Talk:Broughton Anglican College

Page protection

I've semi-protected the page following a request on RfPP regarding material that was being persistently removed. The material is contentious, and I can't find a source that explicitly mentions this school. It would have to be written up differently, and there would need to be a source that names this school as a former employer. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(copied from SV's talk page) You blanked information that had been previously verified by noted contributors AND an administrator during the deletion period. In fact, the first link in that information you removed explicitly stated that Bailey formerly worked at Broughton, I take this exerpt as example: http://www.smh.com.au/national/brave-girls-pay-high-price-for-exposing-evil-20090418-aarx.html

She said that within a month of his appointment, Bailey, who had taught at Broughton Anglican College at Campbelltown, abolished the school's "no touch" policy.

The information you removed was verified months ago, it is the school's representative that seeks to remove it and suppress any suggested that Frank Bailey was a former headmaster who employed questionable administrative tactics during his tenure. I'll be restoring this information, however, I agree that it does need a re-write in that the references supplied as shoddily stuffed on the end of the paragraph rather then properly noted.

- Count23 (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(copied from SV's talk page) If required, this can also be supplied, but the first article is sufficient in my opinion.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/06/10/1022982821071.html

- Count23 (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

As this seems to be a content dispute, and not vandalism or disruption, I've added full protection until the parties can reach an agreement. The point is that you mustn't go beyond what the reliable sources say about Broughton Anglican College. If the school is mentioned in passing in connection with this other issue, this article can mention it in passing too, but there shouldn't be the kind of elaboration that was on the page when I found it, unless the sources are focusing on this school. No guilt by association, in other words. See this section of BLP for some guidance. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, it could go either way, the easiest route is to say content dispute. But considering the notability of the subject in relation to the article and the fact that actions taken by the subject had a direct affect on the College, I would lean more to whitewashing/vandalism then a content dispute. If this page were properly fleshed out and not just a few paragraphs, then the amount of content regarding the subject would be fine. But since this page is a stub and the "only" things the school is notable for is having an ex-principal in this situation and a single award in 2007, it makes it appear that the person is being made more important then the overall article. I imagine that if the "representative" of the college were to actually build this page properly, rather then simply blank the information he doesnt like and replace it with copies of the schools' copyrighted prospectus, then this would be nothing more then a footnote. - Count23 (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you also the IP that requested semi-protection? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Broughton Anglican College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120321103749/http://broughton.nsw.edu.au/files/reports/2010%20Annual%20Report.pdf to http://www.broughton.nsw.edu.au/files/reports/2010%20Annual%20Report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)