Talk:Patrician Brothers' College, Blacktown

Semi-Protection

The creators of this page would like the semi protection of this page to continue indefinetly.

Controversies section added

I have added a section dealing with the conviction of former teacher Brother Martin, and the arrests and investigations of other teachers at the school. Given that Martin Harmata was convicted of abusing students at the school while he was a teacher (along with the arrest of Alan James Pollock), I was surprised there was no mention on the page. I think it well meets the criteria for noteworthiness and relevance. I've added several references to the reporting at the time. I suspect that there is more to this story, but it might be under legal suppression orders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.207.146 (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Contoversies section reinstated

I find it extraordinary that there has been this attempt to delete a significant portion of history. The IP responsible for this edit appears to be associated with Patrician Brothers Blacktown - it is the same IP as the patsblacktown.nsw.edu.au domain. Please, if you are going to delete a large section of this article, make some attempt to justify your actions. If Brother Harmata can acknowledge his wrong doings, then surely the school can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.207.146 (talk) 02:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

And again. The whole section was blanked with an edit summary of "Defamation". Given that these arrests and convictions are on the public record and are all sourced, I'm not sure how they could all qualify as defamation. Especially since the Catholic Education Office itself has acknowledged these crimes. This is not a trivial matter. Brother Harmata was employed by the school for about 20 years, living next door for most of that time. There are four former teachers implicated, two so far have been gaoled. There has been at least one suicide linked to these abuses. These problems cannot be fixed by ignoring them. Deleting things just because you find them distasteful is not cool. 60.240.207.146 (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Minor edit war

There have been repeated removals of the Controversy section, but 'anonymous' users (both appear to be local to Sydney, Australia - and one shows as being from the same locality as the Patrician Brothers Province Office). Section blanking, without adequate reason, is not cool. If you have concerns about particular content, then limit your revisions to that content. If you find you are making the same edits over and over, then come to the talk page and make your case.

All of the content in the Controversy section is sourced, sources which include the Bishop and Catholic Education Office. Seriously, it's straight from the horses mouth. The school did employ teachers, in one case for about 20 years, who sexually assaulted students and other young people. People are in gaol. This is all on the public record. At least one suicide has been connected to the abuse. This is very serious stuff. Clearly, there were very serious failings at the school for this to occur. It is completely reasonable to include this information. It is at least as notable as the fact that some minor athlete attended the school, and probably far more relevant. 60.240.207.146 (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

reverted section deletion

As stated by previous editors, please do not delete whole sections of this article. This is vandalism, and not cool. If there are specific problems, limit you edits to those sections and please explain here. Otherwise we end up in silly edit wars. 49.181.163.97 (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Defamation claims and "vandalism"

There have been a few more section blankings recently, usually with a tag claiming "defamation" and/or vandalism. I've looked at the section again, and I'm not sure what the defamation and/or vandalism might be. The best guess I can make is perhaps some of the sources aren't encyclopaedic enough, so I've ensured that every claim also has a "respectable" source. The only names mentioned in the Controversies section are those of former staff who have been arrested AND sentenced AND who the Catholic Education Office has released (or has released on behalf of) statements concerning. The implication would be that the CEO is also defaming. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that a company cannot be defamed in any case.

I am quite happy to work with whoever (it appears to be the school or others close to the Patrician Brothers) to fix this section if there are problems. But the first step needs to be an attempt to explain what the problems are. If this is just the school trying to cover up the past, then I strongly encourage them to change path. The first step in reconciliation is to acknowledge the truth. It would be really, really nice to be able to put in a section about how the school has addressed this problem, but I cannot find anything beyond the statements on the CEO website (none from the school itself, mind). 60.240.207.146 (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)