Talk:Thomas John Barnardo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

[edit] Child with Down's Syndrome?

The article mentions Barnardo as having a child with Down's Syndrome. His memoirs, however, make no mention of this, and in none of the photographs of his five sons (neither of the girls have photos in the book)are any of the usual physical characteristics of Down's Syndrome in evidence (though that's obviously not conclusive of anything). I wondered where this information came from and what its veracity was.

Murray Simpson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.60.101 (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation/Evidence Needed?

"The fact that in Canada less than 2% of the children sent out proved failures confirmed Barnardo’s conviction that"

Could we please have some statistics to back this up, or some source material. An example of a Barnardo boy/girl who 'made good' or became a pillar of the comunity would be a nice adidtion too.

Cheers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Perfectblue97 (talk • contribs) .

One story I came across while compiling a web site about Barkingside, of Victorian times:Barkingside --Goldoni 10:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the religious upbringing within Dr Barnardo’s the children were all brought up as Protestants. No other faith was available, parents who signed their children over were made aware of this fact section 2 of the document.

In the late 60s early 70s Children were encouraged to attend outside church services as there were many more faiths to deal with. The problem of Catholic and Jewish children was agreed after a court hearing where Dr Thomas Barnardo was charged with abduction in 1888 Goldoni 09:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have details of the part of the funeral journey said to have been one of only ever two instances of coffins being conveyed on underground trains. Articles about the funeral elsewhere state that a special train took the coffin from Liverpool Street to Barkingside. But that journey could not have been taken by Underground in 1905. Not until the 1940's was the conversion of the relevant lines into Essex to underground carried out. (82.29.215.250 21:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC))

Does this give you information the information you want? http://www.agoravox.com/article.php3?id_article=4808 Prime Minister W E Gladstone and Dr Barnardo were the only two people to have their coffins transported by Tube. --Brenont 05:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the "Life in Dr. Barnardo's Homes" section. This section needs to be expanded, in my opinion - it is just the kind of thing that was never included in the "Encylopedia Britannica". I heard of the appalling conditions in Dr. Barnardo's Homes from my mother, who was a doctor in England and sometimes visited the homes to investigate public health issues. To maintain a neutral POV, we need to have some of the dark side exposed, as well as the bright side. -- Duncan C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.183.58 (talk) 18:47, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

I find it incredible that you called John Searl a "Professor." Yes, I know he called himself one on the linked document. But his errors of grammar and spelling give the lie to that. My eleven year old son can do better than that (No, I'm not exaggerating, and no, my son is just a normal kid, not a genius). Call the guy a "professor" - how gullible can you get? He's not an educated man by any stretch of the imagination. I've left the link there, but without that spurious title. David Cannon 23:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I was only going by what Searl himself said. Are you accusing him of lying about his credentials? If so, Wikipedia is NOT the place to do it. Perhaps we could call him a "self described professor"? He includes full contact info on the linked document if you would like to ask him about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.80.222.104 (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will go along with the "self-described" label. That said, I still think we shouldn't be giving any credence to something that is obviously false. I have spent the best part of 20 years teaching newly arrived immigrants from the Far East, and even on arrival, their spelling and grammar is, in a great many cases, superior to Searl's. I very much doubt that he even knows what the inside of a university looks like. I am not, and I want to emphasize the word not, passing judgement on the content of his work. It may well be partly or even completely factual - who knows? I'm not even saying that he "lied" about his credentials - there are mail-order "universities" in the USA and possibly in England as well, where one can buy all sorts of spurious "qualifications." Even I have one - for a lark I paid a small fee and got myself "ordained" as a "reverend" by a "church" that exists only on paper, over the internet. Searl's "professorship" is most likely of the same variety. I would never dream of using my "ordination" in anything but a jocular way. Similarly, to present as fact a claim that is so obviously spurious can only make Wikipedia appear to be a laughing stock in the eyes of the public. That said, saying that he is a "self-described professor" is acceptable. I'll go with it. David Cannon (talk) 10:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)