Talk:Anthony Chenevix-Trench
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group. | ||
I've restored most of anonymous user User:84.64.95.105's edits on the grounds that that the reasons stated for his/her edits are invalid and unsourced. The allegations made by Foot and others are referenced from reputable sources are. The blanket deletion of sources and categories from the article is tantamount to vandalism. As previously written, the article was balanced and well-sourced. User:84.64.95.105's edits amount to hagiography, placed where they are, and though much new useful information has been provided it has been placed in a section which is not appropriate. The change of "Child abuser" to another heading may be justified, but "Controversial schoolmaster" is not it. Emeraude 11:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Abuse
My uncle was under him at Eton, he lasted two to three months then "removed" himself, and went somewhere else. I went to Fettes after he was there, but my seniors had been subject to him. There is no doubt that C-T was a beast of the most awful sort, the problem is, there is nothing verifiable. A creature of his time and pillar of society, it would not be correct to openly destroy him with scandal. (something he was clever at avoiding) However, dispassionately, one cannot call him a child abuser, as he was never brought before the bench and convicted, and the "evidence" today would be inadmissable. A case of 'grin through gritted teeth and bear it'! Brendandh 00:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC).
- Good to have an almost first-hand account. However, I think you are too kind. Read Paul Foot's articles from Private Eye at the time, which were certainly verifiable, or, better still, Richard Ingram's biography of Foot My Friend Footy which makes it quite clear that these are not mere 'allegations'. Unfortunately, I don't have my copy to hand, so I am unable to quote, but will do so in a few weeks and edit appropriately. Emeraude 21:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
