Talk:Brisbane Grammar School/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Repeated Vandalism 2 Neutrality 3 History & Past Headmasters 4 Endowment 5 Appropriate Page Content 6 Non-neutrality and verifiability 7 This article is extremely one-sided 8 WRONG 9 Sexual Scandal 10 My Identity 11 Not Right 12 Uninformed Users 13 Last word on Lynch 14 Revert Vandalism 15 Rewrite of "Sexual Abuse" Section 16 Campus // History->School 17 History Section re-organisation 18 Lack of References in article 19 New Teaching System 20 Sexual abuse section - positioning of 21 Removed Content 22 Sports Centre 23 Stop being stubborn 24 You guessed it, sexual abuse again! yay 25 Blatently obvious summary 26 Second paragraph for sex abuse 27 Academics Section 28 This cant go on any longer 29 Alumni ??? 30 New Page 31 Copyright issues

Repeated Vandalism

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Cornflake pirate 12:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality

In my opinion, many opinions in this article are highly exaggerated, both criticising and appraising the school. I have made some edits to this. --Cornflake pirate 10:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

No school in QLD recievs nearly 100% entry to tertiary entry. [ Editor: Yeh, u sure didnt get tertiary entry and yeh, Grammar did get nearly 100% ]

For the year of 2003; "All students qualified for a Tertiary Entrance score, with 87.9% of the year group in the top half of the State (OP 1-13)" (http://www.bgs.qld.edu.au/news/academicresults03.htm). The acadmeic results do not vary much from year to year, but 2003 was the only year i could find a suitable quote for --138.130.217.86 12:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

History & Past Headmasters

I have rewritten the section on the Middle School and added a short paragraph on the ISC. There is more history to be written eg. the construction of the science block, Centenary Library & Hall & Courtyard, etc. Also I added a "Past Headmasters" section, which I will add to later. --Cornflake pirate 10:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I have edited the blatently bias and vindictive rant about the uselessness of the middle school. Frankly i am shocked that it was passed in the first place. The statistics are made-up and the paragraph is there just to make the school look bad. I have also removed the links to the sexual harrasment scandle pages as not only do they all contradict each other, the stub isnt even on the page anymore. --Kiran 90 12:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Endowment

"With an endowement of only $2 million AUD, it is one of the wealthiest high schools in Australia." - why 'only' $2million. Is that not much? If it is a lot, as is implied with 'one of the wealthiest high schools in Australia', then we should remove the 'only'. - 05:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. And done. --Cnwb 05:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Appropriate Page Content

I believe that some of the content on this page is unnecessary. For instance: "In the past few years, there have been a few major problems. In 2000, an attack was launched against the school, involving vandalism and obscene comments by spray paint. In 2001, a noted year 9 student hacked through the school computer system, showing the lack of security in the school's IT department." These were not major problems, the vandalism happened once and was not such a big issue. Also I don't recall anything being said about the network being hacked during that time. I think this section reflects badly on the school and is largely exaggerated.

In 2000, an attack was launched against the school, involving vandalism and obscene comments by spray paint. This is an everyday occurrence at some schools. Cnwb 23:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed and deleted. Completely unnecessary and trivial. --Cornflake pirate 10:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

there was never any incident of a year 9 student 'hacking' the school system. The act is just a rumour to nring down the schools reputation. As for the necessesity of hacking a school network, you best ask the genious 14 year-old who had the sence to use his brains to needlessly hack into a system in order to get caught and expelled. Good rumour, people! keep it up!

Non-neutrality and verifiability

This article must cite sources, avoid weasel words, and avoid peacock terms. There appears to be academic boosterism in the current version of this article. Uncle G 21:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I have tagged the article to site sources and conform to the neutral point of view policy. Liam 10.00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is extremely one-sided

The school in comment is justly represented in the wikipedia article this discussion page is based around. However, several criticisms that should be provided on a 'non-biased' website such as wikipedia have not been added. the school claims to be 'non-denominational' and yet it forces students of all religions to sing its hymns. Non-denominational DOES NOT mean forcing students who are not christian to have to sing hymns which they do not necessarily believe in. To add to this hypocracy, the school regularly forces its students to bow their heads in prayer to the 'CHRISTIAN' god, and those who do not are told to do so. i do not understand why this school, therefore, can be called 'non-denominational'. Another important factor to consider is that the school prolificates that it has a 'liberal-education' policy, but this is plain untrue. The school has an extremely narrow range of subjects when compared to other schools, with only core subjects like history, geography, science, math etc. The school, therefore, does not have a liberal-education policy, but confines its students to a minimized range of learning. --138.130.223.236 11:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

These comments discuss both issues never mentioned in that article and makes points that are simply factually wrong. The rant about religion is untrue. One tradtitonal English Public School hymn is sung once a week at assembly. Any verses mentioning or alluding to Jesus are left out and not sung. Occasionally (1-2 times a month or so) a breif prayer is offered however those who are not chrisyian simply do not bow their heads. The school does not mind this. In fact, a number of senior members of staff do not bow their heads. Also, this user does not understand what a liberal education is. Liberal education is one where students are encouraced to question what is placed infront of them and this is undertaken in all areas of learning. A broad range of subjects are offered however these are all academic (that is, Advanced Metalwork is not offered). The comments by the user above are totally unjustified and incorrect and thus they should be ignored. Theheadhunter 12:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed

Thank you (theheadhunter), I agree completly. The comments made by User:138.130.223.236|138.130.223.236 are simply speculation comming from an uninformed source. I strongly suggest you think about what you publish before publishing incredibly inaccurate information.

I do not have anything against the school, but i attended it for several years and most of the comments by User:138.130.223.236|138.130.223.236 are not in fact 'incredibly inaccurate information'. I remember frequently singing hymns with lines such as "mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the lord". Prayers were said 2-3 times a month. This was 1 year ago, and from the questions i have asked of current students things have not changed in this respect. Pardon me if i am mistaken but perhaps a disclaimer to the non-denominational status is necessary. perhaps stating that there are a few christian traditions present that no one is forced to follow. Everyone here is entitled to an opinion. While User:138.130.223.236|138.130.223.236 may appear biased the an encyclopedic article is obliged to at least state criticisms, as they are perfectly viable pieces of information. the article should show all sides without showing preference to any. Also, whoever keeps making these comments please sign their posts?Tom - --[[

I am also a newbie, so excuse me if I haven't gone about this in the correct manner, but I wanted to point out that "non-denominational" does not mean "non-religious". A denomination is a branch of a certain religion (eg hasidism, zen or catholicism, not judeaism, buddhism or christianity). Brisbane Grammar was established as, and remains to this day, a non-denominational christian school, meaning that prayers are directed towards a christian god, and christian hymns are sung, however no traditions of specific christian branches (such as catholicism or anglicanism) are adhered to. I can also testify as an old boy that students are not forced to bow their heads in prayer, or to sing hymns, merely to give respect to those who do wish to participate. [Sam]

In terms of subject range, I feel the school could still do better and introduce more 'academic' subjects. Even a dedicated IT subject for Grade 11/12 and/or Film and Television subject would do wonders for the increase of scope. -- bioform

WRONG

A liberal education is a wide range of subjects to broaden the scope of a pupil's learning. It is not going 'there are 1,306,313,812, not 1,306,313,811 people in China, as we were told.' It is expected in a school of the quality of Grammar that the information provided is factually correct and up to date. There should be no need for students to have to question whether the information is accurate. If there is a need of that, students would be better off going to a state school, instead of forking out $12,500 in school fees for the already over-payed staff. I refuse to simply say that grammar is a top school in queensland, if it conveniently avoids its detriments instead of facing them and trying to solve them. at least they can stop lying about the range of subjects which they teach. I refuse to accept lies. --138.130.220.222 10:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Liberal education means a large number of subjects, not validity of information. I agree with the above post in full. --Paaerduag 10:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree. A liberal education means that it isn't limited by traditionalistic dogma or orthodoxy, such as the 'liberal policy' in the 'Liberal' Parties that appear in politics. It may mean that the school takes a liberal approach to the education it offers, and encourages the students to question established opinions (not facts). I cannot comment on the manner in which the subjects are taught at BGS, but I wouldn't base conclusions on data that is irrelevant (ie. the number of subjects). In fact, a narrower range of subjects is actually more liberal for each individual student, as long as the subjects are more general (eg. history, geography, english, science, maths). With a plethora of highly specific subjects, students tend to specialise and ignore all the other areas of study, leading to narrow-mindedness. Hence, without more data, you have no grounds to dispute the statement.

User: 138.130.220.222, the world is not black and white. Headhunter did not mean when the teacher says something, students argue as to the authenticity of the statement. As ^^ said, it’s rather expressing their opinion in a welcoming fashion, rather than the curriculum’s view. The school doesn’t focus purely on learning information to be tested on. Although testing is important, the idea of questioning given information allows the student to fully understand the topic not just for the benefit of getting good grades, but to actually learn about the topic, not just memorising dates. The attention to detail in grammars confined curriculum is what places it as one of the Top schools in Queensland. Your basis for argument is that the school should focus on quantity, rather than quality. Why are people still coming back to the school? Get your facts right and stop posting blatently un-supported, speculative dribble. - Kiran 90

to clarify what is meant by the term 'liberal education'; "the skills of higher-order thinking, the ability to apply knowledge and the baits of mind of effective learners" (http://www.bgs.qld.edu.au/news/academicresults05.pdf) are the capacities that the school hopes to teach its 'life-long learners', and hence the school uses the 'liberal education' to refer to the teaching of these personal skills in conjunction with the expected factual coursework --138.130.217.86 12:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sexual Scandal

The school was involved in a sex scandal with a male teacher a few years back. It was announced at a 'speech night' of the school, in which the headmaster gave the damning address. It vaguely told of the incident, but was rather ambiguous and non-direct. Wikipedia is about truth, is it not? Should this not be the aim of wikipedia? as I see it, this article tells only the side of the school which is positive and all happy-go-happy. I think that all must be revealed. Please don't delete my addition to the article. There is no written record of the incident, because obviously the school does not want to publicise the scandal to the community. I belive that all should be told on this website. If i must, I will use this gathering of the school, this 'speech night', as the source from which I derived this damning information. --138.130.217.86 05:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that users that remove my addition to this page can and will be reported for vandalism, as I am not fabricating untruths, and I am not infringing upon wikipedian guidelines. Vandalism is something I detest, and I will not hesitate to report it. It is a disgusting act and will not be tolerated. --138.130.217.86 06:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, please do not make threats. Your contributions are original research, so they cannot stay. Thanks. Cvene64 07:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue may have some truth at the crux of it, but the presentation of the article is extremly one-sided and questionable. For instance: why would students who dont go to the school any more come forward with accusations after the man has stopped working at the school and committed suicide? May i also point out that although he was convicted of molestation, although he worked at the school for a number of years, there is no solid evidence to prove he conducted vial and sexual acts spesifically at brisbane grammar school. The issue is extremly controversial and various different sources provide different information. Besides, why isnt this being argued on the Anglican Church Grammar School Page or the St. Pauls Collage page: where there is sufficient evidence to prove he did molest children. If i may draw attention to the article User 138.130.217.86 has provided as proof:

The Board has not seen any evidence of enquiries being made of the Grammar School, or if references in respect of Lynch were provided by the Headmaster or anyone else at Grammar. But the Board is satisfied that if enquiries had been made of Grammar, they would not have revealed any suggestion of misconduct by Lynch.

I suggest the stub is rewritten or deleted permanently. Thank you. Section from 'The Issue' down to here by - --Kiran 90 12:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

My Identity

I'm an anonymous user who saw the vote for deletion. I thought it was pretty silly, but i realised that bias was in the article. to try to make the article neutral, i added the criticisms section. zipillo, you're a newbie i'm guessing? well, you cannot delete legitimate article sections without warrant without first discussing the changes on this page. thank you. --138.130.218.222 01:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes 138.130.218.222, I am a newbie, and thank-you for explaining the rules of Wikipedia more thoroughly. I will be more vigilant in future editing.

- Zippillo

I would also like to point out, quite frankly, the arrogance of Users 138.130.218.222and 138.130.216.145 (arguably the same person) and how he can tell a user of Wikipedia what to do when he is already posting blatently bias material on an article he has no knowledge about in the first place.

I notice all those critical of Users 138.130.218.222 and 138.130.216.145 refuse to sign their comments. Users 138.130.218.222 and 138.130.216.145 material is not "blatantly biased'. He is posting information on criticisms made of the school and so far it has all been framed in an encyclopedic way. I attended the school for several years very recently and i can second the truth of his information on the singing of hymns and saying of prayers. That information is not biased, mate, simply the truth - tom

I guess it all comes down to the interpretation of the student. If the student has issues with singing "religious" hymns, then we is perfectly within his rights to not sing them or confront a teacher about the issue. But the school in no way forces students to sing them.

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED STUDENTS ARE FORCED TO SING. just that the religious hymns are sung. and i have no idea why the user who wrote the above post wrote "religious". There is no grey area in terms of religious derivation when you are singing "mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the lord, He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword". Which is what the speech marks imply. people are manipulating my words and the truth. Perhaps they aren't signing their name so they don't have to take responsibility for their lies. I have stated several times that while students are not forced, it is worth stating that there are christian traditions present. 58.165.104.81 01:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC) - tom

Not Right

Hi, i do not think that you (138.130.218.222)should be giving the school a bad name. What has it done to you? I also agree with Cvene64 on the fact of you should not make threats to other Wikipedia editors, as it is against Wikipedia's terms. Zippillo, i understand that you are new at this, so am i, but you should, if you are going to use Wikipedia and edit it, read the 'rules'.

Thanks, Z.H

• To the above user, please use the time stamp button at the top of the edit page box to leave your user IP address. Also, i'm not trying to give the school a bad name. I'm not even from Australia. I'm just trying to make it NPOV because right now it's a little bias. thanks. --138.130.217.232 10:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps the fact that you are not from Australia can account for the fact that this PCRI mentioned does not exist, and that you are not aware the school does not a any body names the P&C 138.130.211.39 08:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe if your not from Australia, you should stop making uninformed judgments on what is 'bias' in an article you have no knowledge about.

If you're not from Australia, clearly you can't know anything about the school, so stop saying 'This isn't true, or this is a rumour' BECAUASE YOU DON'T KNOW! Seriosuly, i'm from the area where grammar is and i'm sitting back laughing at all these people arguing about a school they probably havent even heard of. If you dont know about it, leave it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.205.217.144 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is an international project, people don't have to live in Australia or in QLD to contribute. If you have something constructive to contribute, please do, but if you're just here to moan and complain, don't waste your time. Sarah 13:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Uninformed Users

I'd like to request that people who clearly don't know anything about the school (such as several of the above anonymous users) refrain from adding uninformed and unintelligible dribble to this article. Enough of the tall poppy syndrome, guys. --Cornflake pirate 12:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Damn bloody straight, Flakey

Last word on Lynch

Reading the opinions on this page, most people disagree with the sex abuse section. Lynch was at the school in the sixties or seventies, so what he did has no relevence to the current school. Indeed, it is neary 10 years since he died. The scandal was all over the papers for about 2 days in 2003 and then most people got over it. The school has compensated the boys involved. The wikipedia page blows the whole issue out of proportion. Grammar is not unique in terms of sexual abuse when compared organisations that are as old as it is... but you don't see the page about Catholicism talking about the scandals that some of its priests have been involved in in the past. The criticisms section has no place on a wikipedia page and should be removed ASAP. Anyone who has a sensible argument as to why it should stay, I would love to hear from you. Failing that, I will delete the section on Thursday night. Theheadhunter 12:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

here here.

By deleting this section, the article is not conforming to the NPOV policy. The article will be locked if deletion of this specific aspect of the article is continually deleted. Liam June 28

actually, i think you would find that nearly every sizeable article on an institution contains a criticism section. you used the example of the article on catholicism's lack of a criticism section. that is because there is an entire article called criticism of the catholic church. That said, i don't believe sexual abuse section in this article is contextual or important enough to remain. Just thought i had to point out your manipulation of the truth, john. 58.165.104.81 10:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC) - tom

although i personally question the need for the sexual abuse section, if it is decided that it should be there, why is there not a similar section on the terrace or churchie articles? some equality needs to be shown, or else it is just a clear case of tall poppy syndrome--138.130.217.86 12:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

actually, it could just be a case of the references being specifically about, or more directed, towards brisbane grammar school sexual abuse. you cannot use the excuse that if several school articles are POV, then this one has to be as well. we should strive to make all articles NPOV, and so what if this is the first one to be made NPOV? it was not in the news for two days. it was a large scandal while it lasted, and should be noted. it is like saying that all the headmasters other than the current one should be deleted because they are no longer relevant to 'the current school' so to speak. but they are there to preserve history. and if i am not mistaken, the first section is about HISTORY. we should make it as NPOV AND as factual as possible, and i have checked out the references. they are indeed adequate. i think that the people deleting the section are trying to cover up the incident. this page is not for advertising the school. it is for telling people about it as factually and NPOV as possible. --138.130.217.51 02:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Tall poppies... If this sort of misrepresentation of fact is considered to be required for NPOV, it's no wonder that academic institutions are quickly banning wikipedia as a legit reference! 60.231.31.107 14:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I've looked it over. Where exactly are these infamous misrepresentations?

Firstly, the first few lines imply that the abuse was a recent event. It is not until later that it is revealed that Lynch is dead. It also never says that the abuse actually happened in the seventies (a very long time ago). Also, it never makes mention of the school's response which was extremley open and generous, unlike the response of similar organisations in similar positions. Also, please sign posts by leaving 4 tidles (~) at the end. 60.231.31.107 02:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

138.130.217.51 is acting as if NPOV means saying everything about the school. Blowing a meaningless infringment out of proportion and giving it 10 times as much visual importance as the fact that grammar's had 27 Rhodes Scollars is hardly NPOV. The fact is the incident has little or no relevence to the type of school grammar is today. If it satisfys all with the Tall Poppy Syndrome, the reference at the bottom of the page can lead interested readers to discover the "truth" about grammar.--Kiran 90 11:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I was a border at Brisbane Grammar School from 1984 to 1988. Skippy Lynch was still there then (so it didn't just happen in the seventies). I used to hear stories all the time. It was common knowledge, but we were a bit more naive in those days.

Revert Vandalism

I replaced the sexual abuse section. removing it is vandalism. --138.130.216.179 04:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Incase you didn't see the sources at the bottom, sources are already present, 'baseball baby'. please post only once you have reviewed the entire article, references and all. --138.130.216.179 10:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The source is a 20 word paragraph and most of the information in the Grammar article has either been made up or not sourced. BaseballBaby's point is completly valid.--Kiran 90 11:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, but didn't you notice there were THREE sources, or do you have trouble counting? Two sources are extremely in depth, and the other is still both relevant and factual. --138.130.216.179 02:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Point conceaded and have added the relevent warning labels to the site and i hope it is an indication of the relevence of the information. I still maintain that leaving references at the bottom of the page is enough credit to this irrelevent issue. --Kiran 90 07:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite of "Sexual Abuse" Section

After reviewing the following sources [1] [2] [3] I have rewritten the "sexual abuse" section with a much more neutral point of view and stating only the relevant facts. It is entirely possible that I have gotten something wrong (I don't really have time to read through the entire 471-page report) but it's certainly better than it was. I haven't done the references properly because I haven't yet figured out how, but I will do that soon. Note that I have removed almost all of the Disputed/NPOV tags because I believe that this rewrite has mostly fixed that problem. Feel free to add/remove from this, but please don't add meaningless trivia ("4 teachers, a fireman," etc..). --Cornflake pirate 09:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The re-write is perfectly acceptable. Also, User: Paaerduag, if you change valid information without publishing your change, you WILL be banned from wikiposting. you have been warned

Hmm.. when I say "feel free to add/remove", I don't mean "totally revert". Also, User: Paaerduag, while "Sexual Abuse" is arguably more concise than "Controversy", "Controversy" is unarguably more neutral in tone, and since neutrality seems to be what you want, then I'm reverting the title. By the way, since there is considerable debate regarding this article, it would be appropriate to use this talk page to explain any changes you make. --Cornflake pirate 14:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Meaningless trivia? Neutrality? We shouldn't call the first section history, it should be 'past events.' we should call the headmasters section 'school leaders' or something similar. What do you mean neutral in tone? This article is meant to be concise, and accurate. Covering up something with the word controversy is pointless, unless there is then a subcategory named sexual abuse, because sexual abuse is only one of several controversies surrounding the school. and your removal of useless information? well, maybe i should go through the entire article removing 'useless information'. see, it is only with these sections which make this advertisement-of-a-page look bad which you people want to pad down and hide. it makes me sick to think that this page in not encyclopaedic, but rather is an advertisement for this establishment. I am reverting, because not a sufficient number of people agreed with the rewrite made by cornflake pirate. hey, i'm not so dumb that i think that there are more than one person speaking above. it is cornflake pirate all three times, and that is sock puppetry if i am correct. I am reverting, because this article is POV if you cover up all 'bad' information. it is disgusting to see this, and you have not justified your rewrite at all. --Paaerduag 23:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice Straw Man argument. I've made a WP:3O request. --Cornflake pirate 03:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I ain't followin' what you mean by straw men. care to um... EXPLAIN??? --Paaerduag 05:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't care to explain because arguing is a waste of time. --Cornflake pirate 07:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Found my way in here by WP:3O. What about "Sexual abuse scandal" for a heading? All else aside, I happen to like this version of the section, but I agree that "controversy" isn't a very descriptive heading. Citations or references of some sort would be an excellent idea, here (see WP:V and WP:RS: "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence"). Also, before anybody keeps throwing around the "V-word," we should remember that NPOV and content disputes are not considered vandalism. Also, a more minor issue, but per WP:MOS, section headings generally use capitalization as though they were a sentence, and not a book title... minor issue, I know, just something I noticed. Thank you all for the time you've put into this article, I hope this tense situation can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Luna Santin 08:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I don't yet know how to add citations but I'll figure it out. Without indending to be biased (since your preferred version was written by yours truly), I'll revert to that version and add citations as I necessary. Paaerduag, the major points present in "your version" that aren't in "my version" are -

• '"torture with needles" - the reference for this [4] states "The abuse is alleged to span more than 20 years and includes claims some of the boys were tortured with needles' (emphasis added). Since the reference states this is as a claim, not a fact, it should not be presented as such.
• "The abuse was unheard of publicly until 2003, when 65 former students of the school approached the law firm Shine Roche McGowan" - while it is "(Shine) recovered compensation for 65 former students of the Brisbane Grammar School " [5], the other reference directly contradicts that it was 65 students who initially approached Shine. Furthermore there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the abuse at BGS became public purely due to the claims lodged by Shine.
• "One of the core reasons why the former students were seeking compensation was because they claimed to have reported Lynch's activities to prefects and teachers of the school but were ignored, and Brisbane Grammar School did not reveal the sexual abuse to the public, despite being told it was happening." CITATION NEEDED.

Due to the above problems with these claims, they will be removed from the article until supporting evidence is provided. --Cornflake pirate 14:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, as per WP:NPOV, when it comes to claims, it's important to note that they're claims. Our duty is to present the best possible verifiable information so that readers can make their own choices. If we can find some evidence of a media storm surrounding the lawsuit, it may be worthwhile to note media coverage of the event (I'm predicting there was a good bit). Also, as for citations, you can find more information at WP:CITE, and this particular article seems to use embedded HTML links. Luna Santin 20:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Then why not just admit that your argument is flawed and that not even you understand it, cornflake pirate? --Paaerduag 09:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

My argument isn't flawed because I don't have one; I am not arguing. There is no need to be belligerent. This talk page exists for the purposes of discussing the article, not flinging abuse, and if you continue to be argumentative then I will pursue further courses of action to settle the dispute. However I'd prefer to not do resort to that if I can avoid it. --Cornflake pirate 14:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Within the article, I most clearly stated that the STUDENTS CLAIMED that the torture consisted of needles. Also, I did not say 20 years exactly, I said approximately 20 years. also, the students did try to speak to the school but were ignored. read the references. and read "my version" properly. --Paaerduag 00:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added the students' claims as well as changing BGS to Brisbane Grammar School. We never use BGS in this article, and if we do it is incorrect for wikipedia. Also, the claims of the students, whether right or wrong, should be added because the students were the core of the allegations. I said that the STUDENTS CLAIMED/ALLEGED so I am not stating the students' claims as truths, only as allegations. --Paaerduag 00:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused why "BGS" is "incorrect for wikipedia". See the first paragraph of the article. Also [Brisbane Boys' College], [University of Queensland], et al. --Cornflake pirate 07:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding that sentence on the ignored claims, I moved it from the end of the paragraph to somewhere more in the middle (diff), but didn't change a word of it otherwise; it seems to flow better? Let me know what you think. Luna Santin 05:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

That is better thankyou. I'm happy with the current state of that section. I don't think that "through the law firm Shine Roche McGowan" is really relevant, but I'll leave it for now. :) --Cornflake pirate 06:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I am also happy with the current state, but the law firm is relevant in my opinion. --Paaerduag 08:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, good, we're making progress. The only source I can find for ignored claims so far is this: [6]; it references an archived newspaper article I'm not willing to pay to see (oops). Other than that, can we get the page number for that one? Unfortunately I don't have the bandwidth to download a gazillion pages of pdf, at the moment. Other than that, are we ready to peel off the verify and POV-check templates, or are there any other issues to attend to, first? Luna Santin 10:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Luna Santin, that is an excellent source. --Paaerduag 02:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the current version is suitable, but would still question why such a section only appears on this school's page. Where there are cases to do with other school, should they not also be reported on their pages? such as "Simpson, Terence Anthony" http://www.clergyabuseaustralia.org/perpsqz.htm --138.130.217.86 11:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think that the sexual abuse is even relevant, but its inclusion in this article wasn't my doing. It's quite amusing that there's such a big fuss about it here on the BGS article and there's been no activity at all at the St Paul's article. --Cornflake pirate 13:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is a significant, horrible historical happening at the school, and that the first section is regarding history. therefore, it makes sense for the section to be in the article, not shoved under the carpet like i'm sure many want. I don't have the time to go around to the hundreds of articles that don't have a sexual abuse section and write one, I just have knowledge about this particular incident and therefore have decided to write the section. Hopefully, others will follow suit with other school articles, but that is an extremely remote, if not impossible probability. So, I'm glad that I have positively made this article more in depth and less POV. --Paaerduag 11:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

after looking at your profile i have come to the comclusion that you are a mega nerd. i dont know if you know this, but out in the real world there is a thing called equality, i.e. if something like this appears on one school's page then if there is evidence of similar things at another school it should be mentioned there too, if not then it would just be an obvious attempt to reduce the good name of the school

Thanks for your meaningful contribution to Wikipedia. Please see WP:EQ --Cornflake pirate 03:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Because, if i did the same sort of section on St. Paul's (which I know little about) than I would have to have another mini-war, and this article is only just cooling down now. I've had enough edit-wars for a while. --Paaerduag 01:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh also, the St. Paul's article is so short that a mere 4 lines about the sexual abuse scandal would dominate the article. The article is so short, I fail to see why it should be called an article. In fact, I don't think it even existed until this little war started. It would look ridiculours having a section on sexual abuse and so section on the normal school. This article is well developed and fleshed out, however, and CAN go into detail about such event which occured. --Paaerduag 01:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

So its ok that the issue is too long to be put on the St. Paul's page but on the Grammar Page, when it takes up 10 times as much more room as the fact that Grammar's had 27 Rhode Schollars, its ok. The issue happened in the 70's and is barely relevent anymore. Its a classic case of trying to put a smudge on a well reputable school. I still maintain that links to the issue in the referencs is more than enough. --58.162.103.251 10:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Campus // History->School

I've cleaned up these sections a bit to remove some redundancy. --Cornflake pirate 07:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

History Section re-organisation

I have just added some more subheadings to the history section. I felt that if sexual abuse and headmasters got their own section (presumably so they could be quickly located) other sections also deserved this. So, in the interests of uniformity, all different topics should have their own section, or none at all should. Please don't revert / undo this action without posting reasons on this discussion, as I am always willing to listen to constructive criticism and helpful advise fom other editors. Also, subheading like this may help encourage other editors to expand each individual subheading's section. Theheadhunter 02:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Some-one removed my edits without explaining why here. I thought that was a reasonable request. I ask that if anyone chooses to revert again, they eplain why in this section of the talk page. Theheadhunter 08:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It makes it cluttered. Also, one of these 'sub headings' has ONE SENTENCE. this is ludicrous and obviously has no basis in the 'good of the article' as much as covering up the sexual abuse section, trying to make people avoid it. the reason why the sexual abuse section has its own subheading is because it is history which was not internal in the school, but was largely an external issue once it was revealed to the public. 'Embracing of New Teaching Techniques' is NOT MAJOR. It is simply ludicrous and bias. The School subheading is related to internal affairs at the school, and the sexual abuse subheading is related to that scandal, which was quite big in the brisbane area. The headmasters section is a list, and so it should definately not be included in the main text without a subheading. if this isn't a bad faith attempt, i don't know what is. --Paaerduag 08:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you are very protective of your little sex scandal section, and seem to think that is is relevant to the school today, and that it actually has an effect on something... which it does not... but nonetheless you said yourself that it was an external issue, and i will not change the subheading to reflect that. Theheadhunter 10:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Paaerduag, Being someone from Canada with absolutly know idea of 1. the reputation of the school and 2. the significance of some of the headings, i cant see why your even editing this page in the first place. Yes, i know i know u think someone impartial could make it "NPOV" but then again, how on earth are u supposed to know whether what your changing the information to is relevelent. anyway... You do realise that Brisbane Grammar introduced the 'Dimentions of Learning" and "Habits of Mind" system about 10 years ago and has been so sucsessful that 5 other 'Greater Public Schools' have now adapted that system. But you, of course, would know that, with your perfect knowledge of 1 particular school about 20,000 km away. Oh, and i apologies for not posting anything in a while.. - Kiran90 (not signed in at the time --58.162.103.251 11:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC) Here, i'll stamp the above statment now... --Kiran 11:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Lack of References in article

A lot of the information in this article other than the sexual abuse section is unreferenced, and therefore cannot be kept in the article. There are remarkably FEW references in the article other than the sexual abuse section. This information is possibly false, therefore. --Paaerduag 08:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I can understand your concerns, Paaerduag. From previous posts on this page it is clear that you have a huge interest in making this article fair, full and generally of high quality (even if you have a warped idea of fair). The issue with references is that most of the information is taken from annual reports and other similar archived files, whereas the wikipedian definition of a good source seems to be a website. As this data is not published on the web, I'm not sure how it can be referenced. If you can help me in this regard, I'd love to hear from you. If you are personally interested in this area, as you seem to be, I suggest you contact the school and ask for copies of every annual report from, say, the last five years. If you read through them you will find that every claim made about the school is true. This argument that no reference = false is flawed and it is unfair to say that without being fully aware of all facts. Remember, there is this wonderful thing called the 'real world' away from your computer and it is full of things called 'books'. Again, if you teach me how to make references to books in Wikipedia I will happily work with you to fully reference this article. Theheadhunter 10:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm not insulting you personally. You're just making this a vendetta. You are simply acting under bad faith, which is understandably seeming that you are obviously affiliated with the school (or at least your user page suggests this). So don't accuse me of having no life or only having an internet life. I don't read EVERY ANNUAL REPORT. I'm sure you do, however, and if you knew more about wikipedia surely you would understand that when referencing a book, report or other physical text you provide author, date of publication and page number. there may be one or two other things needed, but my point is that it is well documented on wikipedia HOW to in fact reference these reports. So please don't claim that there is no way, or that you are not privy to the information which i'm sure you am considering that you are a university student who has to reference materials for essays ALL THE TIME. so references ARE NEEDED or the information is indeed irrelevant and/or factually disputable. --Paaerduag 12:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA please. By the way, not everybody goes to university, and not all university students write essays. --Cornflake pirate 11:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm not insulting you personally. You're just making this a vendetta. You are simply acting under bad faith, which is understandable seeming that you are obviously very anti the school. Hmm.. is it just me or does that sound familiar, paaerduag? I know that all the information on this page is fair and true. You seem to be the one who is concernes about a lack of references, I have told you how to get them, so go and get them. Furthermore, I did not write that userpage and would like it removed, I'm just not sure how to go about this. As for not insulting me, the vendetta stuff didn't. What did offend me was the assumtion that I attend university. Assuming you live in Brisbane, did you come and see "Away" produced by the Qld Theatre Co. a few months ago? You don't go to uni to go and work in a theatre, mopping the stage during interval. I would like an apology, I think that is a reasonable request. 138.130.211.39 12:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign in, sorry) Theheadhunter 12:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

so you claim that your OWN user page, edited mostly BY YOU is false, which is untrue. i am assuming that you attended brisbane grammar school. most people attending the school, as you should know, DON'T END UP MOPPING THEATRE FLOORS!!! 99.99% go to university. are you telling me you are in the 0.01% of people who drop out despite their parents paying ludicrous fees? what a waste! --Paaerduag 13:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a blatant personal attack. Please comment on content, not the contributor.

Umm, actually, if you look at the history of the userpage, you will see that there has only been one edit, by "*******" (a user that is not theheadhunter) and no, I did not go to the school. I went to Indooroopilly State High School. Please don't judge like that, you don't know what your talking about. Do you have a connection to the school? It's just that most people don't know about the abuse, it was in the papers in 2002-ish but since then everyone has forgotten. Of course, that is a personal question, I won't be surprised if you don't answer it. Theheadhunter 08:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have re-added the deleted info, since I personally know that it is true (I have physically seen them training at the school). I'm currently trying to find a reference, please do not delete the info until then. --Cornflake pirate 11:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

From what i can see, you're idea of making things fair is having a section critisising the school purely for the sake of having it there to "balance" it out, even if 1. it isnt even relevent, and 2. you dont even know the relevence of the issue because you dont even live in the country! You think Canadian culture is the same as Australian culture? of course not! the simple fact that you even consider editing a page shows how disturbingly arrogant you are. I strongly suggest you stop editing pages without sufficient information without even registering it over the talk page! and please, stop insulting wikipedia users, particullarly ones who actually know what they're talking about... --58.162.103.251 11:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC) (Kiran90, not signed in) here, i'll stamp the comment now --Kiran 11:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

so you accuse me of editing this page "without sufficient information" ('Brisbane Grammar School Talk Page', Wikipedia 2006, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brisbane_Grammar_School#Lack_of_References_in_article (updated August 2006), The Wikimedia Foundation), but you are deliberately vague. What do you mean sufficient? Do you mean sans sources, because i assure you that if you bother looking at the section there are indeed sources. People blamed and ridiculed me for having no sources, so I added them. Why, then, can the same action be taken against the REST of the article? WHERE ARE SOURCES??? PEOPLE BLAMED ME FOR HAVING NONE, SO I'LL DO THE SAME!!! This article, excluding the sexual abuse section, is SANS SOURCES. Perhaps all the biased, un-sourced claims should be removed. please don't accuse me of lacking sources, Kiran. Please don't make this a personal vendetta. This section has already been discussed, have you checked the HIStory section? --Paaerduag 07:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Woah, calm down guys! It's a school page, not a pub biff! I've been thinking about the sources issue, and when i get time (prob not for a few weeks) i'll do a total, fully-references re-write (with your precious sex abuse in, Paaerduag). In the meantine, i think the school's website has got the last year's results up... so if some-one wants to get started, thay can. I wish people would stop deleting stuff, it's all true if they do their reading, so it's really vandalism... oh well, thats wikipedia for you! Theheadhunter 09:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In a completely non-personal way, I think you've missed the point (impersonally). It wasn't, personally, about the lack of references. It was actually about the fact that a person from outside of the area, not personally attacking you of course, should not be editing a page where he has no primary knowledge of the topic, but rather knowledge read from a website that could easily be more bias that what has been posted, in a completely un-personal way im saying this. All im saying, un-personally, is that knowledge of the school directly, as well as knowledge of the culture of Brisbane society (im not trying to start a personal vendetta) is necessary to actually post a NPOV article. Editing without 'talking' it (this is completely not personal) without a personal (un-personally) understanding of the topic isn’t particularly accurate. See, I didn’t make it a personal vendetta! --Kiran90 09:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Edited the sexual abuse section. I hope its to your liking, Paaerduag. I just changed some of the exagerated words like "public controvery", as it was in the newspaper for 1 day. However, i agree that it is a relevent issue, just not as relevent as other recent and more prominent issues, thus justifying its move from the top of the page to the bottom. Lets leave it at that until this page it re-written. Kiran90 12:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Kiran90, you are a vandal and take the users of wikipedia for fools. Apparently, you "edited the sexual abuse section." Well, I'm all for positive editing, but please explain THIS Kiran90: [7]. It blatantly shows that by "editing the sexual abuse section," you actually mean DELETING THE ENTIRE THING!!! And non-coincidentally, on the same day that you did this, 28th August 2006, you also asked if it was "to [my] liking," as written above. Sarcasm? Kiran90, you are an vandal, it's as simple as that. I HAVE the evidence. People, look at that link if you think this is a vendetta. Oh, and Kiran90, please don't delete the truth. --Paaerduag 07:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You might want to look at that diff a bit more closely, you'll find that the section wasn't deleted. --Cornflake pirate 09:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

(EDIT: Removing Personal attack/Uncivil comment) --Kiran90 12:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks or speak in an uncivil manner. Ansell 13:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I now acknowledge the fault I made. I apologize FOR THAT INFRINGEMENT OF WIKIPEDIA POLICY, and the automatic assumtpion of bad faith, which obviously goes against the guildlines of this site, which are my only concerns whilst adding information to this site. Moving on however, to the positioning and naming of the sexual abuse section in the Brisbane Grammar School article, I believe that we must first define the term 'School History'. Obviously 'school' refers to the establishment in question, and OBVIOUSLY 'HIStory' refers to past events in the school. I belive that the sexual abuse scandal is an 'HIStorical event' or am I mistaken? Am I to believe, for the sake of argument, that it is ongoing? Well clearly, if you do not consider the sexual abuse scandal as an 'HIStorical event', then there are few other conclusions to be drawn. I do not think that it should be placed at the bottom of the page for several reasons. However, I would like to know why 'Kiran90' wants this section to be there. I am placing the sexual abuse section back in the HIStory section, because until justification is provided the edits of 'Kiran90' are, in my opinion, wrong. I also think that naming of the sexual abuse section as 'legal controversy' is absolutely ludicrous. I mean, that could mean anything from injury claims to a funding crisis. Headings should, MUST, be precise and NOT ambiguous. --Paaerduag 13:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah sorry, I must have removed the wrong copy. --Cornflake pirate 08:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine, keep it at the front of the page. but i AM reverting the edits you got rid of. I'll leave the heading as Sexual Abuse until we get a 3rd opinion. 58.162.103.251 08:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC) - forgot to sign in Kiran90 08:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, i dont see how " School Affairs" or "Academics" is precise ... Kiran90 08:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow... another talk page section has turned into a fing between about 3 or 4 users over this sex abuse section. If you look at the other GPS schools pages, their sex abuse sections tend to be at the bottom of the page. Mind you, at the time of writing all but the Ipswich Grammar School pages seem to have their sections deleted. An open question to someone who understands this community more that me: Is there some way of polling the general membership about these sections? I'd like to see some uniformity... All the GPS schools have has sexual abuse in the past, so can we gat a vote to decide, for all cases, if sections regarding this area should be (a) At the top (b) at the bottom or (c) not there at all (given the lack of relevance today, etc)? I hope that this can resolve this issue once and for all so Kiran90 and Paaerduag can move on and try to achieve something useful for wikipedia. As I said, anyone know how to set up such a poll? Theheadhunter 10:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know about the other school's sex abuse section. It's good to see that there are other editors who agree that it's really irrevant. --Cornflake pirate 09:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

those of you who think that the abuse is "not relevant" any longer are sorely mistaken. We must learn from past mistakes, and that involves cracking down on this sort of horrid behaviour which has erupted across the GPS school system. It was also quite a BIG scandal, as it was in the news and newspapers, which actually proves that it caused quite a stir. The major thing i'd like to point out to you all is something which I have repeated and repeated time and time again, and yet you people just keep ignoring me. THE REASON WHY THE SEXUAL ABUSE SECTION SHOULD BE AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE IS BECAUSE THE TOP OF THE PAGE CONTAINS A 'HISTORY' SECTION, AND BECAUSE THE SEXUAL ABUSE IS AN HISTORICAL HAPPENING, IT SHOULD BE IN THE 'HISTORY' SECTION!!! WHY CAN'T YOU PEOPLE LISTEN TO ME, NOT IGNORE ME? HISTORY MEANS HISTORY!!! --Paaerduag 11:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope your left-wing angry 'bold-shouting' mind understands the fact that the media and police made a deal out of it purely because it was a private school and this event was out of the ordinary, therefore, something to milk for all its worth. You seriously think worse things dont happen at other schools? It was a comparitivly minor incident that was blown way out of proportion because the school had rarely had a black mark on it before. I think headhunter and cornflake pirate is right. Remove it from all the pages (via. a poll if necessary). --Kiran90 11:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

New Teaching System

I think the site needs information about the new teaching system, Dimensions of Learning, Habits of Mind and such: basically teaching thinking. --Kiran 12:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually disagree, I never really found DoL useful or informative. Habits of Mind was very good but it's probably insufficiently relevant for WP. :/ --Cornflake pirate 09:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ha, fair enough. I didnt used to like it, but now that i actually know what it is, its a suprisingly good method of teaching. they're using it and we dont even realise we are too. --Kiran90 12:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Jared, did u put that picture of the school uniform in? Kiran90 12:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No, actually it was Lungfish83: [8]

Sexual abuse section - positioning of

i dont think you should be making the school sound bad, what about all those future parents, and i bet most of you dont even live here, so you wouldnt know the importance of letting the good schools keep their good reputations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.205.217.144 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a public relations or school promotions site. We write what we can verify through reliable sources. This sometimes includes reporting things you may think do not promote the school to prospective parents. Public relations and promotion is not what we do here. Sarah 13:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Right - let's try and sort this out rather than edit war. Where in the article should the section be?

At the top as it currently is or further down towards the end of the article? --Charlesknight 12:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I know it may seem unjustified, but when I tell you people why it should be at the top, YOU IGNORE ME!!! READ IT AGAIN!!! THE REASON WHY THE SEXUAL ABUSE SECTION SHOULD BE AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE IS BECAUSE THE TOP OF THE PAGE CONTAINS A 'HISTORY' SECTION, AND BECAUSE THE SEXUAL ABUSE IS AN HISTORICAL HAPPENING, IT SHOULD BE IN THE 'HISTORY' SECTION!!! HISTORY MEANS HISTORY!!! --Paaerduag 07:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make Personal attacks Ansell 07:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No it's not that we ignore you - but Wikipedia works with consensus and to avoid an edit war, we need consensus about this article. Also plus turn off your caplock, it does not help your argument and generally on the internet is associated with shouting. I don't like shouting. --Charlesknight 07:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that at the top of the article with it's own subheading gives too much visual importance to the section, given that its relevance to the school today is questionable. Instead I think that if the section must remain, it should be within the history section, without a subheading. In fact, the history section should have no subheadings, this is just silly given its length. Also, I think that this article needs to focus more on the school today, with the possibility of re-ordering the page sections in the future as part of an overall 'reconstruction-facelift' project Theheadhunter 12:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, headhunter, i think thats a good idea. It keeps the information (which is apparently relevent) in the page without drawing unnecessary attention to it. Go ahead with it, if its ok with everyone else... --Kiran90 11:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm new to this page and issue, so pardon me butting in, but I wonder whether it might be worth having a page on cases of sexual abuse within Australian schools, using factiva as a reference source. I would suggest having a one line link to the other page. Sexual abuse is always going to be an emotional issue, but also one which is important to discuss openly, and perhaps having the one page would be easier to manage? Anyway, what do people think?Yowie 01:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed Content

[9] "In 2003, the former students rejected out-of-court compensation from the school, and claimed compensation through the law firm Shine Roche McGowan." This information is all about the students and the law firm and is not really relevant to the actual school. "controversy" was removed due to being a highly connotative word and replaced with "scrutiny". "large" is highly subjective. I also feel that "were ignored" is also highly subjective and unclear - "the issue was not pursued" is much more precise. This is not a case of cutting and chopping what I please; in fact most of these edits were made by other people which I support. Wikipedia works by consensus, not one person ranting and raving on the talk page and making personal attacks against anybody who makes changes to this section. I can see at least 2 editors other than myself who are reaching a consensus on this issue while you are acting on your own to revert any changes that are made, and I believe that if any moderation action is taken then you will find as much support as you did during the first AfD nomination. --Cornflake pirate 09:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the reason why sexual abuse should have a separate section is because it is the ONLY instance in the History section where the school got involved with the media, and received external attention. I call that BIG. I believe that the section should have a title because everything else is dealing with the school itself, and it's own biddings, but the sexual abuse actually involved forces greater than the school (media, courts, police etc.) Please, also, do not change individual words which by your opinion do not fit in the article. I have AMPLE references in the sexual abuse section, and i think that your word edits, cornflake pirate, are simply the attempt to downgrade the article to something which complies with the overall 'positive' view or the school. also, please do not accuse me of launching personal attacks, as I am most certainly not. I just feel that in their own stubborn ways, people are ignoring me because they are so set in their own 'ideas'. I am also going to go through the entire article and remove obviously fabricated/un-sourced claims, because the same scrutiny was applied to the sexual abuse section, and should therefore be applied to the rest of the article. --Paaerduag 08:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you're prepared to make the claim that the scandal was the only event where the media was involved, you might want to watch the news and read the papers more carefully. Also, history will be the judge of whether you have been launching personal attacks. --Cornflake pirate

The school gets involved with the media at least once a month about its academic achievments, but a reader has to scroll down past an issue from the 1970's just to read 1 line about it. Then again, not having that information would make it NPOV cause someone not from brisbane wouldnt know that. At least, this is what i've learnt from this talk page... --Kiran90 11:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I just read Cornflake pirates above post "Removed Content" fully, and it’s good to have someone else seeing my point of view. We have on one side, people who want the website changed and keep changing it, while posting their changes in talk. The other side: one user from the other side of the world who keeps reverting changes without posting them in talk and also personally insulting anyone who doesn’t agree with him. Hmm...... I seriously can’t see why we're arguing any more... I’m re-writing the whole thing these holidays and, yes i'm serious, I vote that information goes in on a majority vote through the talk page. I also feel quite personally insulted and, frankly, disgusted at the behaviour of Paaerduag. Personal Vandalism, editing without discussing, editing a page without any personal knowledge, un-necessary anger and shouting. I think wikipedia needs to have a serious look at who they're letting edit their pages. I vote we leave the page as it is (maybe put an 'under-re-construction' thing at the top, and i'll go about re-writing it in a couple of weeks. Thanks to everyone who made their opinion known and let me know what you think of my comments. --Kiran90 12:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow Paaerduag... If you spent half as much time working on the article as a whole as you do arguing on this page, you could have found references for every claim made on the wikipedia page... try looking on the school's website and the Courier Mail's online archives. Also, I think it would be best if unsubstantiated claims had a "citation needed" tag attatched rather that remove them totally. This way, other authors who have time for such things can go out and find the sources (they do exit) rather than have you totally decimate and destroy the page. Now that would make it POV in terms of anti-school, and as we all know, you want this article to be NPOV. Theheadhunter 12:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, i could have put 'citation needed' or i could have just deleted them. Unfair? well, that's what you people did to the sexual abuse section. Some people had the nerve to go and delete the entire thing. I did not have the courtesy of a 'citation needed' tag. I do believe that double standards are hypocracy, but then again someone else will accuse me of something else. I think that one person, Kiran90, should be disgusted with his/her behavior in this issue, for accusing me of such horrid things. That is what i call a personal attack. I also don't think that Kiran90 should be allowed to re-write the article entirely by his/herself, as that is blocking the other opinions of those on wikipedia, which is the 'free' encyclopaedia. I don't understand why people are so obsessed with removing and/or vandalising the section. What's wrong with it? why can't people justify on the talk page what they're going to do?

Also, another interesting loophole in this attack against my intelligence and integrity, Kiran90 accused me of "editing without discussing", but then HeadHunter comes and says that I had "spent half as much time working on the article as a whole as [I] do arguing on this page, [I] could have found references for every claim made on the wikipedia page." I call that hypocracy. What else is it. I get accused for not using the discussion page, and then accused for using it TOO MUCH. Doesn't make much sense to me. By the way, I was BORN in Canada. Now I live in Brisbane. I just didn't feel safe telling people that due to the sickos on the internet these days. So yes, I do know about the school. --Paaerduag 07:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, how is it hypocracy if 2 different people say it? Or are you back in this 'everyone is against ne' mentality... Secondly, arguing about meaningless, trivial issues doesnt mean you're actually aknowledging your changes. I mean, the sexual abuse section has agaian had its corrections reverted without any word from you. Now, do you want to make a responce to my other claims or can we go ahead and ban you from partaking in the re-writing of this page?--Kiran90 11:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my post also said it was to be re-written with the aid of theheadhunter and cornflake pirate as well as anyone interested with a suitable knowledge of the school. Besides, if people actualy did justify their changes, then we wouldnt be arguing or have to change everything. Im not being very subtle, am i...... Kiran90 11:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Paaerduag (on the issue of 'citation needed'), I think it is bad that people vandalised your section when it was first started. I only ask that in respone you do not vandalise the rest of the page. Put yourself above that, do not lower yourself to their level. Theheadhunter 08:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and for the recod, i never deleatd anything. That was the time i moved it and you flew off the handle in your crazy-capslock-bold rant. Remember? --Kiran90 08:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sports Centre

Why does the information about the sports centre keep getting edited/removed??? Its prefectly legit and sourced! --Kiran90 11:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Some information here has been re-added. It took me about 30 seconds to find appropriate sources. *rolls eyes* --Cornflake pirate 09:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop being stubborn

I just want to make the point that I am absolutely sick of this article. Some editors here are trying to work towards a consensus; however it seems that one editor in particular is spoiling all this hard work by constantly reverting all other people's edits, constantly making personal attacks on the talk page and in edit summaries and generally acting like s/he is the boss and the ultimate ruler and authority over this page. Stop being so selfish and stubborn and give everbody else a go. --Cornflake pirate 09:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You guessed it, sexual abuse again! yay

Lets make this nice an easy for you, Paaerduag-y Newspapers = public 1 day = brief page 17 = scrutany not controversy Speculated Joke rather than justified accusation as what most schools would do = not persued

5 days = not brief Page 1 = Controversy Actual, repreated claims supproted by evidence turned away = ignored

Now, which one are we putting in. And of couse, by we i mean everyone except you, Paaerduag. there are at least 5 people who are in support of this, as Cornflake Pirate said, stop being so childish and immature. Grow up and live with the fact that its a good school. You've made enough of an irrelevent black mark on the school as it is. Suck it up and stop vandalising wikipedia. 58.162.103.251 12:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I am hurt and insulted and feel that your 'attack' against me is unjustified. Kiran90, if you bothered to READ my edit summaries instead of ignoring them and attacking me personally on my talk page, you would have learned that the Shine Roche McGowan source proves my statement in the sexual abuse section. How, may I ask, is this vandalism? All my claims are justified. YOU are the one VANDALISING, because you constantly delete parts of the sexual abuse section for your own personal goals. Yes, fine, work on the rest of the article, but because everything in the sexual abuse sections has been JUSTIFIED, that is my reason for why it should stay. If you say it isn't relevant, I dispute that in full. Oh, and if the sexual abuse section NEEDS sources for EVERY STATEMENT AND WORD, so does the rest of the article. Just again, in case you forgot, check out the Shine Roche McGowan source at the bottom of the page to see whether my claims are true. I assure you they are, and please don't start a wild source-deleting spree just to defame me. --Paaerduag 12:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, would someone please link to the relevent sources here on the talk page. Also, I am going to warn everyone on this page to stay Civil. Also I will be watching for 3RR. I would like to request that everyone involved try to summerize their point of view. Please do so in a nice way.—— Eagle (ask me for help) 14:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

um.... i don’t like it when you yell, it makes me sad :'( You're being a little extreme and presumptuous here, you're references dont say such drastic things as "were ignored" and "public controversy", in fact, it doesnt say anything like that. there isnt even any information that it was in the media! I never deleted any of your beloved and apparently relevant sexual abuse section, i just changed some of the biased words. The number of times you've flown of the handle-bars, im surprised you're still riding the bike!

"Th numberof stufdents was 65, be precise" says Paaerduag. hmm... i might be wrong, but the quoted source says 31 students who testified (not who claimed to be abused). But you must have known tha, you've scanned the sources so accuratly, right? this is most unusual... --Kiran90 11:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

your claims are ridiculous. Since when did the students live at the school? and THEY Were abused, they weren't the ones being told about it. please don't purposely confuse people to breed a web of misconceptions here. --Paaerduag 11:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Blatently obvious summary

Lets make this clear so certian, immature people dont have hissy's and crash their bikes. I have re-worded the abuse section judging by the content on the pages. The nukmber quoted is 31 students who said they had knowledge of sexual abuse, 65 was the total number (including students frm St. Pauls). There was also no evidence of itbeing medial controversy, but it is clear that it was scutinized amongst interested members of the public. There is also no evidence that teachers ignored the claims put forawrd by the students, but the fact that settlements were made and nothing went to court indicated that the issue was not persued. --Kiran90 11:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

actually, the shine website said 65 BGS students; also, the source after the bit about the ignorant teachers clearly and categorically proves the claim. I've said it before and i'll say it again: READ THE SOURCES. --Paaerduag 07:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, both of you please calm down. If this dispute is not settled soon, I am going to refer to WP:MEDCAB, or I can just full protect the page for the period of time it takes for you to resolve this arguement. Don't revert anyone unless you state why on this page. Thank you. Right now this article is making 0% progress with you guys reverting each other. Lets change that and add some more to the page. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 23:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, which is why the version which has been justified in the talk page i rightfully the one that stays.58.162.103.251 11:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the point being made in the first paragraph is that the sources contradict each other, not the validity of the information 58.162.103.251 11:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Reading the latest version of the saga that is the sexual abuse section, i think it is....tolerabe. Ignoring some grammatical discontinuality, i think it aptly reaches a compromise. Kiran90 23:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Second paragraph for sex abuse

In line with what WP:TPA has to say about all points of view should be included, I have added a second paragraph to the sex abuse section reflecting some users' opinions that the section is irrelevant. Please no-one stalk me for the next 3 years before pushing me infront of a train for daring to edit this section ;) Theheadhunter 10:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed your second sentence. We can't editorialise like that, sorry. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Theheadhunter 11:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have, once again, reverted the change back to this version of the section. I have also moved it below the 'headmaster' section, so users dont get assaulted by the words SEXUAL ABUSE as soon as they click on the page. i think the school has earned at least that much. 58.162.103.251 07:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This IS NOT a promotions page! Headmasters is a LIST. Sexual abuse is history, and therefore should come first. No one is OFFENDED, because I'm assuming that people come here for facts, not promotional material. Also, I am absolutely sick and tired of certain pseudo-users and sock puppets and shadow accounts REPEADTEDLY DELETING the sexual abuse section. That is ABSOLUTELY unacceptable, and there can be no doubt at all that it is VANDALISM. --Paaerduag 09:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

For god's sake, Paaerduag, get over it. Everyone else has. Theheadhunter 11:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

He's right you know... Your lack of justification (and evidently eye-sight) is really getting old... 58.162.103.251 07:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Academics Section

All boys who pass through the school qualify for an OP.

Does this mean that there is an opportunity for them to get an OP (in which case it's fairly trivial) or that there are no OP-ineligible students. If it's the latter, perhaps someone should expand on why there aren't any. --Aioth 13:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

All students must study 6 subjects and do the QCS. Since all subjects are board subjects then all students qualify for an OP, i.e. going to BGS there is no way to not get an OP.

Cheers, shouldn't the lack of vocational subjects and such be noted? I've got to admit I don't know if this is standard fare for GPS schools. --Aioth 04:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

it was noticed, and debated if you view above discussions ^^. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.162.103.251 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC).

Would you like to point it out for me? I can't see any discussion about OP-eligibility or vocational subjects. --Aioth 11:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This cant go on any longer

Paaerduag, and all you other uses sick of having Brisbane Grammar School tarnished with reports of sexual abuse 35 years ago, this is gonna end... this what i put on Paaerduag's talk page and i feel you should all read it:

I would like a link to the talk page where all your corrections are justified please. This is where the current version is justified:

[[10]]

Now, in order to justify your version, the following justification must be given. Point by point, please. Let’s make this as clear as possible.

1. The fact that it was CONTROVERSY - meaning that it was under heated debate amongst the PUBLIC. being in a newspaper for one day does not mean public controversy, it is public scrutiny as the school was having an article written against then, not arguing with the chance to post their side of the story.

2. The verified number of students abused. One of your references says 65, the other says about 30. Contradicting sources is not good; especially when one of your main arguments for the stub is that you sources are perfectly accurate.

3. Where it says the students were ignored. Ignored meaning the school knew that Kevin Lynch had definitely sexually abused them, and the school intentionally did not do anything in order to maintain the schools reputation. On the other hand, if the school had no evidence other than the student’s word, which is understandably unreliable, the school had no choice but to dismiss the matter as an attempt to put a bad reputation on a teacher, which happens frequently at all schools.

4. Why the school does not have firmer policies in place to avoid similar incidences. You keep deleting that part to, so I can only assume that it’s true.

Now, in order for FULL justification to be clear, an answer to the above points should be made on the talk page of grammar, and preferably on the talk page of my user. Then, and only if it is agreed upon by more users than just yourself, you're precious section may stay.

In my PERSONAL opinion, you are already pushing your luck to have that section being there in the first place. You have not justified your changed at all; you have simply stated that you have justified them. Only if the above issues are cleared up, will your version stay. If not, the version justified in the talk page at [[11]] should rightfully stay, as par Wikipedia rules.

I expect your response ASAP; this debate can’t go on any longer. Kiran90 10:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm not even going to read that rant, it's probably full of mean, inflammatory comments directed at certain editors. I would just like to state that I support the version reverted to by Kiran90 and believe that this reflects the views of the majority of editors, but I also congratulate Paaerduag for making efforts to deal with that stupid vandalism that some-one had added to the page. Theheadhunter 11:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you headhunter. For the record, there arnt (many) comments directed at..... certain users Kiran90 09:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Alumni ???

Why is there no alumni section in this article ? Articles like Ipswich Grammar School have extensive alumni sections. Has noone famous attended this school ? --Biatch 05:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The section was deleted by Cvene64 back in May. I agree that there should be a section like that in, most of the other GPS schools have one. I have put it back in. Obviously, this is hard to reference but may I gove my personal assurance all the names in this version are accurate. Any references for any of them would help. There are also others, obviously, feel free to add them in. Theheadhunter 00:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

New Page

I posted a new versio without copyright infringment. Please review it here ( *cough* before you delete it without justification *cough*) and tell me what needs to be changed. Thanks! Kiran90 00:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, seriously. am I not being clear enough? because im SURE that this comment could not be interpreted in any other way. For instance, it does not say "delete the entire page and apparently justify it in 5 words under the edit summary". it also does not say "type in caps lock and see how many question marks i can fit in before people start believing in my unjustified arguments. YES, arguments! all that is happening is that you're finding one little error you think is an issue, and using that error as an excuse to re-write the entire page in the way that you feel is accurate to your opinion, speaking generally of course. if you think something’s wrong, you discuss it. you dont delete it until you have actually discussed it. Deletion is not discussion, it is deletion. it is vandalism. it is NOT within the rules of Wikipedia and if this page were cared about more than it is, then something might have been done about it before. i have tried and tried and tried to put my edits in this talk page but i cannot have my edits discussed if al that is happening is that idiots are breaking the rules and deleting the entire page. wikipedia canot work if people just do whatever they want to without regard for anyone/anything else. seriously guys, its REALLY not that difficult! Kiran90 12:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

71.146.69.170 ( you're not even a user, let alone an administrator. follow the rules and dont revert for no reason. Kiran90 06:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

please don't pull the three-legged stool on me, Kiran90. You have been nothing but a rogue editor on this page. I never REWROTE anything other than the abuse section. like you mindlessly deleted the abuse section countless, yes, COUNTLESS times, whilst ignoring the blatant sources, i am deleting material which is NOT JUSTIFIED BY SOURCES or IS A RIP OF THE SOURCES. i am simply acting as you have in the past (excluding plagiarism), so you should take my 'aggressive' source-based editing style (which has, may i remind you, been in inactivity since August 18 till the end of the year) as a compliment, Kiran90, or whoever you are, and also your countless other sock puppets. --Paaerduag 04:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issues

This page is going to be down for a little bit; don't panic anyone, it will be back up as soon as possible. Sarah 01:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately most of this article was a blatant copyright violation ripped off the school's website. Because Kiren and his various sockpuppet telstra IPs have constantly tried to revert the copyvio material back in, I've had to delete it from the history. We can write about those same school topics, but we have to do it in our own words and not just steal other people's work. Sarah 03:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)