Talk:St Mary's College, Crosby

Using templates

It might help to use the {{school}} template for a general infobox. --Martian.knight 00:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the heads up. BabaDraconis 16:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This is my first contribution to Wikipedia and it has been prompted by what I have read under "St. Mary's College, Sefton (?)". It appears that the history of St. Mary's College is to be recorded by a small group of vociferous, angry and apparently traumatised Old Boys/Girls.The account I have just read fails to present a balanced, neutral account of the school's history and achievements. Please read the account in Wikipedia on Harrow School.There's no lengthy description of the fagging system, the victimisation and bullying of small boys, the "roastings" meted out, the floggings by schoolmasters, etc. I attended the school in the 1960's.I came from a large family in Bootle.At my local primary school, a cane was liberally used to enforce discipline. There was bullying in the primary school; there were street fights with non-Catholic schools;the local policeman would clip you round the ear if you misbehaved. When you returned home, an elder brother would lay into you for one reason or another; you would then be leathered by father for some forgotten act of indiscipline. This was all part of the punishment culture of the day, a culture which we have learned to change. I don't suggest that my father and mother, my primary school, the local police force etc all apologise to me. I was strapped at St. Mary's relentlessly in the first year by brothers and lay staff alike but learned my lesson. We have to move on in life and look at our past as moulding or contributing to our present. So those that pathetically dwell on this "punishment" issue need to move on too and recognise the value, the service ,the skills, the achievements the school and its teachers brought to many impecunious Catholic families in north Liverpool over several generations.Like I say, read the entry on Harrow School and use it as a template to compose the entry for St. Mary's. Fidem Vita Fateri.(Civis romanussum 02:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC))

Christ, you're right. It's horribly written. I've removed it all. Add back in something you might find more appropriate - try and mention both sides, good and bad! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"Fidem Vita Fateri" Unfortunately some of the teachers at the school forgot what this meant. Unless of course Showing your faith by the way you live is hitting the s**t out of young children. This type of education is inappropiate and thankfully is now history but this does not mean it should be forgotten. Please feel free to edit this section and make it more neutral. But please do not remove it as it clearly is important to many people and no article about the school will be complete without a section on its use of violence. I suspect the same could be said about Harrow that this article is clearly written by someone very closely linked to the school and should certainly not be called NPOV. A true account of Harrow would certainly include this information. Terry crosby (UTC)

• If the violence section is relevant, balanced and cited, it will stay in. However, the whole St. Mary's article is a little over 2500 words long (excluding titles, school status box thing, contents, references etc.), 1000 of which are spent recounting one aspect of the school's history. Opinions are wrapped liberally around facts - "This however does not create a reason to not allow publication of the college's history prior to becoming co-educational", "However the inappropiateness of such behaviour should never be ignored", "Recognition of the existence of a misguided policy which was followed for many years, and an apology for it would be a welcome step in achieving closure". These things may be true, but as we've said before, Wikipedia is not a place to spend over one third of an article morally critiquing one aspect of something, whilst neglecting other aspects. Furthermore, particularly in the "History of Misguided Discipline" and "Exam Results" sections, words that imply bias are sneaked in - consider the sheer volume of words such as "uncumfortable", "arbitrary", "cruelty", "public spectacle", "brutalised", "sadly", "undoubtedly", "dispassionate", "disproportionate", "fearsome", "quantum leap in pain", "painful memories", "celebrated the formal brutal regime", "unfortunately, this did not happen". Once again - are these true in context? Quite possibly. Firstly, how would we know? There is still so much in the article that is unsourced it's hard to tell where the fact ends and the opinions begin. Furthermore, many of the opinions that are there are disguised as facts; the quotations I've given already in this comment are more than adequate examples of this, in my opinion. This article needs information on the school's history, of course. We've established this. But Wikipedia is NOT THE PLACE for unsourced, biased maybe-truths. If we're going to recount St. Mary's history, we need other aspects, not just the well-described corporal punishment. If you take a look at the section of the POV article on undue weight, you will see that Wikipedia's policy on undue emphasis on a particular aspect of a topic is made perfectly clear. Once again I emphasise that I am by no means questioning the relevance of the corporal punishment section, and nor am I implying that it is a "minority view" that the punishments that were carried out at St. Mary's (and, of course, most schools at the time) were morally unacceptable. We can safely argue that the punishments were wrong. The majority of people today are against corporal punishment, and so what is the point of spending around 1000 words arguing the point? And as I've said, you shouldn't be arguing anything - this is Wikipedia, not a debating session. Seeing as the arguments against corporal punishment are generally accepted, the only conclusion I can draw is that your purpose is simply to systematically criticise the school. Setting out existing criticisms, citing them, and moving on to a new point is fine. Stating the criticism, loading it with opinions and superlatives, only citing it some of the time, then restating the point several times, only to move on to a closely related and equally negative and opinion-loaded point (etc. etc. ad. naus.) is most certainly not fine. It's biased. Bias is against the Wikipedia guidelines. Q.E.D. BabaDraconis 10:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The UN Christian Brothers were evil, sadistic, sexually warped individuals. But they came from a background that even today, would love to have a control of society, the Catholic Church, an awful, horrific holdover from medieval absolute power. I was a victim of the Christian Brother's St Mary's "educational disaster" may they all rot in Hell, from 1951 to 1957 and the abuse was constant from day one of my attendance there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.127.53.212 (talk) 05:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I was there from 1958 to 1963. As regards the punishments, I can't compare it with other schools of course but at the time I accepted it. In 2nd year, 2nd term, we even had a competition as to who would get the most "hits" in the term, having decided by the end of term 1 that "Bother IT" was "strap-happy". He hurt a bit. By the end of that term, he let on that he knew what we were up to (with a smile). Not charismatic but he did have a sense of humour and I think he was absolutely straight - no favourites, no victims. What did and still does bother me was the attitude of the headmaster towards me. Guilty till proven innocent and even then innocence never acknowledged. Compared to junior school, religion was not rammmed home as much. There the lay teachers used the horrors of hell to scare us.Professor Bernard (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

POV

"notorious", "More shockingly a number of these teachers are still employed today", "One of its more stange decisions is the failure of the college to support comic relief", "St Mary's has always struggled in exam league tables in comparison to its more prestigous neighbour Merchant Taylors", "an unnamed Brother accused of sexual abuse by TV producer Steve Boulton in 1998", "Used to get his kicks by physically standing on children, while they attempted press-ups". If this is a neutral POV then, well... I don't really know what - we're dealing with a hypothetical situation. This is not NPOV. BabaDraconis 10:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Which of the above is untrue? RodCrosby 10:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

True, perhaps - not disputing how true it is, or isn't. It's the fact that on Wikipedia you should write articles with a neutral point of view. How can one describe "get his kicks" as neutral language? Besides, you systematically focus on the negative aspects of the College. Nothing wrong with what you've said, per se, it's just how you said it.

I would consider this article to be fairly neutral. I agree the "get his kicks out of" comment is perhaps too extreme but most other comments are true. The fact remains that most of these comments have been added by pupils pre late neighties when St Marys did lead a regime of extreme violence. The recent comments which have clearly been written by somebody closely linked with the school can be considered less neutral than the current article. I would gladly add some more positive comments if there were any but there is not. Unfortunately the school did give out terrible beatings and many of those teachers still are employed today. Brother "A" did give out terrible beatings to pupils for no clear reason and today he is hailed by the school as some kind of saint. The school have never apologised to past pupils for its past violence. I think for a neutral article it might very well be useful for somebody linked with todays school to add an additional paragraph but not at the expense of the historical content Terrycrosby

As a former pupil of Brother "A" (though not in his class) I have to say the section on him is entirely correct. I must have been just about the only pupil in my class not to be beaten in those arithmetic sessions because I was very good at maths at the time ... but almost everyone else got beaten at some point! I can also confirm that he occasionally gave his entire class the strap for some real or imagined slight. Such was the school in those days (1976-1980).Dmmccann121 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmmccann121 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this article is unnecessarily attacking the school and is definately not a NPOV. Perhaps it could be split into two pages, one of which offers helpful information about the school today, another with its 'notorious' history. In general the article is simply not written in an encyclopedic manner, and reads more like an article about the school. Most of the claims need sourcing. But i won't go through and add 'citation needed' just yet, as I don't have time.jcoatz

• It would be cynical to say that you can only say 'nice' things about a subject on Wikipedia, but potentially libellous claims really do need be sourced, and treated neutrally. It's not just about being encyclopedic - there are legal issues too. Organisations like schools can demand unsourced claims to be removed from Wikipedia, and this has indeed happened in the past - eg. St Patrick's College, Ballarat did so earlier this year (see here). Anyway, if you want anything in these sections to remain, then you will need to cite publications that support what is being claimed. Otherwise, any Wikipedian will have every reason and right to remove these sections - I myself will wait for now, trusting that the editors in question can find publications about what seems to be their old school. Rob Lindsey 11:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've just made it a little more NPOV, I think. Made some of the language more neutral, added sources and citation needed notifications... there's still a while to go, but it's getting there. BabaDraconis 16:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

First time ever contributor to wikipedia here. I've noticed the change in reporting of the school I attended between 1980 and 1988, and delved deeper to find out why. If wikipedia is ever sued for libel about any of this, they can call me as a witness. I believe any plaintiff would have to show that they have a reputation worth protecting. I'll put it no stronger than that, for now. I think it is so important that the truth be told about what happened there, that it should not be shipped out to a separate article. Wikipedia's problem seems to be proof. Only officially sanctioned violence has ever been recorded internally by the school, whose interests would be served in suppressing the information now. The unofficial violence is more shocking, to the extent that people have trouble believing it, yet by its very nature it is not liable to be recorded. And is there really a neutral point of view over violence towrads children, especially of the kind we suffered? I realise there is a legal and emotive minefield here, but I would like to suggest that wikipedia sticks its neck out and shows some faith in the honest contributions made by former pupils who, like me, aren't chasing compensation, but want the facts made known to a wider public. Thanks for listening.Wussager 13:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

but the school can demand at any time that unsourced claims be removed, and potentially sue, so whats the point putting unsourced claims on! and i'm sure some of the stuff there IS only there to try and have a dig at somewhere the spent un-happy years... also i think Notable Former Teachers could do with a clean-up.. Josie Sheehan really has no claim to being notable IMO! Jcoatz 21:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think its quite amazing that you refer to the school like this. must have been doing something right - take a look at that alumni. quite amazing really considering the size and catchment area of the place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npc1003 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent removal of POV is unbelievable. I will be adding no further edits for now but will be readding the NPOV tag. How can an article which states "Today it is a modern school that embraces modern teaching methods", "the results attained nonetheless exceed national averages, considerably at A-level, and exceptionally at GCSE", "has long prided itself on its charity fundraising". In addition the recent edits appear to have been written by someone who knows little about the school. Finally I was under the impression the NPOV tag should not be removed until it was under general agreement. Terrycrosby 20:50, 6/12/07 (UTC)

You are quite right. I was not focused on the "good POV" (if I'm making sense), but rather removing the rather derogatory (unreferenced) stuff. Will clean up further now. You are correct that I have little knowledge of the school, having never been a student there..TO YOU ADJACENT,well fuckin shut up then if you never went there,youre not entitled to an opinion of something you know fuck all about,i went there and fuckin hated it,if there ever was a wrong way to teach the young,ST MARYS EPITOMISES,(brutal teachers,bullying,violence for wrong answers,i was tough and beat up bullies,god help the wimps) THE WORST IN EDUCATION!!!.im a successfull public sculptor,i have degree in fine are from leeds uni and st marys had fuck all to do with that!!

. Martinp23 18:18, 7 December 2007 (UTCtled t)

Is it better now? I have removed/adjusted what you mentioned. The school's exam results (by the BBC's league tables' reckoning) do seem to exceed nation averages, so that isn't POV to mention. Martinp23 18:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Image??

Anyone have a free use image of the school/the badge? If so, it'd be rather useful. BabaDraconis 16:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

...actually, sod that. Been asking round and the general consensus is that they'd rather not it was made available. BabaDraconis 13:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Exam Results

Removed the notability and citation banners, removed a lot of the unnecessary detail, although kept a summary, and removed the irrelevant 'alumni news' presumably self-promotion paragraph.

Sefton?

It's actually called "St. Mary's College, Crosby". Will change when I have less French homework...BabaDraconis 10:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

School violence

1. REDIRECT [[As a former pupil from 1964 to 1972 and one who prospered as a result of the quality of education offered at that time, I am eternally grateful to the many real teachers, especially people like Joe Rigby, Old Joe Hanlon and Eugene Jenning, to name but a few. The facilities were great for that time, the majority of teachers were dedicated and devoted to the task of instilling learning into the minds of often reluctant students. Who can forget the dancing classes and weekly ETIQUETTE classes with Brother "D"? However, there can be no doubt that there was indeed a darkness about some of the staff, notably all the Christian Brothers, Latin Teacher "B" and the PE Teacher and petty ATF tyrant "C". Even now, 40 years later, these names are brought to mind without any effort. I recall that we attended school on Saturday mornings as juniors and every class had Latin with "B". Every Saturday, every student with a Latin class got strapped by "B" for even getting one word wrong.Quite a feat for an old man to beat a bunch of 12 year olds ,probably 90 kids in total. Every Saturday. What a way to teach! Who can forget the way that Brother "D" used to do a little jump with every stroke of the strap?The way that "C" picked on kids who were not athletically able and fawned over kids who were able to run around the school grounds 4 times? Surely he was gay?Not to mention the rugby thug students, who's bullying was never controlled because the Brothers like "A" thought they were God's Gift. There were certainly stories circulating of how one Brother would take kids into the changing room office to beat kids on their bare behinds. Looking back, I do not remember my time with joy, rather I have gratitude to the many teachers who were not in some way aberrant but genuinely tried to develop the students . I took away gifts of learning that have served me well but I recall those others named with utter contempt. I would dearly love to meet them face to face now on equal terms but that chance is long gone.The best form of revenge is to live well and despite all the bad things that happened, they have not stopped me and other former students doing well in life, not because of teachers who should never have been there but despite them. Tim Spooner, Bangkok. ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.142.45 (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Having stumbled upon this site I can only express my support for the correspondents who list and deplore the institutionalised violence that was part and parcel of the St. Mary's educational experience.Whilst agreeing that Wikipedia is not the appropriate forum,at least people are bringing what was once a taboo subject into the public domain.

Sure,a lot of the teachers were decent individuals and some were excellent, dedicated teachers,but they kept quiet, didn't rock the boat. Whistle blowers? Perish the thought.They share the guilt.In fairness,some of them were probably as frightened of the Taliban Tendency as we were.

I was never good at sport or popular at school.The only person who used to regularly seek me out on a regular basis was the aforementioned Mr "C". These encounters invariably involved verbal taunting,physical pain,tears and the inevitable destruction of self esteem. Mr. "C" was very very dedicated.

This regime trickled down into the abusees.Most pupils learned to be invisible or sychophantic,laughing at daily humiliations of their peers,thankful that they themselves were not on the receiving end of some pedant's 'wit' or violent outbust.Bullied became bullies and were often used by teachers to their own ends.

To those that say that it wasn't that bad ,I would reply that you were either very good at games,or academically brilliant or good at not getting noticed.Usually 'not getting noticed' meant making sure that someone else did,so shit stirring and the ability to drop someone else into the shit was a recognised survival skill.

I attended 1970 to 1974 and hated every nano second. There now,that's better. Paddy Mckenna

Let us support those who have documented what went on at this school so that no ever forgets. Let us remember that in todays society if this behaviour was to take place those responsible would be in prison and for some be on the sex offenders register for life. Many of us have lived with the truth of what occured here all our lives and for many, being god fearing, have not come out publically about what happened. Lets also not forget that the abuse started at The Mount - in todays terms this would be a grooming ground for what would occur at senior school. Over 40 years later I can still remember being strapped on a monday morning as an eight year old for not going to church on sunday and for not remembering the gospel from the previous day. Spelling tests that were made harder so that you couldnt pass and would be beaten. Chanting your times tables and god help you if you got them wrong. At senior school, my highlight, over and above the brutality, a week standing outside the heads office from the time I got in until the time I went home. I still dont know why it happened. Try going home after a day at school and you cant pick anything up in your hands as they are still bruised and glowing from the strikes of a leather strap with a piece of metal inserted into it to make it harder and more painful. Thank god my parents let me leave in 1976 and didnt insist I stay. Eddie Hulme (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC) 1967 to 1976 ( The Mount and St Mary's College )

Thanks in part to the comments recorded here, more people have come forward to voice their own experiences. It appals me to know this violence was carried out from the 50's to even the early 90's . This makes me so angry now. I read about the approach taken by educators today to nourish and encourage learning in their students and I feel that a part of my childhood that should have been happy and fruitful was in fact blighted by the actions of the Christian Brothers (the words are sour even now) and other teachers. I have recently learnt that the PE teacher who is referred to above was in fact a Boxing Reserve for the Olympics in 1948. No wonder he could only thrash little kids, he was not even good enough to compete then. If YOU were a student and you witnessed the daily violence at the school ,please make your comments. I see that some students from my own time (64-70) have died already, do it to leave a lasting testimony to the tyranny that we endured. Tim Spooner, Bangkok —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.150.85 (talk) 06:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Stringer vs St Marys Old Boys

Does anybody have a website reference for reading the facts etc of this case? I recognise some of the names of the defendants and would like to know what happened.Tim Spooner, Bangkok —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.142.45 (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

the legalistic aspects of the case can be found here. http://www.titanictown.plus.com/Pleadings_final.doc] It's fair to say they do not do justice to the insane, malicious carnival that dragged on for several years, damaging the reputation of the school, destroying the ethos of the Association and ending in ignominious capitulation by the defendants at Liverpool County Court, incurring on themselves £10,000 legal costs... Mind you, since it involved Ken Smith, perhaps not so surprising Neminem laedit (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that reference. I see it is a Statement of Claim and the dispute seems to revolve around failures to follow the constitution etc. Hardly a "scandal". I thought the background would be much more interesting than that.Do you know any of the background that lead to this? Obviously there is something involving a Dominic Smith. It would be interesting to know why the Defendants ever got themselves into that situation. I can't imagine it was because Mr Stringer had a beer too many on club premises. Many thanks, Tim Spooner, Bangkok —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.142.45 (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

in law, the courts will only intervene in club cases on narrow grounds, so all such suits have necessarily to be framed in somewhat dry, dusty language which impugns the legality of the process. The whys and wherefores are of little interest to the court: they will not act as a court of appeal in relation to the facts. However, they will intervene when i) the constitution has not been followed, ii) natural justice has been ignored, or iii) the committee have acted in bad faith (malice). As a matter of fact, there was no question of the plaintiff's sobriety; on the contrary the only accusation that was ever floated was that he, as a member of the committee, had upheld the licensing laws and refused entry to non-members long after the bar was supposed to be shut. Of course, in the witch-hunt that followed, that accusation was not pressed - had it been, the defendants would have been instantaneously destroyed under count iii). No specific accusation was made, except that, in their opinion, the plaintiff had broken the rules by refusing to submit to the witch-hunt and exercising his right of appeal under the constitution. As anyone can see that was malicious nonsense, and bound to fail on grounds i), ii) and iii). The scandal involved a) a series of unfavorable articles appearing in the local press. b) adverse publicity for the school, combined with their shameful behaviour in attempting to sever their links before honoring their obligations to the plaintiff under the constitution c) further adverse publicity surrounding the closure of the club, after the Police had taken an interest in its nefarious goings-on... Neminem laedit (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you once again. I sense a "solicitorious" turn of phrase in the response, which has been quite useful. As a qualified Company Secretary from many years ago, I can see the issues relating to the constitution etc but I assumed there must be some underlying "personality conflict" to have given rise to the intractable digging in of positions that gives rise to legal cases like this one, usually a feeling of lack of dignity, humiliation etc. It is really hard to believe that such a minor thing (not so distant from having one too many as it turns out) should lead to the protracted legal case, publicity etc that you mention. Who would care enough to do all of that? Surely only people with too much time on their hands , standing on their hind legs and proclaiming the righteousness of their position, without looking at both sides.It's funny that I used to catch the bus home to Southport outside the club rooms every day without ever entering the place,then or since. Thank you for your time in replying. Tim Spooner, Bangkok. PS: why the use of nom de plumes on here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.142.45 (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right. Unfortunately there was a "carnival of malice" instigated by certain persons, involving violence, the threat of violence, criminal damage, scurrilous whisperings, etc. - i.e. the standard fare of inadequate, petty dictators who are challenged and are facing defeat. Let's not forget, it was the Defendants who decided to instigate the childish witch-hunt, and try to destroy a fellow-member of their own committee, ignoring the advice of one or two wise heads who had experience in the real world, and who told them to they were courting disaster. The plaintiff himself spelled it out at each step of the way precisely what the consequences would be, for them personally and for the club. The arrogant poltroons merely took these warnings as an invitation to carry on. The plaintiff had every right, after such fair warnings, to drag them before a real court (instead of a kangaroo court) and seek redress. Happily, they underestimated their opponent and the whole dirty business boomeranged back onto their retarded heads! They then tried to cover their traces, lying to the doltish, supine membership, only to find themselves back in court again with another writ, twice as long as the first. As you can guess, they lost that too, with another £3000+ wasted costs. On both occasions the defendants were represented by barristers and the plaintiff was a litigant-in-person. That fact alone should speak volumes about the relative merits of each side's case. Neminem laedit (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks once again. I guess that the defendants were all ex First 15 members? Such behaviour would be par for the course for buffoons like that.They were always ignorant thugs at school and it is interesting to read that there was violence in this case, etc. Nothing changes for people like that.Well done, Mr Stringer. I wonder if there was ever anything done by way of actions against the Christian Brother perverts at the school? (You know who I mean, we all did). From reading on this site, it appears that there is a certain amount of disbelief that such things actually happened. Guess you had to be there to know the special joys of going to school some days knowing that you were going to get strapped, come what may. Tim Spooner, Bangkok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.142.45 (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I was not a pupil at St Mary's, Crosby I was at St Edward's College, Liverpool and then (for rather longer) at St Joseph's College, Blackpool. For corroboration of the mindless violence meted out by some of the sadistic madmen who were to be found among (or employed by) the Irish Christian Brothers, check with the St Joseph's College Old Boys website at http://www.stjosephsblackpool.com/Index.htm. User talk:Gerard Mulholland

I attended the school between 1969 and 1972 and hated practically every moment. A quite awful place. Of course, there were teachers and students who were perfectly decent, but the Christian Brothers themselves were beasts. And the PE teacher: I well remember him telling us how he had seen off several people by boxing their ears off, and that he would do the same to any of us if we challenged him. Every week we had a cross.country run; he used to come the other way, bawling his head off at the stragglers, of whom I was invariably one.

Sameoldcabbage (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism

This page has been vandalized repeatedly. I am requesting a page lock by an admin

--118.69.88.209 (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV version (May 2009)

Having read the talk sections above and checked earlier versions (e.g. this and this), I've tried to get some relevant, balanced and cited quotes that talk about the school in the 1945-1976 period, and specifically the culture of corporal punishment. I've found comments by John Birt, Roger McGough and Will Hanrahan reported by The Times, Independent, TES and Guardian. Each alumnus is mentioned on the school's current web site, and I've used one positive and one negative quote from each of them. I was not able to find sources for more serious allegations, despite using a wide variety of search terms. The result is this version. I appreciate that this might not tell the entire story but, as it is a brief and scrupulously neutral presentation of comments by notable people found in reliable sources, there's no good reason for anyone to remove it. On this basis I have removed the "disputed NPOV" tag from the article. - Pointillist (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I see that Turpin6314 (talk · contribs) (a single-purpose account) has removed all the corporal punishment material. I've restored this, the justification being "content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. . This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. " (extract from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). I would be happy to discuss this here on the talk page. I have further reliably-sourced statements from notable alumni that I can add if that's really necessary. - Pointillist (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Despite repeated invitations to discuss the content here, Turpin6314 (talk · contribs) is continuing to remove content from the "Founding and affiliation" section (e.g. this diff). I propose to ask for a third opinion. - Pointillist (talk) 08:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a 3O response. Pointillist, a 3O call is not appropriate here for two reasons. First there are other contributing editors available, second, this is apparent vandalism. Please report this to the incidents page and ask that the IP be blocked. BTW, please ensure that no potentially libellous statements are visible (inc talk page). Please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Good luck. Redheylin (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I had decided to use 3O because of the advice at Q: My edits keep getting reverted. What should I do?, but it does basically come down to vandalism and I will ask for a block if it happens again. Not sure what to do about potentially libellous statements in earlier sections of the talk page. Should they just be deleted or does the entire page need to be sanitized by an admin? - Pointillist (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Good job I checked back!! You were right to ask, then, rather than look like an edit warrior yourself. OK - my 30 = "this is vandalism" OK? Still do not revert more than once and report immediately. If you think unsupportable negative statements about living people are present ask an admin or go to the biography project. It's bad manners to mess with others' comments. I have never had to handle that, sorry, but please call me if you want me. I am not watching this page, so use my talk. Remember that all comments on the school should be sourced to published material. CU Redheylin (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've redacted some teachers' names on this talk page per the BLP Talk Pages policy. - Pointillist (talk) 08:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as NPOV goes, suggest interested parties state their cases here or make efforts to contact one another and go with consensus. This will allow consensus reversion of editors who do not engage in discussion and are in minority. If edit-warring, should be blocked. If not in minority should show it by stating case here;

Objections to article as it stands on grounds of neutrality and verifiability

Go ahead! Redheylin (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just had a go at tidying up the references. Removing two which didn't belong, to a blog and Facebook, and adding titles and where appropriate publishers to all that were missing them, so it's clearer what the sources are. I had to remove the quote that came from the blog, and took at a dubious statement I spotted about a former teacher. It's not really addressed the balance issues but all the contentious content seems properly referenced now.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on St Mary's College, Crosby. 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://archive.is/20130114161438/http://www.stmarys.ac/school-news/gold-for-fran to http://www.stmarys.ac/school-news/gold-for-fran
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.friendsofstmarys.com/images/stories/files/Decades/30s/SMC_Yearbook_1934.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Alumni cleanup

Per WP:CSC, entries here should meet "the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the near future." I've removed entries that were only sourced to an alumni site, "friendsofsaintmarys" as that reference doesn't approach WP:RS, nor does address notability. An objection was made to removing entries that had obituaries published in major newspapers, so I've left those for now. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)