Talk:Brendan Smyth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.If you are a member of the project, please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | ||
|
Article Grading: WikiProject Northern Ireland tasks:
|
|||
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on September 19, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
[edit] POV?
(Transferred from my talk page) - User:Ali-oops
Hello. It is POV to say that his actions were "egregious" (Wordnet: conspicuously and outrageously bad or reprehensible). Wikipedia is not here to judge what is "outrageously bad"; we present information in an npov way and try to not abuse adjectives. You can leave it up to the reader to judge whether his actions were "egregious" (and especially whether they were the most egregious). I'm not defending his actions, but if we present the facts, then readers should be able to judge for themselves that he was egregious without us preaching it to them. 24.224.153.40 00:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- In that case, rather than delete the sentence I'll change the disputed word to 'notorious' (Ref: ill-famed, having an exceedingly bad reputation). He was certainly that - Ali-oops✍ 08:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- This is one of the least neutral articles I've ever read. You don't start an article by saying "So-and-so (19XX-19YY) was a child molester"... doesn't matter who it is... you just don't. — CharlotteWebb 17:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- I believe the description NOTORIOUS is quite appropriate. Bad Reputation is putting it mildly. The actions of this individual and the Order he belonged to deserve the recognition of such. I have uploaded my OWN picture I photographed as a 9 year old. I do not know how to link this page to the photograph but I am sure someone will find it. I need not say anymore___.Illumina29 04:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- oK...I will try this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Father_Smyth1.jpg
- my photo added, follow this link above Illumina29 05:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- The jpeg looks good, thanks, I am using the GFDL license, I hope I got this right! Illumina29 01:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Durn it, do I need to upload this again? no. hmm, 'not sure! Illumina29 01:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think I added the GFDL tag in the wrong place! I think I better wait a day to see if you can help me put it where it should be, sorry such a n00b! Illumina29 02:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for helping me with this, now this page has a proper association to the photo I took. I could not believe my diocese, after all these years and those who came forward, never knew what he looked like until I came forward (7th in my parish) and brought this image. Thanks so much again! Illumina29 16:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
