User talk:Terrycrosby

Christian Brothers POV tag

Hello there Terry, I was a little bit disturbed by your edit comment - "This article is not neutral having read historical entries many criticsms of christian brothers have been removed" - please properly read the two posts I have made on the talk page. It would be POV if there were no mention of the abuses, but this is simply not the case (and when people have deleted this whole section, I’ve reverted it). In addition, I ask you to point out where in the article are the Brothers portrayed or described in an inappropriately positive light (you know, ‘weasel words’ and stuff like that). The only significant POV material were the edits that I removed.

I won’t remove the POV tag yet because I don’t want an edit war – however, I strongly urge you to do so. Read the Australian and Canadian molestation sections – there is nothing there that put the CBs in a favourable light, and there is nothing wrong with removing poorly sourced and emotive material. There is plenty on the CB abuses, and all it really lacks is a referenced Irish section (Artane, Letterfrack, etc.). You may write this yourself if you like (or I will when I have more time), instead of making accusations at people who are attempting to stop this article from becoming little more than a list of bitter rants.

That’s all I want to say on this issue. If you want to help turn it into a more encyclopedic article (I intend to expand and provide references when I have more time in a few weeks), I’ll be happy to work with you.Rob Lindsey 00:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rob I totally disagree with you but for fairness I would not even consider editing the article as I would clearly be very biased in my Christian Brother stance. However, maybe you should stand back a bit and have a look at some of the sections removed and edit them again and seek references. I think just removing them is painting the Christian Brothers in far too favourable light and is an attempt by certain sections to hide "certain" brothers appalling crimes. Terrycrosby

St Mary's College, Crosby

Hi Terry. I've reverted your revert of me at the article linked above. Unfortunately, we can't include a reference to everyone of slight notability who left St Mary's - rather only those who pass the standard Wikipedia degree of notability. Namely, I'm talking about mentioned people (as a rule of thumb) needing to have an article on Wikipedia. For the Nazi person (sorry that I can't be more specific!), I'm unsure. He could be notable in the history of the school, but looking at other articles about schools I see nothing similar - alumni lists should really be limited to the fairly well recognisable. Thanks, and please don't revert me until we can discuss further. Martinp23 19:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed your revert about the "History of misguided discipline". It is totally unreferenced. Having "[1]" in an article does not automatically give it a reference. Before the section can be added back in, I'd suggest that it needs to be fully referenced and, if I may say so, de-sensationalised. The title itself is something that you might see in a tabloid. I really don't think that the content is relevant to the article either - especially not with the amount of weight it is being given there. It seems to be some past student's rant about how he/she was abused. The author of it does have my sympathy and best wishes if that is the case, but I must remind him that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Perhaps you could prepare the new section at User:Terrycrosby/St Mary's? I reckon we could get the important bits of that content into another of the existing sections, without giving it one of its own - but I'm speaking from the perspective of not knowing how reliable the provided sources are. Thanks, Martinp23 19:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, some of your comments are quite reasonable and am prepared to accept much of what is written should be removed. However your addition is clearly not NPOV and I will be readding tag. Perhaps before this is removed next time it should be discussed in the appropiate section on the articles discussion page. For now I will be making no further edits as I am clearly biased. Perhaps next time though you should not run into removing a point a view tag that has been present for 6 months. Terrycrosby

No problem. My feeling was that by removing the majority of the parts about abuse, I was removing the POV, but can see how that could not be the case. My main feeling was that the text there was unreferenced in its entirety, and I didn't want to us be in any way providing misinformation. Nonetheless, I shall ask an uninvolved editor to check the POV. Thanks, Martinp23 18:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition why not run the Nazi guy through google and you might find he is mentioned a few times even on other Wikipedia articles. Just because you have never heard of him does not mean he is not notable. Finally the articles quoted are from such people as former Director general of BBC and advisor to government, A former world in action editor and one of the worlds most famous poets. All from national or regional newspapers. Reputable? I think soTerrycrosby

I am, of course, ignorant. Perhaps articles/stubs could be created on these notable personalities? Martinp23 18:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update on St Mary's College, Crosby

As you were active on this article earlier this year, I thought you might appreciate a brief update. I have put together a balanced paragraph about corporal punishment reliably sourced from notable former alumni, removed the "disputed NPOV" tag and got two independent opinions on the material, first from Colonel Warden and now a third opinion by Redheylin. I hope you are content with these changes and might perhaps consider keeping a watch to detect any vandalism. I'm afraid I have had to go through the talk page "redacting" the names of some individual teachers (per the BLP Talk Pages policy)—please excuse this small change to your earlier comments. - Pointillist (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]