Jump to content

Talk:St Paul's College, University of Sydney

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

Fair use rationale for Image:StPaulsCrestSmall.jpg

[edit]

Image:StPaulsCrestSmall.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 15:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy over male culture / pro-rape facebook group

[edit]

20:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)20:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)~~On November 9 2009 the Sydney Morning Herald published an article [1] which alleged a group of residents maintained a pro-rape Facebook page from August to October, 2009. A number of allegations of rape and sexual assault were also documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofthink (talk • contribs) 07:10, 9 November 2009

This information has never been proven in any way, shape or form. The allegations of a 'pro rape' web page are misleading at best given that the page was a team page/meeting place for a social indoor soccer team which involved individuals from all over the uni, college and non college students. Furthermore the page was set up by non collegiate members and its membership was largely non college students. The page did not advocate rape in any sense and was merely an admittedly inexcusable attempt at humor. Mugluck (talk) 09:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More about this discussed at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice_board/Archive 34#St Paul's College pro-rape group. Donama (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
after reading the discussions, its apparent that there is some sort of bias - one user "Lester" refers directly to a well known history of violence against women and misogomy (possibly meaning misogeny?), however I would like to remind editors that the recent allegations should not be taken as fact, should not be taken as a reflection of the majority of the members of the collegiate community rather a reflection on some individuals who happened to reside at the college, and are more often than not directed not soley at St. Pauls but also at St. Andrews, and St. Johns. It is possible St. Pauls is referred to in the media most often because it is the higher profile college.Shuggyg (talk) 11:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The matter definitely must be succinctly covered in the article. There are plenty of sources. Tony (talk) 04:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion

[edit]

It is not fair to say this article is mainly fluff, and should be merged with the general colleges webpage. This page does need to be tidied for sure, there are silly comments obviously put in there as vanity, however the college does have (unsourced and unmentioned in this article) important historical relevence such as the education of a famous, and controversial, politician Gough Whitlam, just as a single example of one of the many notable alumni. Many other colleges internationally and nationally have their own wikipedia pages Trinity College, Cambridge, Clare Hall, Cambridge, Magdalen College, Oxford, International House, University of Sydney, Philip Baxter College, so unless it is proposed the rest of these college pages, and other collegiate pages on wikipedia, are removed, or merged into amalgamated collegiate pages of their respective universities, then I think that it is incorrect to delete the page on the basis that "Apart from the news about rape, the article is unreferenced, and is mostly fluff. At best, merge it to a list of Sydney Uni colleges". In addition to the "news about rape" as far as I can read, there have been no rape accusations, merely a sensationalistic news article in the Sydney Morning Herald relating to an allegation made by an annonymous friend of a freelance reporter. The News article was more about a facebook page which no one outside of the collegiate networks seem to have seen, except this reporter, and which is alleged to be pro rape, and also discussion on the general intercollegiate binge drinking environment, rather than specifically discussing St Pauls as a place where rape happens on a regular basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuggyg (talk • contribs) 17:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable, IMO; but here's a job for any wordsmiths who might still inhabit the college's fiercely anti-intellectual corridors. Tony (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited material

[edit]

A lot of new material is being added without any kind of citations. Please either add citations or list your sources here on the talk page so we can help with citations. If your source is that you just know, then it's not a valid addition as per WP:OR. Thanks in advance. Donama (talk) 03:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noticed this problem (before I saw this talk page section), and have added a comment at User talk:58.96.129.242#Re: St Paul's. The recent additions should be removed in a day or two if no significant sources are available. Johnuniq (talk) 07:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to the stuff about the rape scandal? It should stay. References can easily be found, both TV and press. Tony (talk) 12:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, not referring to this at all. That paragraph is cited quite well already I think. I'm talking about a lot of stuff about the college that borders on promotional or overly trivial. Possibly a calculated effort by alumni or current students to try and dwarf the information about the rape scandal??? Donama (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to the edits made on 24 May 2010 (diff of 10 edits). I chanced upon this article (in Recent changes?) and know nothing about a rape scandal, but I will say that in general I do not think occasional foul ups should have major coverage in an article, unless independent reliable sources indicate an ongoing problem. I just noticed that a bunch of unsourced detail was being added as if this is the official website. I haven't noticed any change to rape coverage, but I am not advocating removing the tiny mention currently in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is cited material and not the target of my discussion. It's perfectly valid information and noteworthy. More sources exist that can be cited if you're not satisfied. This was quite a big deal when it came to light in the media. To remove it from Wikipedia would be see as akin to "whitewashing" the institution. So I disagree that it's a small foulup. Donama (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Donama. It was chilling to see that nothing has changed at St Paul's College since I spent five years there in the 1970s. We even had a mini rape scandal in about 1978 that hit the newspapers. That the alcohol-fuelled constuction of masculinity is still rife among the core of residents is definitely worthy of treatment in WP's article. Tony (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before Donama mentioned "rape scandal" above (at 01:35, 26 May 2010), I had no idea there was any such thing associated with this article. I'm sorry to have caused confusion by inserting my standard opinion on "one event" issues above, but my purpose in posting here was to comment on edits that having nothing to do with any scandal. In the "diff of 10 edits" link above, I am talking about additions like these: "It retains most of its original eighteen-acre grant and has its own oval and tennis and basketball courts" and "The Reverend Canon Dr Ivan Head, philosopher and published poet, has governed the College as Warden since 1995". Additions like these need citations. I also think some language such as "Dinners feature some of the most distinctive traditions of the College" is probably not appropriate in an article here (fine on their website, but not in an encyclopedic article). Johnuniq (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely. It needs a thorough going through to remove what looks more like promotional brochure pap, or anecdotal memory dressed up as verifiable fact. I'm not accusing anyone of bad faith: these statements can easily get out of control in an article. I'll see what I can do by turning questionable "facts" in the article into invisible text, shall I? Then people would have the opportunity of finding refs before the text is removed completely. Tony (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support outright removal of material that is promotional or otherwise unencylopaedic, whether verifiable or not. Regarding whether space devoted to the 'rape scandal' is disproportionate, it's rather common that practically the only verifiable thing about a school is some criminal case or scandal, and this does cause distress. However, what's in the school's article is generally something that comes out if you Google the school's name anyway: yesterday's news no longer being the next day's fish and chip wrapper in an online world. It's something that we will all have to adjust to. William Avery (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the first two sentences. But the male-oriented rah-rah culture has been part of St Paul's College (and to some extent of other colleges) since its inception. Although among some, not all Paulines, it's an inescapable part of the institution's identity, still.
On another matter, I think the St Paul's College Incorporation Act of ?1856 should probably be cited. I'll see if it's online. Tony (talk) 09:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


These additions may have something to do with the editing by a new editor Alan Thomas Atkinson (talk · contribs) who self identified in an edit summary on St. Paul's College, Sydney:

"The changes made here are the result of my work as the college's historian and Senior Tutor."

I dropped them a template re wp:COI on 16 May 2010. The 1st IP (125.254.102.145) is from Sydney. 58.96.129.242 is Gosford. Both on the same ISP (Cirrus) and both use the same edit summary "Small adjustments". All 3 editors have only edited 'St Paul's'. I AGF but perhaps someone has decided to edit anonymously? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Atkinson should be accorded every politeness; he is new to WP and is the very person one would want editing this article. There is no reason there should not be fruitful collaboration here. Tony (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support Tony1's statement. We welcome editors who have knowledge that can be used to improve articles, and experienced editors should provide guidance. If anyone reading this is wondering whether to edit the article, please do so. However, Wikipedia has a number of procedures that take a long time to absorb, so it may be desirable to ask some questions if you encounter difficulties (e.g. if your edits are removed). Just add a comment here if you want assistance. Johnuniq (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm trying to avoid wp:BITE, perhaps I've seen too many newly registered editors involved in 'un-constructive' editing, so if I've been terse or over-the-top, I apologise. (Mantra AGF, AGF, AGF) I am 220.101.28.25 (talk) Contribs14:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; you might wish to get an account and log in—takes three minutes. Prof Atkinson is writing a book on the history of the College; I corresponded with him by email on this article last week. He is well-placed to contribute. Tony (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alumni—insufficient information

[edit]

Without references, could we at least have a little info to verify the claims that these people are notable alumni? For example:

  1. Former New South Wales Leader of the Opposition, Ewan Murray Robson
  2. Former National Convenor, Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, Justice Lloyd Waddy

Well, what years was Robson leader of the opposition? In which jurisdiction was/is Waddy a Justice? Since when? Dates of birth or birth and death would be a minimum, too. Tony (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is becoming a big laundry list of alumni. Suggest it be culled down to those that have Wikipedia articles (or ought to), or be pushed out into another sub article. See Wikipedia:LAUNDRY. Donama (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the step of pushing the alumni list out of the article into a sub article otherwise it weighs down this article too much. I recommend people with an interest in this article also take an interest in that sub article here: List of St. Paul's College, Sydney alumni. Donama (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alumni lists - notability criteria

[edit]

Hi editors, I stumbled across a proposal being drafted to cover who to include in alumni lists at User:Fæ/Alumni. Note the links on that page to other less-specifically-targeted wikipedia guidelines. I think this would be quite useful to keep this list of alumni useful to the typical reader. What do you think? Donama (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal from history section FB pro-rape scandal para

[edit]

I have removed a sentence from the history section, concerning the Facebook pro-rape scandal:

Thirteen years earlier, a former principle of another University of Sydney college, had published a book about his experiences called Finishing School for Blokes: College Life Exposed which called the system "repositories of a blokey culture that marginalises women as sex objects and demeans them.[2]

This detail is only tenuously linked to the scandal and doesn't strictly belong in the history of the college. If to be included it would need to go into the culture section of the article, which currently only includes positives, like "2.1 Heraldry", "2.2 Facilities", "2.3 Dramatic society", "2.4 Sports", "2.5 Annual events" so I'm leaving it alone for now. Still there is a reasonable body of reliable sources attesting to this feature of St Pauls' culture, so anyone want to have a go at including this? Donama (talk) 07:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Racism Controversy

[edit]

I've currently removed the section entitled "2012 Racism Controversy". My concern is one of due weight - as far as I can tell, the accusation is that some people found a themed dinner hosted by the college to be racist. There has been one story published in the SMH used as a source (http://www.smh.com.au/national/tertiary-education/was-this-uni-raj-night-racist-20120609-202q7.html]), and that goes into some detail, including quoting the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board as stating that the party wasn't racist. All other sources (except for a letter to the editor in a student magazine) are simply partial copies of the SMH paper, missing much of the later content from the original. So at the moment there only seems to be one real source that received a bit of coverage, and that doesn't seem to be enough to justify a full section in the article. - Bilby (talk) 09:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support the removal of that text (which can be seen here) as it UNDUE. It would be a very tame group of students who never had a story about some "controversy", and the issue appears to have been a question of poor taste rather than an incident of outright racism. Johnuniq (talk) 10:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on St Paul's College, University of Sydney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on St Paul's College, University of Sydney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:St_Paul%27s_College,_University_of_Sydney&oldid=1210528254"