Jump to content

Talk:Bernard Green

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Respected scholar

[edit]

Of course Dom Bernard was a respected scholar. The book reviews cited indicate that. I didn't know him personally, but he and I must have nearly crossed paths at some point, and I know people who knew him. I have no desire to downplay the fact of his being a highly regarded scholar in the field of early Christian studies. However, on Wikipedia, especially when dealing with living or recently dead people we need to cite sources, not just state our views.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion on Sex Offenders Register

[edit]

The anonymous contributor who mentioned Dom Bernard's having been included on the SOR (technically called ViSOR) seems to be basing this either on personal knowledge or supposition, given that no published source states this as a fact. In fact, I think that it is actually impossible that Dom Bernard was ever on the register. See here, for example: if the register included persons convicted, cautioned, or released from prison since September 1997, I cannot see how Dom Bernard would have been on it, unless he gained a further conviction or caution following the one discussed in the article. Unless, of course, it also includes persons released from a period of probation since September 1997, which would include Dom Bernard. Anyway, he is recently dead, so contentious information such as this can only be inclued with firm evidence from a reliable published source.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this entry really needed?

[edit]

Is Bernard Green really important enough to merit an entry? Most Oxford academics are not on Wikipedia.Gollumova (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question should not be, "is this needed?" Few things, if any, are needed. The question ought to be, "is this subject notable?" Furthermore, it is beside the point, whether or not there exist Wikipedia articles about most Oxford academics. The fact that such articles do not (yet) exist has no bearing whatsoever on whether the subjects of such articles would be considered notable or on whether the subject of this article is considered notable. The fact that most x may be notable or non-notable does not have any bearing on the notability of any particular x.
This article cites reviews of the subject's published work in a number of professional and popular publications, thereby demonstrating notability. The article cites a substantial number of publications of the subject's work in a journal with a large, international, and largely non-academic, readership, thereby also demonstrating notability. Green's book Monasticism to 1400 A.D. is a standard text book for GCSE students in UK schools, yet further demonstrating notability. The article also cites no fewer than eight published accounts, spanning some ten years, of the subject's criminal and inappropriate behaviour. These sources establish that his behaviour persisted over a period of time and in different contexts, and that his behaviour has been reported as being a part of a larger pattern of similar behaviour within the monastic community of Ampleforth and within the Benedictine and Catholic community of the UK. This also shows notability.
Although it is hardly a clinching argument, I find it strange that the editor who has proposed this deletion first appeared on Wikipedia in 2009, changing just a few words in an article about Xerzes I of Persia, and then reappeared some four years later proposing the deletion of this article. The account therefore does not quite have just a single purpose, but it is very close to it. One must wonder why this user decided, after four years and only two very minor edits, to return to Wikipedia to propose deletion of an article that seems to this editor at any rate to clearly satisfy notability criteria.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that this editor made some rather strange changes to the article. Gollumova removed the word "guilty" from the infobox describing Green's criminal status. I cannot see why this was done, as he himself in fact pleaded guilty, so there can be no doubt whatsoever as to his guilt. Gollumova also removed reference to this conviction from the lead paragraph. This also seems rather strange, as the two main reasons for which Green is known, as evidenced in the cited sources, are his scholarship as a historian and his conviction for indecently assaulting a child. Finally, Gollumova removed mention of a memorial Mass being held in Green's honour. This would seem to be encyclopaedic information, as it is accurate and properly sourced, and it may be of interest to the reader, who may be interested to read about how Green was honoured following his death.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

[edit]

Copied from User_talk:Rms125a@hotmail.com#Bernard_Green:

Hello. Just a question about your recent edit to the article on Bernard Green. I do not like to revert people's edits except where it is plain vandalism, as I prefer, in line with Wikipedia guidelines, to try to establish consensus. You may see that I have recently reverted vandalism on this article by an unregistered user whose IP address indicates membership of Oxford University (and a specific location within St Benet's Hall).

Your edit summary says, "lede reworded for accuracy". I am not quite sure, however, in what way your edit does lead to great accuracy. The original text read simply: "He was also a convicted sex offender." Your edit changed this to: "His last years were marked by scandal and controversy when he was accused of indecent assault, to which he plead guilty." I'm afraid this seems to me to be both in part unsubstantiated and also in part somewhat weasel-worded.

For one thing, the incident that led to Green's conviction took place in 1995, nearly eighteen years before his death at the age of around sixty, so I would hardly call this period "his last years", representing, as it does, nearly one third of his entire lifespan. Furthermore, most of Green's academic work, making up the greater part of his notability, was undertaken following his conviction, so his last years were, if anything, marked by acclaim for his scholarly achievements, not by scandal surrounding a criminal conviction almost two decades earlier.

Secondly, if you are going to state that any part of Green's life was marked by scandal and controversy, you are going to have to provide sources for that statement in the main body of the article. It is not enough to draw the inference that anybody, not least a priest and schoolmaster, convicted of indecently assaulting a child would be likely to arouse a certain level of scandal and controversy. Moreover, while scandal may be fairly obvious, it is far from clear in what way this incident was controversial.

Thirdly, whether or not it was your intention, I think that to say, "he was accused of indecent assault, to which he plead guilty", is very much open to an interpretation of being weasel-worded, of trying imply something by not quite saying it, or even by saying something on the face of it contrary to what actually seems to be being said. That Green was a convicted sex offender is simply a statement of fact: he was convicted, and the crime of which he was convicted was a sexual offence. What the article now says is open to the interpretation that an accusation was made, that he pleaded guilty to that accusation, but that his guilt is nonetheless in some doubt, or that there are complexities in the case that are not adequately covered by the statement that he was a convicted sex offender. In fact, so much was implied by the headmaster at the time of the offence: it was said that Green recognised after the event that his behaviour had been "inappropriate", and the school initially expected the incident to be investigated internally without recourse to the criminal justice system. If the original wording is not adequate, I would suggest something purely factual, such as, "Upon entering a guilty plea he was convicted of indecently assaulting a child during his period as a housemaster at Ampleforth College", or "In connection with his period as a housemaster at Ampleforth College he was convicted of the indecent assault of a child, to which he pleaded guilty", or "Shortly after his resignation as a housemaster at Ampleforth College he was charged with indecently assaulting a child, to which he pleaded guilty. He was later also accused of harassing an adult student at St Benet's Hall, Oxford."

--Oxonian2006 (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bernard Green. 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:

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

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bernard_Green&oldid=1207426642"