Talk:St Benedict's School, Ealing

Schools Low‑importance

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Call for Evidence[edit]

Further to Lord Carlile of Berriew QC commissioning, notices have been placed in local newspapers announcing a 'Call for Evidence'. How these notices will come to the attention of people who may have moved away I don't know. There are no web citations (other than this at the end) to be found, so I am not going to add this info just yet, but if anybody elsr finds better citations they can then think about adding it to the article. [1]--Aspro (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sex abuse[edit]

Placed this in its own section--Mongreilf (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As this was reverted I'll explain my reasons. If over a third of the history section is about sex abuse, it obviously dominates that section to such an extent that a new section maybe justified. This one topic out of 110 odd years taking up a third of the history seems to distort the section. The sex abuse is also notable in a way the rest of the history isn't. --Mongreilf (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article neutrality[edit]

Much of the article reads like a school prospectus, especially the section on ethos that relies entirely on a single report from the Independent School's Inspectorate report of 2010. Either include and greater range of citations or remove unsubstantiated and / or biased content. 31.185.217.160 (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree totally. I have previously removed this "marketing puff" from the article, but it keeps re-appearing. See my notes at User talk:Nhallisey. These are not objective facts, mere assertions. --The Sage of Stamford (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now substantially edited to make the article more factual and to take away the promotional tone. I believe that it is now sufficiently neutral and have therefore removed the tag.--The Sage of Stamford (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on St Benedict's School, Ealing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091026051454/http://www.ealinggazette.co.uk:80/ealing-news/local-ealing-news/2009/10/09/jailed-child-pervert-priest-ruined-my-life-64767-24893070/ to http://www.ealinggazette.co.uk/ealing-news/local-ealing-news/2009/10/09/jailed-child-pervert-priest-ruined-my-life-64767-24893070/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of old boys[edit]

The list of old boys seems to not only have more members than the category, but also to contain far more detail for some of them than is necessary. I propose trimming it substantially, both by removing some of the less well-known old boys, and trimming the descriptions of those that remain. There should also be references for every member of the list. DuncanHill (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]