Talk:Brisbane Grammar School/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Repeated Vandalism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History & Past Headmasters 

message: "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)
replies: text: Agreed. And done. --Cnwb 05:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endowment 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed and deleted. Completely unnecessary and trivial. --Cornflake pirate 10:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriate Page Content 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Non-neutrality and verifiability 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  WRONG 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  My Identity 

message: 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'.
<I hope that you will take these thoughts into your thoughts. I also hope that I am not wrong>
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:   Not Right 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Uninformed Users 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Last word on Lynch 

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

message: I've cleaned up these sections a bit to remove some redundancy. --Cornflake pirate 07:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campus // History->School 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History Section re-organisation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Lack of References in article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New Teaching System 

message: 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)
replies: text: Please do not make Personal attacks Ansell 07:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Sexual abuse section - positioning of  

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removed Content 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Stop being stubborn 

message: 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)
thread_title:  You guessed it, sexual abuse again! yay 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Blatently obvious summary 

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

text: Fair enough. Theheadhunter 11:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second paragraph for sex abuse 

message: 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:
[]
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 [] 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)
thread_title:  This cant go on any longer 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Alumni ??? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New Page 

message: 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)
thread_title: Copyright issues