User talk:Potzzz

May 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to George W. Bush has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Catgut (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Palmerston North Boys' High School. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.-gadfium 18:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Re adding the same unsourced material will just get it reverted. I suggest you do something more constructive. - SimonLyall (talk) 07:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the material you are adding has been challenged by another editor, you must provide sources for it if you readd it.-gadfium 08:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source provided. Potzzz (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source does not mention the school, as far as I can see. Accordingly it does not support the material you have added. Further, it makes clear that schools can provide opt-out religious services, which undermines your original claim that the school's practices were controversial. However, I commend you for the research you have done, and suggest you could add a neutrally-worded paragraph to Education in New Zealand on religion in schools using this as a source.-gadfium 04:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they can LEGALLY provide opt-out religious services; I'm not sure where I've stated otherwise? The strict legality of such a provision does not mean it lacks controversy when you consider the fact that it is inconsistent with section 19 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990 and s 21(1) of the Human Rights Act 1993 which states "For the purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are (d) Ethical belief, which means the lack of a religious belief, whether in respect of a particular religion or religions or all religions".

The BORA and Human Rights legislation are of course subject to the Education Act 1964, despite the fact it was passed much earlier, which allows schools to have this opt-out policy hence it is strictly legal yet controversial considering this inconsistency.

I provided this source to show that whilst PNBHS does have Christian-themed religious services (which is impossible to source via the internet) they nonetheless act consistently with this law under the Education Act (sourced) by allowing the potential for parents to opt-out on behalf of the students.

In the end my current statement which you removed despite saying you wouldn't is factually correct even if parts of it (just like much of the PNBHS wiki) are impossible to source from the internet. I would be happy to open up a discussion on whether this information should be added but I'm surprised that there is objection to the content which is clearly besides the fact that there is no internet source which you seemed to have accepted is not required in these circumstances.Potzzz (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]