Talk:Xavier College/Archive2010

Front page news

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) If it's well sourced, then add it. Hiding undesirable truths is not what Wikipedia is about. HiLo48 (talk) 05:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC) I take issue when you refer to them as 'truths'. Newspapers clearly have a penchant for embellishment and slander, particularly of Catholic schools given the virulent anti-papist sentiment which appears to currently be in vogue. Your user page reveals some political sentiments of your own - if you are all about truths then perhaps you should clearly footnote your own political motives in adding the citations. It's clear, as one contributor stated earlier, that they are not meant to be on Wikipedia and the success of past contributors in not having them added is testament to this fact. I refer you to the following section: WP:NOTSCANDAL - clearly an article about a school ought to do its best to obtain objective facts and figures of the school, its number of students, educational metrics, buildings, history, and culture, insofar as such cultural reports are balanced, truthful and objective. To source a set of embellished facts from a tabloid paper does not mean the facts are balanced, truthful or objective. Given the school's status as an institution which is both prestigious and Catholic, there are many reasons for it to come under attack. To include these attacks would give the impression that the school is somehow deficient relative to other schools when similar (and in many cases, worse) incidents happen at other schools and simply go unreported. Such bias is not objective and has no place in an encyclopedia. senex (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Don't delete. Add well sourced truths. Calling The Age tabloid is not a sensible move and shows serious POV problems. It has to be the number one credible newsprint source for things in Melbourne. Maybe not perfect, but there's nothing more objective available. HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC) If you are a fan of 'well sourced truths' then why haven't you put any information about the 2008 entire Year 12 being suspended, which was much bigger news than the shoplifting (front page of the Herald Sun I think)? Just because something was reported in the news does not automatically make it worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. You have included it in the 'history' section, and even someone with no bias would include that in the school history Jim09 (talk) 09:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC) I wasn't a very active editor at the time of the 2008 Year 12 dramas. I believe that should be in the article too, but I did notice a fight over it in the Talk pages from the time. I expected a fight over the shoplifting issue from loyal school defenders, and thought I would concentrate on one battle at a time, getting the wording for that event as good as it could be using the best sources. I know it's not part of the "official" school history, but Wikipedia is not just about official marketing material, and I didn't want to create a new section with a more negative heading. If you have a suggestion for a better section heading, please share it here. HiLo48 (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC) I would like to make a few points from the Wikipedia: Notability (events) page. If you refer to the lasting effects section, it says "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else." I think it is clear that after the shoplifting incident, it had no ongoing consequences for the school. Also in the duration of coverage: "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." I think that this article settles this debate, as the incident, while reflecting negatively upon the school, is not important enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. I think some people forget that Wikipedia's purpose is an encyclopedia sometimes. Jim09 (talk) 06:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Unfortunately for the school, the two negative events mentioned above do have long-lasting effect. I work in an educational environment in Melbourne and other schools are frequently discussed. Whenever, and I do mean every time, Xavier comes up, somebody mentions either the muck-up day problems or the shoplifting. No matter how much you may not want it to be the case, they are now the primary things the school is known for among those not closely connected with it. To such people, those events are far more notable than virtually everything else in the article. In a Google search for Xavier College Kew (to get the Melbourne one), once one gets past the deliberately marketing oriented sites, those two events are again the first things one finds about the school. HiLo48 (talk) 07:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Kids get expelled from schools all the time. In the overall history and arc of the college, highlighting this one event is WP:UNDUE coverage of something only tangentially related to the school itself. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Active Banana (bananaphone That post totally ignored what I had just posted. That's not discussion. Expulsions from school are usually individuals, for an accumulation of unacceptable behaviour. Both of these cases were large group, for incidents that made the news. HiLo48 (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Got sources to back your personal insite? Active Banana (bananaphone 20:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Your behaviour here is becoming quite unacceptable. You don't just add a comment to an ongoing discussion, and then edit the article before anyone responds to your coments. More importantly, you don't do it twice. I will remain polite here, but I will take unacceptable behaviour further. HiLo48 (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC) If you are speaking to me, every editor most certainly has the right if not the responsibility to "edit" by placing a discussion tag on an article for a point that is under discussion. Active Banana (bananaphone 13:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC) It is yet another storm in a teacup. Either remove it, or add a new section and include all the other storms in teacups. (Preferably, remove it.) Pdfpdf (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Preferably for whom? Obviously at least some of those who don't want this material in the article are simply defending the school's image, rather than seeking balance in the article. Defending the school's image is pure POV behaviour. We need to do better. I frequently edit slanderous vandalism out of this article, while other editors seem to be napping. Only when a nasty truth appears do those others appear, to try to bury it. Stick to the truth on all fronts, then you and your school will gain a lot more respect. HiLo48 (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Goodness gracious me! You are single minded, aren't you! Preferably for whom? - Preferable for everbody!! "Obviously ... " waffle, waffle, waffle ... - Wake up, sunshine, and read what other people have, at first politely, then subsequently with irritation, written. The "truth" is, it's a storm in a teacup, and nobody cares. Personally, I doubt that you really care - I suspect that you are hanging on to a WP:Point, (and good on you for doing so!), but let's get things into perspective. This is only wikipedia. As somebody said above, and I ask you to supply an answer, "Which other WP page about a school contains a list of storms in a teacup?". I suspect none. I think the onus is on YOU to provide some evidence. Meanwhile, you are giving undue weight to just one incident. As I said first time, "Either remove it, or add a new section and include all the other storms in teacups. (Preferably, remove it.)" Pdfpdf (talk) 11:34, 5 October 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) Nobody cares? What a silly thing to say.' Well, that's your POV, and you are entitled to it. But please do NOT try to pass it off as a fact! The fact of the matter is that of the 6 billion people on this planet, you are the ONLY one who is complaining. The other 5,999,999,999 don't care. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC) You either cannot read or are being deliberately confrontational. - And what do you hope to achieve by insulting me? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC) I have already said that if you know of any similar front page news for others schools, YOU have every right to add it. - Irrelevant. I repeat: "the onus is on YOU to provide some evidence" Pdfpdf (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Don't delete notable material. - As the man below says: 'It is only you who is considering this "notable" material.' Pdfpdf (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC) It is only you who is considering this "notable" material. Active Banana (bananaphone 20:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC) You are not being consistent in the points you are making. You have abused me. You have sworn at me. You now suggest that because I am the only one presenting a particular view in recent days (others have at other times), then I must be wrong. Many times in my life I have been in a minority, and right. Look, you are clearly trying to defend the honour of your school here. That is a dangerous POV position to start with. Hard to remain objective. You need to pay attention to how that article and your behaviour is seen by others not connected with the school. When those connected with the school are seen as doing everything they can to hide facts about it, it actually does more harm than good. Mention that bad things happened (it's very public, not much point denying it), AND that the school took strong action about it. THAT'S the positive approach. HiLo48 (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC) I am saying that when you are the only one, and all of your arguments have been countered by policies, that consensus is against you. Active Banana (bananaphone 20:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC) "Look, you are clearly trying to defend the honour of your school here " and please stop making assumptions about me. I have never even been to New Zealand, let alone have any remote connection to Xavier. My only dog in the fight is to have an article that best meets Wikipedia content policies. Active Banana (bananaphone 20:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC) AND as someone who "work in an educational environment in Melbourne " it is likely that you have a conflict of interest in this discussion. Active Banana (bananaphone 20:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Apologies about assumptions. I should be more careful. But I learnt long ago that when negotiating things it's important to try to discern the true motivations of others involved in the discussions. My perspective on negative image factors like the one we are discussing is that attempts to hide them do more harm than good, It is a form of censorship. I also believe that Wikipedia policies can be used to argue any point you like, but there are some major ones that must always apply. Good sources must always apply, and The Age is the best we have in Melbourne, despite the extreme views on that expressed earlier here. (Perhaps that made me a little more persistent here.) Notability is critical, and I truly believe that front page news, more than once, makes something notable. Google searches can help here too. (But don't always.) As for my own potential conflict of interest, I once wrote a "reference" for a boy I knew to get a scholarship to Xavier. He got it, did well, and is now a very successful professional adult. I can assure you that my own current position places me at no risk of a conflict of interest. I think it's a great school. One of many in melbourne. Hence my frequent attention to the article re vandalism. But I do hear people talk about the Xavier dramas from time to time. It's well established now as part of education folklore in Melbourne now. Yes, that last bit is OR. Just a personal observation that assures me that my claim of notability is justified. To not even mention them in the Wikipedia article. when the public already knows about them as big stories, will reek of censorship, again one of the criticisms levelled at Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC) There is no "attempt to hide". There is a consensus that it is not relevant in the overall scheme of the school. Just because something CAN be verified, does not mean that it is appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Active Banana (bananaphone 22:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Clearly, if something is removed from the article, it's hidden. I am genuinely trying to imagine what kind of negative front page news WOULD be acceptable to you as content for this article. HiLo48 (talk) 06:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. It is an encyclopedia. Yet again, just cause something is verifiable it dont mean that it belongs in a Wikipedia article: WP:IINFO / WP:UNDUE. Active Banana (bananaphone 17:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Clearly, if something is removed from the article, it's hidden - False. A complete non sequitur Pdfpdf (talk) 13:54, 6 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) Everybody else has been extremely patient with you. Yeah, right. This includes swearing at me with the f word in an Edit summary, and now criticising the city I live in. Sorry, I gave up reading at that point. There are so many points I have made that have not been responded to, and questions that I have asked that have not been answered, that the arguments against me, including that one at the top of this post, have merged togetther into what I see an irrational attack on me. One current argument is that I am alone. Well, I am certianly not. Others have added this material from time to time. They just haven't participated this week. And, as I have already said, many times in my life, I have been a minority, and tight. That's one of the problems with a voting style, democratic process, and why Wikipedia doesn't actually use such an approach. It allows a majority to bully a minority. Consensus is NOT a popular vote. I have been involved in many intense debates over my time, and the tactics used by many participants in this one are exactly those that convince me I am probably right. To those who HAVE been polite, side with the bullies if you must, fail to condemn their behaviour while allowing attacks on me, but do think about the consequences to Wikipedia of allowing that to become the method of agreeing on content. HiLo48 (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC) non-productive comment, but Godwin's Law approaching in 5, 4, 3,... Active Banana (bananaphone 19:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Everybody else has been extremely patient with you. Yeah, right. This includes swearing at me with the f word in an Edit summary, and now criticising the city I live in. You're really good at this, aren't you? You take PART of what I say, and use it out of context. Have you ever considered a career as a politician? You obviously have the skills! Sorry, I gave up reading at that point. a) I seriously doubt that you are even the smallest bit sorry. b) Well, that's highly convenient for you, isn't it? That way you have an excuse for not addressing any of the matters you don't want to address. At the risk of repeating myself: Have you ever considered a career as a politician? You obviously have the skills! There are so many points I have made that have not been responded to, and questions that I have asked that have not been answered, that the arguments against me, including that one at the top of this post, have merged togetther into what I see an irrational attack on me. Hmmm. I sympathise. I, too, have been in that position. I didn't enjoy it. It's unfortunate that it seems like an irrational attack upon you, but not surprising. I imagine that the following will be of NO solace to you, but with the benefit of NOT being the target of the attack: I can assure you that it's not irrational - it's just the collection of a number of points-of-view that are differnt to yours. One current argument is that I am alone. - I agree. Well, I am certianly not. - Really? (I could go off on a tangent about "imaginary friends", but that would be a cheap shot and gratuitous, and I CERTAINLY would not appreciate it if somebody did it to me. So I won't. But I have to tell you, it's a huge temptation.) Well, I am certianly not. - Hmmm. I'm unconvinced. Others have added this material from time to time. They just haven't participated this week. And, as I have already said, many times in my life, I have been a minority, and tight. That's one of the problems with a voting style, democratic process, and why Wikipedia doesn't actually use such an approach. It allows a majority to bully a minority. Consensus is NOT a popular vote. I have been involved in many intense debates over my time, and the tactics used by many participants in this one are exactly those that convince me I am probably right. To those who HAVE been polite, side with the bullies if you must, fail to condemn their behaviour while allowing attacks on me, but do think about the consequences to Wikipedia of allowing that to become the method of agreeing on content. I'm sorry. (And genuinely, I am sorry.) But I got lost somewhere in all those words. Here's what I got out of them. Please advise if I missed anything. (My paraphrasing:) "OK, I'm the only person arguing at the moment, but there have been several similar arguements in the past, and more than a few other people making them, so your point that I'm alone is neither useful nor particularly valid" If I got it right, then my response is: Fair comment. "It allows a majority to bully a minority." Sorry, but I'm not going there. There are too many holes in your arguement, and too much effort required to counter them, particularly for a situation of whether we're going to include, or not, a few sentences in a wikipedia article. "To those who HAVE been polite, side with the bullies if you must, fail to condemn their behaviour while allowing attacks on me, but do think about the consequences to Wikipedia of allowing that to become the method of agreeing on content." Please excuse my cynicism, but I'm really impressed by that. It's right up there with "Have you stopped beating your wife?". However, other than invoking motherhood, I can't work out what your point is. (That is, I can't work out what your point is beyond: "I'm right and you're wrong, nyah-nyah-de-nyah-nyah!) Perhaps you'd like to clarify? Really, I'm NOT deliberately trying to insult you - I'm trying to work out WHY, in the big scheme of things, you think this ONE incident is so worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedic article about a particular private high school in Melbourne with a 100+ year history. You continue to avoid questions in the genre of "such events, and/or collections of events, do not appear elsewhere in wikipaedia - what's so special about this school that it DOES merit the inclusion of just ONE such event" The one question I left behind from my last response was: Can you explain why you think that the statement "the concensus is obvious" is false? Could I ask you to indulge me and address that question? I look forward to your relevant response. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:25, 7 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) HiLo48, there have been a number of people on this post from varying backgrounds, all of whom have conclusively demonstrated that the information is unfit for the article. Furthermore, multiple posts, all of which you have failed to reply to, have made a note of your numerous biases and conflicts of interest. Just because OVERWHELMING consensus has proven your opinion to be in the minority does not mean you are being bullied. People are getting frustrated because you are continuing to make a nuisance of yourself on a page about a High School which you claim to have no vested interest in. You really need to learn when to call it quits. senex (talk) 03:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Front Page news 2

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

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.... http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/muckup-students-hurl-flares-on-busy-street-20101020-16t23.html?autostart=1 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) Hello? Is anybody home? Despite your view of the world, if you bother to read AND THINK ABOUT what others have said above, NOT ONE PERSON (even yourself) have denied that a balanced summary of the WHOLE situation would be a useful addition to the article. As I have said at least twice, individual incidents are storms in a teacup, and by themselves, not notable. However, a "continued history of incidents that have raised attention" are, 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) 10:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC) As soon as I get responses with openings like that, I know I am not dealing with people acting in good faith. Please try to behave a little better. Your aggressive attitude conceals any logic you think may exists in your post. You did not actually respond to what I posted at all. You reacted. HiLo48 (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC) You never cease to both amaze and amuse me. You latch on to the smallest and most irrelevant issue, blow it up, and address it. This allows you to both completely ignore and avoid the point of the posting, and sound self-riteous and virtuous at the same time. You might think this is a good strategy, but let me tell you - the only person you are fooling is yourself. Don't believe me? Read the rest of this page. If this was real life, and not wikipedia, I would give a more direct response. I'm afraid that I must inform you that this tactic results in you having ZERO credibility. As to your assessment "You did not actually respond to what I posted at all. You reacted.", I suggest that you might like to actually read what I wrote. Now, unless you wake up and smell the flowers, my future responses will be direct and functional. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:54, 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) 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) If you read the article carefully it only ever mentions an allegation. You really are out to get this school aren't you? Disgruntled past parent? Past staff? Past student? senex (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC) You really are out to attack other editors, aren't you? I haven't yet added anything new to the article. I raised it here for discussion. The reality is that the only time this school ever seems to be mentioned in the news is for student misbehaviour. It has now happened on multiple occasions. The Age has used the adjective notorious for the school. I understand the sensitivity, but to ignore this reality in Wikipedia would be wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Actually HiLo, I don't see any evidence that Sensis/senex is "really are out to attack other editors". On what are you basing that statement? I haven't yet added anything ... - I can't speak for others, but I had noticed your restraint and caution, and I had appreciated it. I'm sure others have too. The reality is ... - On the one hand, I'm inclined to doubt that what you say is "the only time this school ever seems to be mentioned in the news". On the other hand, Assuming good faith, I'm not sure what your point is. I understand the sensitivity, but to ignore this reality in Wikipedia would be wrong. - Again, what's your point? I've already said a number of times that "A balanced summary of the WHOLE situation would be a useful addition to the article." Doesn't that address your statement? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:50, 26 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) Greetings HiLo! Now that I have at last dispensed with other distractions, you have my complete and undivided attention. This really is a ridiculous discussion. - ROTFL!! I tried to tell you that, politely, ages ago! Past that, the rest of your posting is incoherent waffle. It's not until we get to the last sentence that we get anything coherent: The lot of you just don't seem to comprehend what Wikipedia is about. - Fascinating! I recall the quote: "The only thing in common between all your failed relationships is you". Somehow, that seems VERY relevant here. As I said earlier: "Wake up and smell the flowers". Tell me please; Don't you find it even a little perplexing that EVERYBODY has a different opinion to you? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC) The Edit summary says "you seem to have missed the point". Actually, I quite consciously never read as far as whatever the point may have been in that previous post. I was distracted by the appalling lack of logic associated with the personal attacks, and felt that in the interests of Wikipedia I needed to try to do something about that. If those who disagree with my point of view could simply discuss the article and possible sourced additions, rather than discussing me, and acting as if a bullying majority should rule, Wikipedia would be a lot better off. A suggestion. Try to post without using the words "you" and "your". HiLo48 (talk) 18:00, 29 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) A courteous, constructive post from someone who actually cares about the quality of Wikipedia and this article would not include the words "you can all shut up". (I suggested above avoiding the word "you".)HiLo48 (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC) I don't understand how an editor who has repeatedly vandalised an article in what is clearly an attempt to peddle their own biased viewpoint can appeal to the sensitivities of other editors. Kudpung's comment was eminently sensible. I don't see how you can continue to irritate us all by reverting our edits, and then turn around to attack the tone of our comments rather than the substance of them. Yes, you are correct - we are all irritated. Incredibly irritated at having to repeatedly come back to this article to argue with someone over the inclusion of two sentences which never merited being added in the first place. senex (talk) 09:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC) "Actually, I quite consciously never read as far as whatever the point may have been" - Ah ha! Well! That explains a lot. In fact, it explains why this conversation has been endless and made no progress. "If those who disagree with my point of view could simply discuss the article and possible sourced additions ... " - They have. Numerous times. But to no avail, because: "Actually, I quite consciously never read as far as whatever the point may have been". A suggestion. Try to post without using the words "you" and "your". - Done. So we now have (at least) three editors who are no longer going to tolerate this rubbish, and will simply revert any such obsessive postings. Toodle-oo. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:Editor assistance/Requests#Xavier College

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

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)

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: [ec] Agree with Danjel. Minor school officials are generally not needed in school articles. I think we set a bad precedent if we start this and should try to keep to named positions in the infobox parameters. ie. headmaster, principal, chairman, chaplain and not much more. For one thing, whose going to keep these up to date and how can we be sure they are up to date. This is an encyclopaedia, not a directory. Same for fees - they are so varied in structure and there's really no way to apply a consistent way of presentation that isn't misleading. They are also ever-changing. I've no objection to some appearing in prose BTW, as long as its well sourced and expanded to not mislead. It must also be relevant - is there something noteworthy about the fees at a particular school? WRT postnonimals - there's a MOS guidance on this somewhere but I cant find it just now. –Moondyne 13:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC) I had thought the same thing regarding a MOS policy on pre/postnominals, but yeah, I can't find it either. -danjel (talk to me) 13:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC) WP:CREDENTIAL "Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name." WRT national honour post-nominals, eg. AC, it seems they can be included. –Moondyne 14:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC) So SJ goes, AC stays. Fair enough. I'm just putting this out there as a thought; I don't endorse it or agree with it and I note that it would be in contravention to the above, but it could be worth thinking about things from Pdfpdf's perspective: I've been thinking about prenominals in infoboxes, actually (in the last 10 minutes), and I realise that this would be a deviation from the above policy, but I think in the case of Father (as in Fr Thomas Renshaw), and similar titles like Rev., Sr. and Prof., we should probably think about keeping them, as it does a fairly important job of describing who the person is... Thoughts? -danjel (talk to me) 14:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Agree to keeping Rev., Sr. and Prof. Dr. etc. But drop Mr., Mrs., Ms. Miss etc. (unless 1st name is not known of course, then "|headmaster = Mr. Smith" is fine). SJ should go. –Moondyne 14:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Hmmm. At the moment I still disagree (as I said above, I was just putting it out there). I'll sleep on it tonight and come back tomorrow. -danjel (talk to me) 14:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Yeah, OK, I agree. We should probably write this up into a set of guides for schools at WP:EIA. -danjel (talk to me) 00:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Just concerning the SJ, it is encyclopaedic and relevant considering he is a Jesuit Rector at a Jesuit School -- it ties in nicely with mentions of the Jesuits in the introduction. Nworsn (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Would you argue, then, that we should be adding the MACE postnominal to principals and executive member's names? I don't think this is necessary; you don't need to be told that the chaplain is a Jesuit to know that he is one at a Jesuit school. -danjel (talk to me) 16:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC) I don't have a strong view on SJ but tend towards not, as per WP:CREDENTIAL. I started drafting a guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Education in Australia/Guideline. Feel free to expand/change/comment. –Moondyne 01:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Replies to Danjel I'll insert this into the talk page for the article also so that the discussion can begin, if you like. - Yes, I do like. Thank you. (1) With regards to Fees, ... The consensus was to remove fees from Australian school infoboxes. - Fair enough, but why is there still a "fees" parameter in the template? Because its always been there in {{infobox school}}. I have neither the time nor energy to fight that battle. –Moondyne 05:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC) It might be of use to the schools for other countries, at least where there is a more standardised and easily referenced source for comparing fees. We only have MySchool, for which there will be methodological issues (already highlighted by various private schools and their advocacy groups). -danjel (talk to me) 06:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC) (2) ... I disagree that this is necessary ... - OK, we disagree. (2) ... There is no other Australian school article at the moment where this is included. - Wow! That's a bold claim. Are you sure of that? Having just edited about 30%15% (it was 30% of about half the full set) of the 1105 schools (danjel did the bulk), I did see a lot with pre-nominals. Dr., Rev. etc. Danjel may have been talking about post-noms - there was only a tiny handful that had those. –Moondyne 05:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Yeah, I was talking about postnominals. I don't recall there being any. And, yeah, bloody hells have I seen a lot of school articles the last couple of weeks. For prenominals, there were a few... I removed the ones that I saw, but Moondyne and I have reconsidered (see elsewhere in this discussion), so I'll be putting certain ones back into the articles where appropriate. -danjel (talk to me) 06:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC) (3) ... I don't believe that ... - OK, we disagree. See sub-section below for my rationale. (3) ... Again, this is also an issue of consistency ... - There are many examples to show that there is no consistency. I like consistency and think we should generally strive for it when an opportunity arises. –Moondyne 05:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC) I'm a proponent of consistency also. Particularly where it comes to more stylistic features. -danjel (talk to me) 06:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC) I, too, prefer consistency, when it is defined or obvious what to be consistent with. But as I said "There are many examples to show that there is no consistency". How about we define who is being consistent with what before we go off making sweeping statements? Pdfpdf (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC) (3) ... Following WP:BRD, you've been bold ... - Please do your homework. It wasn't me who made the initial edits. (I just agree with them). The sequence was: Nworsn did a lot of good work and made very significant improvements to the article Moondyne updated the infobox. Moondyne removed the fees, without stating why. Moondyne removed the office holders, without stating why. I (Pdfpdf) proofread (copyedited) the article making a number of improvements. I also restored the fees and the postnominals. I didn't think there was anything major or controversial, so I said that. Moondyne removed the fees (only) and said "fees are unencyclopaedic" Danjel, rather hamfistedly, reverted ALL of my edits, not just the ones he/she disagreed with, with a rather rude and demeaning statement of "returning to last good version". Moondyne repaired some of Danjel's hamfisted damage. Nworsn made some more improvements. I (Pdfpdf) repaired the rest of Danjel's hamfisted damage. I also restored the fees asking Moondyne: If fees are unencyclopaedic, why is there a "fees" parameter in the template? Danjel, once again hamfistedly reverted ALL of my edits, not just the ones he/she disagreed with. I (Pdfpdf) once again repaired Danjel's hamfisted damage. I'll take responsibility for that. I didn't see the rest of your edit, just the changes to the infobox and some spacing changes elsewhere. For the record, it is just the infobox changes with which I have an issue. -danjel (talk to me) 06:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC) That's what I thought. Hence my discomfort with you reverting ALL my edits without explanation. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Given the "fees" contention, I (Pdfpdf) hid the "fees" You should have also changed back the other infobox changes as these were also subject to this discussion. -danjel (talk to me) 06:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC) If you are going get pedantic and make pronouncements about what I "should" and "should not" be doing, YOU "should" have paid more attention to your edits, particularly when I suggested to you that you were "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". Pdfpdf (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Sure. I've admitted culpability above. *shrug* -danjel (talk to me) 08:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Good oh. I'll let you make that revert tomorrow, or I'll make it if you get busy with RL. - What is "RL"? Pdfpdf (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC) RL is Real Life. :) -danjel (talk to me) 06:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Oh dear. One might reasonably conclude that I don't know what Real Life is. (And further, one might be correct.) Oh dear! Pdfpdf (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Replies to Moondyne Agree with Danjel. Minor school officials are generally not needed in school articles. - See sub-section below for my rationale. For one thing, whose going to keep these up to date - Probably the person who put them there in the first place. What happens when that person is no longer around? –Moondyne 05:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Who cares? What happens if an asteroid crashes into the planet tomorrow? Let's cross that bridge when we get to it - it may never happen. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC) People move around and by restricting to a smaller number we'll have less to worry about. True. But why worry about it at all? Pdfpdf (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC) I think that the head of a junior school is not notable. I have no strong opinion, but I don't think it should be your POV that dictates whether or not it should or should not be there.Pdfpdf (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Reviewing the reversions, I now see that 2 of the persons were heads of a campus. I could be convinced that they were worthy of inclusion. Not so "Prefect of Studies". –Moondyne 05:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Comments: 1) As the head of the junior school would be these two persons' boss, I'm getting mixed messages from you. 2) As I have no idea where a "Prefect of Studies" fits into the grand scheme, I have no opinion. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Same for fees ... - Hmmm. Good points. I agree. That sounds like a good plan that I would support. Pdfpdf (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC) post-nominals I'm glad you agree that "AC" stays. I don't have a strong view on "SJ" and could be convinced either way. Pdfpdf (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC) pre-nominals Agree with Moondyne: Agree to keeping Rev., Sr. and Prof. Dr. etc. But drop Mr., Mrs., Ms. Miss etc. (unless 1st name and initial(s) are not known). Pdfpdf (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC) OK, as I said, following WP:BRD, we're still at the discussion point; we're not at the point where we're ready to add extra content yet. I'm making the changes as have been discussed and agreed upon above. -danjel (talk to me) 06:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Seems fair. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Attempt to reorganise 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. To be clearer: 1) People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones 2) You are entitled to your own opinion; I'm entitled to disagree with it. 3) Please don't tell me what to do. By all means make suggestions, and inform me of your opinions, but don't force your opinions upon me. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Does that answer your question? Pdfpdf (talk) 09:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC) To also be clear. I'm trying to move forward assuming good faith on your part. (1) Agreed! And we should also admit fault where fault is our's, which I've done. Moving on. (2) Sure. That's what we're doing here. (3) While WP:BRD isn't a guideline or policy, it's a bloody great way to move forward. If you haven't read it, then I suggest you do. Then it would be awesome if you could follow it so that we can all move forward. Does that answer your apparent issues with my character? -danjel (talk to me) 09:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Key-people (1) 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) Do you know much about this school, Pdfpdf? - a little 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 don't believe there is a "Head of the Junior School" I doubt there is a "Head of the Senior School" position. I'm surprised that there is both a "Principal" and a "Headmaster" For more comments, see Talk:Xavier College#Key-people (2) below. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Consistency Pdfpdf said: Again, this is also an issue of consistency ... - There are many examples to show that there is no consistency. 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) 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: "I think that the head of a junior school is not notable." "I could be convinced that (heads of a campus) were worthy of inclusion. 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. Why, therefore, are they "worthy of inclusion", whereas "the head of a junior school is not notable"? 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? When Chris McCabe became the first non-Jesuit Principal of Xavier in 1997, they re-organised the School so as to have a "Principal" (i.e. of all three campuses) and three "Headmasters" of each of the campuses -- Senior Campus, Burke Hall and Kostka Hall. Hence if John Hickey is mentioned in the Info Box, as he should be considering his notable position within the School, then so should Peter Cooper and John Fox. Nworsn (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC) 4) Let's look at Concordia College, Adelaide three days ago. It said: Key People Mr. Lester Saegenschnitter (Principal) Mrs. Briony Carman (Head Of Middle School) Mrs. Mavis Herbert (Head Of Senior School) These are indeed the three key people. On what basis, and with what concensus, did you change this? Can you supply me with a good reason why I should not revert this change? 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) (1) Moondyne says that he could be convinced, not that he is. So what? Irrelevant. Suggest you re-read what I wrote. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC) (2) Hey thanks for the ad hominem. A lot of quality editors add things which aren't necessary. This happens particularly in issues of Conflict of Interest. I could add reams of information to Rose Bay Secondary College, because I work closely with that school and know a lot about it. I'm not going to do so, because I have a Conflict of Interest that would probably colour my beliefs about the appropriateness and notability of any information I would add. Therefore, I am steering clear for now. Again, so what? I don't understand what your reply has to do with what I wrote. Perhaps you could concisely state how your point (which I do understand) relates to the issue? Pdfpdf (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC) (3) ...as I said above, I can only find information on the principal. I would suggest that the headmaster entry is probably an error. Again, going to Google, we find nothing on the Headmaster John Hickey[[5]] and nothing at all at the Xavier website [[6]]. Thankyou, by the way, for bringing this to our attention; being that it looks like an error (or at least something that is totally uncitable), that entry should be removed. And I suggest that as you have no idea what you are talking about, you leave it alone. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC) John Hickey IS the Headmaster of the Senior Campus at Xavier, plain and simple. The internet is NOT the only place where information may be sought! Would you like me to fish out a reference to him in one of the School's periodicals and add a link on the page? That would be sufficient, would it not? Nworsn (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC) (4) Do you have consensus to add information, that is unreferenced and which I believe to be non-notable, to that article? No? You need consensus to add information. Otherwise it's inclusion can and should be challenged. If you don't have consensus and you go back and add it, then you're opening the door for all sorts of rubbish to be added to every article. In other words: WP:BRD. -danjel (talk to me) 09:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Have you stopped beating your wife? I have already addressed all of the above. Please read what I wrote, and then come back and redraft a relevant response. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC) P.S. I'm returning to Real Life for 24 hours. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC) My point in regards to (1) was that you haven't convinced him, and you definitely haven't convinced me of their significance. Notability hasn't been demonstrated just by it being here, or that someone with expertise may have edited it at some point, which was the gist of my point in regards to (2). Knowing about it or not, it looks like an error, and it's unverifiable and should therefore be removed, regardless of my knowledge about the school or not, which was my point in regards to (3). In regards to (4), you're right that it was a loaded question, because I knew that the answer was that you had no basis for adding information. But that was the answer to your question, as it should be here. 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: I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of randeom speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. (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)