unsuccessful, and referring to the sex abuse as if it was consensual (which it legally cannot be; a child has no right of consent to sexual activity-this was child abuse, allegedly); that is getting into making allegations that may harm Boyd's reputation, by seeking to imply that he did this for some special reason... we absolutely cannot go down that road. Boyd is a living person. Finally, if you are affiliated with Boyd and the school you should not really be editing this article or Boyd's at all. I'll give you another of these warnings that you find so funny about that. --John (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John you didn't ask if anyone minded and nobody objected. You asked why hadn't it been mentioned and nobody bothered to reply which is quite a lot different. I can tell you I mind, on behalf of Loretto school, a fine school I pay tribute to.

Are we really to have these kind of entriess in the 'History' sections of every school mentioned in Wikipedia. What can you be thinking of? Of course your edit will eventually be blanked.

I shan't fisk the rest of your comments except to note that the teacher involved, a frail, elderly man at the time Boyd wrote his article certainly did have family and no doubt has family after him. As for your 'warnings' young man Ἰατρέ, θεράπευσον σεαυτόν!.

I shan't notice you again 81.178.38.169 (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. --John (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please would you remove the last line of the first paragraph - 'The school is currently under investigation as part of Lady Smith's inquiry into child sexual abuse.'

Please would you remove 'Headmaster of Junior School Philip Meadows'

Thank you. PinkieHouse (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: I have removed Meadows, since I can find no mention of him on the school's web site. The information about the investigation appears to be reliably sourced and relevant, so you'll have to provide a policy-compliant reason if you'd like it removed. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 15:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Child abuse inquiry

The fact of Lady Smith's inquiry into child sexual abuse certainly belongs in the article, and I have previously contributed in fending off persistent attempts to whitewash it away. The information about the inquiry is included in the History section where it ties in with the Don Boyd et al's allegations. I do question however whether it needs to be mentioned twice, and doubt it is so fundamental to the overall topic (the school) that it be included in the lead, along with the broad basics of geographic location and how many pupils.

The ip editor gave a rather clumsy edit summary (diff) but did not in fact delete the information, and was careful to shift the reference within the text to its relevant position. I have reverted to that version which seems (to me) to give the subject matter due weight, neither airbrushed out nor tabloid headline. I hope there is consensus that this adequately and dispassionately records the fact in context. Captainllama (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above comments. Dormskirk (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

U16 rugby disqualification worth mentioning?

The only sport coverage in the article is the golf academy. Does the recent incident where the school's U16 rugby squad were disqualified warrant a mention in history? (source: [1]) —C.Fred (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think so, no. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source is the East Lothian Courier, presumably reliable, but likely reporting on things that might be notable only to people in that area (pop. 100,000). And I doubt this small aspect of the school will be of any significance by the end of the season. _signed,Willondon (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly with the source given it should not be stated, as Horse19823 did, that it was done purposely; unless i'm entirely misreading it, the Courier piece says it was unintentional. As to whether it belongs in the article at all...nah ~ given a few months, let alone the years and longer we trust WP will be here, it will be an irrelevancy. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 19:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]