Talk:Xavier College/Archive2010
2010
[edit]Front page news
[edit]Extended content
|
---|
My addition to the article about the student escapades in NZ were reverted, with an edit comment to the effect that the event wasn't notable. I'm sorry, but that's exactly what the event is. Notable. Melbourne's more reputable daily newspaper has made a major issue of it (even competing with election news) and chose to also refer back to previous muckup day incidents. To ask that this NOT be in the article is to effectively ask for censorship of notable but embarrassing information. I note that there was no reply to my last post on this sort of material just above. It indicates to me that the school's defenders just want stuff blocked. they don't want discussion, because I invited it and it didn't happen. A look at the article's history will show that I have protected this article extensively over the past several months by reverting unsavoury vandalism. This stuff is NOT vandalism. It's true. It's well sourced. And it's notable. HiLo48 (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Show me another school Wikipedia page that has minor incidents in the History section. For example, it was well covered in "Melbourne's more reputable daily newspaper", but there is nothing on the Brighton Grammar School page about paedophiles.--Jim09 (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Nobody cares? What a silly thing to say. You either cannot read or are being deliberately confrontational. I have already said that if you know of any similar front page news for others schools, YOU have every right to add it. Don't delete notable material. HiLo48 (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that you are either avoiding or missing the point that everybody else is trying to communicate to you. Everybody else has been extremely patient with you, (with minor temporary exceptions). Why don't you do all of us a favour and reread what we've written, and think about it? From such an exercise I would expect (or failing that, hope) that you would glean that NONE of us is denying that this story made the front page, but in the grand scheme of things, and in over a century of history, it's a minor incident. As several people have tried to politely tell you, if you include JUST this incident, you are giving it undue weight. I won't repeat my opinon a third time, despite your rude response, but it is still relevant, and you have yet to acknowledge that I made it, much less responded to it. You have made some palava about people's motivations. Read my user page. Having lived in Melbourne for 6 months in my 20s confirmed my opinion that, like Sydney, it's a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there. Like others have more politely stated, (and you seem to have ignored), I don't give a stuff about ANY high school in Melbourne. However, also like them, I DO have an opinion about wikipedia articles. I'm also somewhat amused by your tactic of choosing some minor or irrelevant point, and making a palava about it. It reminds me very much of Mike Rann's heated denial that he had never had sex on a golf course. No one had ever suggested, much less accused, that he ever had. It was just a diversion. In particular, I refer to your waffle about consensus. I said, "I think the concensus is obvious". You waffled on about something totally irrelevant, completely ignoring the point that "I think the concensus is obvious". Do you have a relevant response to my statement? Can you explain why you think that the statement "the concensus is obvious" is false? I have asked you a number of questions which you have chosen to ignore. If you continue to ignore them, I will continue to delete the section, placing the edit comment: 'Like I said last time, "I think the concensus is obvious". Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Consensus is not demonstrated by popular vote, especially when it includes the votes of those who abuse and swear at other posters. That just bullying, not mature discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
|
Front Page news 2
[edit]I think that the incidents which generated media coverage, including the mass suspension and the shoplifting incident, are certainly notable enough for the purposes of Wikipedia. I do think that the way they were written was possibly POV, in that they were written like a newspaper article rather than an encyclopaedia entry. I have re-written the sentence and hopefully that settles the issue. I will now remove the banner. Mitsuhirato (talk) 10:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Mitsuhirato, please refer to the extensive debate above for reasons why other users may not agree with this. senex (talk) 03:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Front page again
[edit]Extended content
|
---|
Yes, it's muckup day, again, and "students, mostly from notorious private Catholic school Xavier College" have hit the news again. While one poster above told us it is an anti-papist journal, it is again from The Age, to most, Melbourne's best newspaper. Look at.... I've added nothing to the article yet because I expect opposition, but to keep ignoring such repeated reporting would not look right to me. It's about the only mainstream publicity the school gets. HiLo48 (talk) 07:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I think I will start again. Xavier College has again made the news, for negative reasons. It has been called notorious by what is usually regarded as a very reliable source for Melbourne events. I have added nothing to the article, but raise it here for discussion. I don't think this material can be ignored. What do other think about the material? HiLo48 (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
This really is a ridiculous discussion. One of those disagreeing with me here says "I don't see any evidence that Sensis/senex is really are out to attack other editors." This is immediately after we had " You really are out to get this school aren't you? Disgruntled past parent? Past staff? Past student?" That is all about me. Not about the article. It adds nothing to the discussion and IS an attack on another editor. The lot of you just don't seem to comprehend what Wikipedia is about. HiLo48 (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
School articles are supposed to be a neutral, objective description of the school and nothing else - no academic league tables, no rivalry with other schools, no lists of teachers, and above all, no trivia. The Wikipedia is not a Red Top, and the content under discussion here fails at WP:UNDUE, WP:INDEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:NOTNEWS, and has no place in the article. End of story. So you can all shut up, and if the cap fits and if you are on the losing end of this discussion, stop your WP:POINTY, your WP:PA, and your WP:CIVIL , because the argument is all about trying to get your own way, and nothing about improving the encyclopedia.--Kudpung (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
|
One of the editors working here has asked for assistance at the above link. EdJohnston (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
The future of the student misbehaviour material
[edit]There have now been several occasions where students have gained negative publicity for the school through bad behaviour on muckup day and on school trips. While I have no intention of adding any of this material now, I am certain that others will in the future, just as they have in the past. It is notable, because it makes the front page of The Age, normally regarded as a very reliable source, as well as plenty of other sources around Melbourne. Most recently, that newspaper used the adjective "notorious" to describe the school. I am also pretty certain that some of the acts of removing this information have been carried with a view to defend the image of the school. This is a mistaken approach. What would be more constructive, both for the school and Wikipedia, would be to include well sourced descriptions of the negative behaviour PLUS well sourced descriptions of the positive actions the school took in response. This is the good news part. Rather than trying to conceal something that cannot really be concealed, include the full story. Much better all round. HiLo48 (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Groan.
- A balanced summary of the WHOLE situation would be a useful addition to the article. Individual incidents are, by themselves, not notable. However, a "continued history of incidents that have raised attention" is, if presented in the right manner, "worthy of mention". But please note: What is "worthy of mention" is the "continued history of incidents" - not the individual incidents.Pdfpdf (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. That's where the significance of the word "notorious" comes in. But I cannot agree with the groan. That's just pathetic, ongoing, immature, personal abuse. Do grow up. (Sits back and awaits further attacks about being "holier than thou", in an article about a church school. Oh, the irony) Bye for now. HiLo48 (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Infobox issues (Fees, Prenominals and Postnominals and notablility of key-people)
[edit]Extended content
|
---|
Regarding the recent back and forth between Pdfpdf and myself... (1) With regards to Fees, it was discussed at length over quite some time at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Education_in_Australia#Template:Infobox_Australia_school_private and Template_talk:Infobox_Australia_school_private#Fees. The consensus was to remove fees from Australian school infoboxes. (2) With regards to adding extra information such as their pre-nominals, post-nominals and so forth, I disagree that this is necessary, and it seems to detract from consistency across the site. There is no other Australian school article at the moment where this is included. (3) With regards to the other position holders in key-people, I don't believe that these people are notable enough to warrant inclusion in the infobox, which, after all, is meant to be brief. Again, this is also an issue of consistency across the other infoboxes for other schools. Following WP:BRD, you've been bold, I've reverted, we're now at the discussion phase, and my stance at the moment is not to include the above information. I'm happy to continue discussion on (2) & (3) here (until a consensus to include has been reached, which will have implications for consistency, so we should move it elsewhere), but I think that (1) should be covered at the talk pages given. -danjel (talk to me) 13:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Copy/pasted from User_talk:Pdfpdf#Xavier College:
Replies to Danjel
Pdfpdf (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Replies to Moondyne
Pdfpdf (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC) post-nominals
Pdfpdf (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC) pre-nominals
Pdfpdf (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Attempt to reorganise[edit]The above is too hard to wade through to edit in a reply. There are two key issues here, Key People and Consistency. In regards to your putting contentious information back in and my reverting "hamfistedly", I've admitted culpability. Not sure what else you want me to do here... But, being instructive, you should have returned to the version without the contentious information to follow WP:BRD.
Does that answer your apparent issues with my character? -danjel (talk to me) 09:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Key-people (1)[edit]Do you know much about this school, Pdfpdf? Mind drawing us a diagram to illustrate the executive structure? How can there be a Chairman, Principal, Headmaster, Head of the Junior School (and presumably the Senior School), and then two Heads of Campus? I've trawled through their website, and, besides the Principal and the Chairman, I'm not seeing any of these individuals mentioned anywhere[[1]][[2]]. In fact, googling for John Fox and Peter Cooper turns up this article, and nothing of note from anywhere else[[3]][[4]]. Therefore, I strongly doubt their notability. -danjel (talk to me) 08:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Consistency[edit]Pdfpdf said:
Then you'll have no problems finding a few Australian schools where it is the case that (a) fees are included in the infobox, against the consensus on WP:EIA (in which case we should fix them); (b) where postnominals are included; or (c) where key_people includes people of dubious notability. -danjel (talk to me) 08:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Edit conflict! Key-people (2)[edit]The header of the parent of this sub-section mentions "notablility of key-people". You will notice I have titled this sub-section "key-people", not "notablility of key-people". I deliberately did this because, in the grand scheme of things, it is very rare for any people in any of these sections for any school (except possibly "board" and "school council" members) to be "notable". In short, "notability" is irrelevant. So, let's talk about "key-people". Although consistency would be wonderful, as I am sure you have observed, there is NO consistency in naming conventions. Each school, or each group of schools, uses its own "system" of naming conventions. Some examples: 1) Moondyne says:
In general, that might be quite reasonable. But in this case, the head of the junior school (if there is such a position at this school) would be the boss of the heads of campus. 2) The person who constructed the contents of the info-box placed the "Prefect of Studies" above the heads of campus, implying that it is a more senior position. Having seen the quality of his edits, I am more inclined to trust his knowledge of the school than I am to trust your vague handwaving and uninformed general assumptions. 3) Xavier seems to have both a principal and a headmaster. I have never seen this before. If you two had unilaterally decided that principal and headmaster were the same thing (as they usually are), and that you can't have both, how would you have handled Xavier's situation?
4) Let's look at Concordia College, Adelaide three days ago. It said:
These are indeed the three key people. On what basis, and with what concensus, did you change this? I really think you two should pay more attention to the people with the local knowledge of the schools in question, rather than assert your own ill-informed assumptions and points of view on ALL schools - one size does NOT fit all. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I'm returning to Real Life for 24 hours. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:BURDEN, which is a policy, and requires verifiability (which we can't find for these people, suggesting their inclusion may be at best non-notable, at worst, erroneous) cites Wales as saying: (underlining/bolding mine) -danjel (talk to me) 09:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC) tldr; You two are a pair. Danjel, does it really matter if two people get included in a single article with marginal notability? Pdf, does it matter if they don't? And stop wikilawyering. Both, stop being obnoxious and lighten up for fcuk's sake. I suggest you both unwatch this article and allow me to adjust it in a day or so in light of whatever information and sources is at hand. If you cant agree to some sort of compromise I'll stand back and happily watch you both get blocked as you descend into an ever increasing spiral of insults. –Moondyne 13:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC) |