Talk:Brisbane Grammar School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible. Wikipedians in Location may be able to help!

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Australia may be able to help!

This article was nominated for deletion on January 6, 2006, and was speedily kept. NSLE _(T+C) 10:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Portal	Brisbane Grammar School is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Brisbane.
Assessment comments This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	This article is related to WikiProject Schools, an attempt 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, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within Schools. Please rate the article.
Current Collaborations:	McGill-Toolen Catholic High School - Newton North High School - Kennet Comprehensive School

Contents 1 Archive 2 Alumni 3 OP's 4 heading 5 "ignored" 6 Sex Abuse Sources 7 ignored 8 Sexual abuse incident 9 Lynch suicide 10 Academics and EC 11 Pics 12 sexual abuse section

[edit] Archive

As you no doubt can see, i have archived the talk page. it was over the recommended length Kiran90 09:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

how odd, it got deleted. well, here it is: /Archive 1

[edit] Alumni

the alumni section was completly sourced. why has it been removed? Kiran90 09:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Kiran, I agree that having the notable old boys section is fine, but it isn't sourced properly. We really do need to try to find sources for including many of these people. Currently only a couple of people have references. Do you know if the school has a list of notable old boys that we could use as a reference?

Also, in this edit you and Paaerduag dispute stating "a large number of former students" or "approximately 65 former students". Saying "a large number" is weasel wording and should be avoided. We need to be specific and saying "a large number" is confusing and open to interpretation...what you may think is a large number might be a small number to me. But I would like to know the source for "approximately 65". Paaerduag seems to say in the edit summary that the number is in the source cited [1] but I searched through the report and couldn't find it. Does anyone know where that figure comes from? If it comes from the Anglican report, can you please let me know which page it's on so I can check it out. Thanks, Sarah 07:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

so you cant source the old boy's to other wikipedia pages? cause if you click on them, their pages all state that they attended the school, and if they didnt, i've provided external links to the information. ang about the 65 students, i changed it to 'a number of students' because paaerduag's sources contradicted themselves. one of the pages said 65, another said 34. Kiran90 10:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No, unfortunately we can't use Wikipedia as a source for itself. I don't think it's urgent or anything, but we will have to try to find sources down the track.Sarah 15:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

perhaps, but saying 'a number' is deliberately ambiguous. The only fair compromise is to say, like before, 'between 34 and 65 students'. hadn't we already reached that concensus?--Paaerduag 10:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Paaerduag, where are you getting "between 34 and 65" from? It sounds like you're just guessing! We can't compromise on facts. If 65 (and 34 to 65) is just a guestimate, we are going to have to rewrite that section. I don't like "a number" because it's weasel wording, but it's better than guessing and I think that edit is the one that should stand at the moment. Unless you have a source for the numbers? Sarah 15:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OP's

will put a citation needed thingy in about the 49OP1's. the grammar newsletter comes out tomorrow, i'll reference it then. Kiran90 09:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

ok, i updated the section and sourced it. Kiran90 07:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] heading

why has the heading under the sexual abuse section ben replaced? whats wrong with leaving it removed like it was before? Kiran90 09:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

ok, then i'll revert it, since no one wants to comment. Kiran90 10:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

in deleting the heading, you said 'refer to talk page' but there is absolutely zilch on the talk page. Please actually say why you are making major changes like that BEFORE you make them. I reverted because of your purposefully coup d'etat on the edit page. Blitzing the edit summaries with "refer to talk page"s is absolutely ruinous considering there is nothing ON the talk page. your little d'etat has not worked, because someone (myself) has seen through the thinly veiled attempt at a justification. Yep, I used the word, and I'll keep using it, because it is exactly what you AIN'T doing! --Paaerduag 07:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that you reverted Kiran's edit purely to make a point? Just like you reverted my edit last night purely to make a point? As in a violation of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. This business of yours where you revert edits, make edits and use edit summaries to make "undeleteable" insults, is disruptive and you need to knock it off. You should only be editing to improve the article. Please stop assuming bad faith of everyone. I've had enough of all this disruptive behaviour and I'm going to start using blocks if that's the only way to go through to people. And, Paaerduag, I'm going to revert your bad faith edit. Sarah 08:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh please, one thing I wont accept is editors (even administrators) putting words in my mouth. I find it degrading. It WAS NOT a bad faith nomination! I pointed out a flaw in what Kiran90 had done, but my reversion has been explained countless times before. I believe the section heading is important due to its pertainance to a major media attention on the school, rather than the school's own achievements. I've explained all this before. School HIStory is about the school's achievements and milestones, whereas sexual abuse is outlining a major media attention, and NO MAJOR media attention is in school history section. It was quite a big scandal, I was in brisbane at the time. This is the reason why I believe the headings are fine as they are (may I remind you all this ground is already treaded; just look into archives). In conclusion, it was NOT bad faith. It was in fact YOU who assumed bad faith on my behalf. --Paaerduag 10:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't put words in your mouth. You said them yourself: "I reverted because of your purposefully coup d'etat on the edit page." That's an easy POINT violation. The sexual abuse incident is part of the school's history. As for you being in Brisbane at the time, so what? And so what if you consider the "ground is already treaded"? On Wikipedia, it is common for issues to be readdressed. You have serious ownership problem with this article and I'm not going to let this continue. Sarah 12:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

what do you mean 'at the time'. this implies you're not in brisbane anymore, which you have told me otherwise regarding... Kiran90 12:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

oo, i like this ownership policy thing. oh, and by the way. i didnt delete the heading, i reverted it back to they way it was before user:paaerduag reverted the change without justification. i posted the issue on the talk page, and af5ter 5 days no-one has commented, so i assumed it was save to revert it. that is within guidelines, is it not sarah? 58.162.106.140 07:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC) - oh my bad, this is Kiran90

may I ask who the hell the user above IS??? also, sarah, YOU have the ownership problems. I justified having the headings, and the best you can come up with is that I am an obsessed editor who can only have his own way. Why not address the ISSUE instead of sledging me? You say that you wont let 'this' continue. What is 'this'? I think that you are accusing me of what you are doing. You are possessive, only having your own way, and you always criticize me of the same. I am always being portrayed as the 'evil editor' by you, and that is insulting. Why don't you admit that you have ownership problems instead of accusing me contantly like I'm evil? I justify my edits, whereas you back up your edits by saying how bad a person and editor I am. how about assuming good faith once in a while, instead of using my supposedly "negative edits to get back at other users" as a thinly veiled reason to undo EVERYTHING that I have done to the article? --Paaerduag 10:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you seriously think it is appropriate to say, "may I ask who the hell the user above IS???"???

If you are ever actually interested in discussing the article, I'm more than willing, but I'm not going to do so under constant assumptions of bad faith, false allegations, exaggerations and melodrama. Sarah 15:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

well, i think [[2]] accuratly shows how many people support paaerduag's view of the page. Kiran90 11:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

my god, you are such a hypocrite. in the past, you've pinpointed one issue with the section, and used that as an excuse to revert the whole thing back to your version. i mean, look at the history of your talk page! you "reverted" sarah's edits, IE. deleted everything to do with grammar/me on it just because you lost the argument. i've accepted the fact that you're never going to suck up your pride and accept that you are wrong, but could you at least debate the page within wikipedia guidelines and without savage hypocrisies and personal attack vandalism against me and sarah? Kiran90 11:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

you NEVER justify your edits. IF I TALKED LIKE THIS ALL THE TIME, THEN I COULD PROBABLY PASS THIS OFF AS JUSTIFCATION AS WELL!!!!!!! LADEDADEDA!!!! LOOK AT ME, I CAN YELL REALLY LOUD!!! do you know how many internet etiquite laws you're breaking right there? putting 20 charater crap in the edit summary and saying 'ooo, there's a typo, lets revert the whole thing', or 'you guys are so mean to me :'( you called me evil (which never happened), so now im gonna revert the grammar page'. this is not editing. these are pretty 3rd-rate attempts at trying to make me and sarah feel bad. you think im upset, or even angry? you're pathetic attempts to justify your unreasonable actions just make me piss myself laughing! Kiran90 12:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "ignored"

The given source only mentions "administrators had been warned" and does not mention any ignoring. It is entirely possible that there was an internal investigation that turned up with nothing - or perhaps not, but the source doesn't mention it. --220.239.82.62 09:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

trust me, i've tried to make that point. user:Paaerduag believes they were ignored. Kiran90 05:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sex Abuse Sources

The below source validates two key claims that Sarah Ewart and Kiran90 have both repeatedly deleted from the Sexual Abuse Section.

This is the link: [3] A 'Courier Mail' Article

The article validates the following:

1. That a former principal, Maxwell Howell, was allegedly told about the abuse on TWO occasions, but both times he failed to act, and therefore (in the wording of the article) 'igonored' the claims

2. The number of former students who came forward with the claims of sexual abuse was 'around 70'

This qualifies the statements in the section. --Paaerduag 08:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Paaerduag, you need to cut the attitude you have towards people who are trying to write within site policies. I don't know how many times you have to be told this, but removing unsourced material is entirely supported by policy. This is an encyclopedia, everything has to be verifiable.

I'm very pleased that you've found a source. However, it highlights why the verifiability policy is a cornerstone policy on Wikipedia. Your previous edits regarding this material were guestimates presented as fact. A source for "Around 70" is completely different to you giving specific unsourced figures of, at one time, 65 and, at another time, 35-65. This illustrates exactly why we need to be careful about getting information sourced before putting it in the article. I hope you understand that now and won't be so difficult in future when people want to verify information. Sarah 09:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I got the source, so there should be no negativity about it. I am not 'attacking' you or Kiran, I'm just stating that you repeatedly deleted those two statements. I'm not passing judgement HERE on your deleting of those statements. But I hope that this silly userpage discussion 'blitz' will end, from all parties involved. --Paaerduag 10:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, you got the source because you wanted to include that statement. That's exactly how it works. Anyway, I've copyedited the abuse section because some of it was misleading and, as far as I can tell, not actually supported by the references. And one of the links was dead. Sarah 10:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the purpose of shifting a few words around? That is not copyediting as far as I can tell. Why say 'both' instead of 'and'? Just a nitpick, but still explain it if you must. --Paaerduag 11:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You've got to be joking. What is the purpose of reverting simple stylistic changes? You are so argumentative and possessive of this article. It is bad writing to have numerous sentences in a small amount of text starting exactly the same, for example "In X year". I clarified "both" before the school names because the way it was written was extremely clunky sentence structure. People are allowed to copyedit this article without running every word change past you. If you seriously think copyediting doesn't include trying to improve the text by various methods including stylistic changes, please read our article ASAP: copyediting. Sarah 11:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

my god, paaerduag. you do ever agree with anyone? there must be a sane, associable person behind this facade of false acucsations, complete lack of backbone and exeded use of hyperbole. she's an administrator and she's following the rules. you just want to put a bad name on the school for some reason. to quote theheadhunter "for god sakes, paaerduag, get over it. everyone else has". Kiran90 05:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ignored

um... neither of those sources indicate that their claims were 'ignored'. it says that the headmaster had been informed of the claims. it says nothing further. if you can find a source that clearly shows that they were ignored, the comment can stay. there is no evidence to show that the issue was just not pursued, or there was evidence that the students could have been lying. Kiran90 05:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Kiran, it's easy to miss because it's only in the image caption and the intro which says, "BRISBANE Grammar School had to pay out more than $1 million from its own coffers after allegedly ignoring warnings about a pedophile counsellor." It's not the strongest of references since it's just a bit of editorialising by David Murray, the journalist, and isn't sourced to anyone, but it is there. Sarah 04:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

well, this particular article is in the journalistic form of 'opinionative piece', that is, the jouralist is presenting his opinion. can we really reference that? Kiran90 05:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The introduction is opinion, but the actual article is a news report, rather than an editorial piece. It's not the best source and I think it would be better to find one that sources the "allegedly ignored" claim to someone other than the opinion of the journalist, but it will probably do for now.

I removed "under the guise of 'relaxation therapy'" because I couldn't find that claim in the cited source ([4]). It needs to be sourced accurately before it goes back in. I also removed the second mention of "allegedly ignored". I don't think it warrants being mentioned twice in three sentences. And for clarity, I removed the bolded "two" in "Two former students claimed to have lodged two complaints to the then headmaster Maxwell Howell". The way that sentence was written implies that two students made two complaints each and I don't think that is supported by the source. Sarah 06:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

i still dont think controversy is an accurate term for what happened. it wasnt really controversy as it was scrutiny. the two terms are often confused. Kiran90 08:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC) so it looks like paaerduag isnt going to voice an opinion on this matter until AFTER i edit it? Kiran90 12:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual abuse incident

The positioning of this information gives it far too much weight and effectively turns the article into an attack piece, which is unacceptable. This is one nasty but basically small incident in the whole history of the school and should be treated as such. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and must balance contemporary matters within the whole history. I have therefore moved it to a more appropriate position at the end of the article. It is essentially an appendix. Furthermore there are unnecessary details, which I have removed such as the names of the insurance firm and the lawyers. Tyrenius 06:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tyrenius. I agree with your assessment regarding undue weight and I appreciate your input. I also agree with removing the unnecessary details. Unfortunately it has been a matter of dealing with this section on a near word-by-word basis. Cheers, Sarah 12:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll give my full support to that above comment and the edits proposed / made. All the other GPS schools have had this sort of thing happen, and those with these sort of sections seem to have them at the end. Then again, most of those sections are deleted frequently. I feel that great progress on this article has been made since the early days when it was a big in-joke for those connected at the school and hope that the dispute that had brought progress to a grinding halt over the last few months has now been settled. I hope also that we can move forward together on improving the article while at the same time always bowing to the will of the majority, and that the forces of objectivity will prevail over emotion. Theheadhunter 12:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

as do i. this is EXACTLY what i have been campainging for for the last.... i cant even remember when this saga began. with paaerduag's biased hatred towards the school, this page could actualy have some substance added to it. Kiran90 13:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

4 editors as above are in agreement which makes a strong consensus. This section should not be significantly changed and certainly not enlarged, given more prominence or more negative content without gaining a consensus to do so. Attempts to go against this will be viewed as disruptive editing and may result in being blocked. Tyrenius 19:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

again...58.162.106.140 00:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

5 editors. Tyrenius 02:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

no 4, that one's me not signed in :P i do know of many others who would support, though. Kiran90 03:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lynch suicide

This appears to be unreferenced:

Lynch had been charged in 1997 over the abuse, but committed suicide shortly afterwards.

Tyrenius 06:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The source for that was David Murray's article, School pays sex victims, in the Sunday Mail. I've added a reference in for it. Sarah 13:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Academics and EC

I've updated the Academics and Extracurricular sections. i hope they are to everybody's liking. please, comment! Kiran90 13:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pics

The page is in need of some photo's. can anyone suggest anythng approriate?Kiran90 14:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

we could google earth the school...

But are Google Earth pics copywrited / can we legally use them? Theheadhunter 08:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I recall copyright. Needs to be confirmed otherwise before any use. Tyrenius 13:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you cannot use Google Earth images as they are copyright. You can however use NASA World Wind program (free download and very similar) and tag images from there as public domain using {{PD-USGov-NASA}}. —Moondyne 00:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe one of the students or editors living in the area could take some pictures? Sarah 07:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

thats a good idea, sarah. i might do that... Kiran90 13:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Legally, could I take photos with a digital camera and post them? Acastus69 12:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

yes. that means they are your pictures and u have rights to them Kiran90 14:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sexual abuse section

I believe that the former version of the sexual abuse section in no way overemphasizes negative aspects of the school and/or present biased information. I edited the old version to remove many claims, but now it has been severely hacked at. I want to restore the old version because I believe that it complies with all the 'demands' of the above 5... no 4 editors. I will agree with the placement for the time being, but believe the old version is superior. I see no reason why it was deleted. --Paaerduag 07:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to say that I do not believe that the old section, upon which a general consensus had been reached, is in any way detrimental to the school's reputation (if such a thing should even be considered on a site such as wikipedia. May I remind editors that wikipedia is not an advertisement.) alas, I know that several editors on here are passionate about the school, and I suppose that I have racked up quite a 'reputation', but I urge editors not to delete my changes JUST BECAUSE I'M ME. I am adding positively to an ENCYCLOPEDIA article. I believe the old section was good, and I don't see how it infringes on the rights for the school to receive a good reputation on this site. If there are reasons, I would appreciate if the editors on here vocally opposed to me would tell me why. The entire article has a positive bias to the school, but this section seems to be absolutely neutral. No weazel words, peacock words as far as I can see, and I ask for anyone who sees some to note them on here for revision by a consensus. I am not out to destroy anybody's reputation, but I assume there are people on here out to further damage mine. I am only interested in this article's well being and I have outlined why I returend the old version. I am not striking out in vengeance. I am not violently opposing any and everyone. I am doing what every editor on wikipedia should be able to do: change the article, justify the change on the talk page, and be equally and fairly treated without discrimination. --Paaerduag 07:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Instead of continuing to assume bad faith and making wild accusations about everyone being against you, please, firstly, respect the fact a new consensus has been reached and, secondly, address what problems you have with the new version. For instance, why do you feel it is critical to include the name of the law firm? Sarah 08:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

why should it not be in the article, sarah? It is information, and this is an encyclopedia which provides information. Do you want me to grind away at the paragraph until nothing is left? It is information, and I don't see what is inherently flawed about its inclusion. --Paaerduag 08:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The superfluous information shouldn't be in there because consensus was reached to remove it. If you feel it should be in there, you need to reach a new consensus. What you are doing now is not the right way to do this. You can't win an edit war when your edits are disruptive and against consensus. Sarah 08:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

the old version had a consensus reached about it because it had been agreed that the edited section did not give undue weight to the entire page. i know it must be difficult for your opinions to be shunted, but it happens frequently on wikipedia. 2 administrators and 3 users have all agreed on the section, and it isnt really fair to them if the page was reverted because of one users opinion. it certainly wouldnt be ok if the disputing user was on the other side. Kiran90 08:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)