Talk:St Peter's College, Adelaide

Oakbank brawl

Is it being emotive by describing this event as a 'brawl'?

That's what the newspaper said at the time. A group punchup without any rules is usually a brawl - as it can't be described as a battle (eg in wars, etc).Blnguyen | rant-line 07:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The article refered to to support this statement is now over 1 year old (5 Jun 05) Certainly its validity has 'expired'. --Whemswee 23:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No, in fact for a source, a year old is relatively recent. A source does not simply 'expire.' To claim so is incredibly naive. --j--

You obviously have not read the article. Just because this was the case over a year ago, does not mean it is the case now. --Whemswee 03:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this about the punch-up. However old it is, it still happened.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I clearly have read the article. No the article was about the paedophilia, yes the punch up did happen. --j

The so called Brawl involving saints students, was infact between Old Collegians of the two schools, not current students. this is merely the media manipulating the facts to make headlines. many media sources will do whatever they can to cut st peters college down (especially the nearby Channel 7 and The Advertiser newspaper)!

Actually the brawl did involve students who were at the time attending both PAC and St Peters. The main instigators and culprits were seen as old scholars, but students who were at the time in year 12 were also involved in the fight. Badgeroonibin 16:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I can feel an edit war coming on regarding this particular incident so let's discuss it. The brawl is not notable as it does not directly relate to the school itself. It happened at Oakbank, which is not a school event. The fact that the majority of the participants were allegedly old scholars or students of Princes and Saints does not really constitute an entry into the school page. Try making a page entitled "Saints-Princes Old Scholars Rivalry" and see how far you get. Basically, it is of no interest to someone seeking information about the school.--EDH 05:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Child abuse claim

This is a matter that is still to be heard by the courts it is unwise for Wikipedia to make such claims. In Australia, one is innocent until proven by Court of Law to be guilty. What the Headmaster of the time did, or did not do, has yet to be substantiated. --Whemswee 00:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Funnily enough, people dont know what they are talking about. it was not a headmaster of the school who alledgedly commited these acts, but rather the school chaplain. the incoming headmasters first act was to sack this member of the staff! and these events are alledged to have occured in the early 1990's. so they are not infact recent events. the man in question however was only extradited back to Australia last year. that may be considered recent.

• The recent edit by User:Javsav has portrayed a misleading interpretation of the facts presented in the article from The Age. It was implied that a number of students had been systematically abused for a period of time, whereas in reality there was only one single incident that occurred just after school had finished for the day; the victim reported the incident immediately, and by 6PM the chaplain was packing his bags. The school decided not make the matter public at the request of the parents. Also, mention of the "balinese boyfriend" is surely inappropriate and irrelevant. The grammar wasn't too good, either. I have fixed these errors.

--EDH 01:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the 'bad grammar' - I didn't actually write the 'misleading interpretation,' I just reverted it from when it had been previously deleted. Additionally, while we're on the topic of the use of language, your recent edit to the Da Costa section of the article is rather un-encyclopaedic. Javsav 18:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for wrongly attributing the edit to you; I had not seen it before and it was not marked as a revert. Side issue - how is it that my edit to the Da Costa section is unencyclopaedic, especially considering it replaced a totally uncited rumour?--EDH 23:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

revisited

14 October 2008: The most recent addition was an accurate report of events, court proceedings and reportage and was all fully referenced. It in no way contravenes Wikipedia guidelines or requirements. It has therefore been reinstated.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.109.106.111 (talk • contribs)

Verifiability is not the only hurdle a piece of information must clear in order to be included. It contravenes WP:UNDUE and WP:TOPIC (and your particular wording also violates WP:COPYVIO. It comes close to violating WP:NPOV, since the addition of this material is clearly intended only to Saints-bash. Additionally, it is entirely inappropriate to randomly lump it into the history section, and would be equally inappropriate to create a controversy subheading specifically to get this covered. Maybe we can work out a form in which this might be appropriate, but as it stands I don't support it.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It's also a somewhat selective report of events, court proceedings and reportage, but that's another issue.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

15 October 2008: Thanks for your comments. In response, the material is verifiable and presented accurately. It has no undue weight, it is simply an objective reportage of public articles and discussions conducted in the broader media. They, in turn, are simply reporting events. The ABC item also included a broader discussion with a range of participants. "Undue weight" does not equate with word-count.

It seems hard to argue that it contravenes "topic". It is relevant, contemporary and, while not a very nice issue, is part of the schools history and experience.

On "copyviol" I am happy to either add quotes (done) or rewrite.

On the issue of NPOV, that assessment is subjective whilst the material included is objective, a reportage of facts. You may not like the nature of the facts, or the issue, but they are presented objectively. If it was put as an interpretation or opinion then you may have an argument but, as it stands, it does not contravene NPOV.

The suggestion that "this material is clearly intended only to Saints-bash" is subjective and an opinion. That is not a neutral point of view. Regardless of whether you support it or not (or are offended or not by it?) the subject matter is reported accurately, it is a component of the institutional experience of Saint Peter's school and therefore forms a part of its history (contemporary or otherwise). It is expressed objectively (quoting publicly referenced documents and transcripts).

There is no element that is sub judice that has not been previously reported and, on the elements presented here, no media outlet has been sanctioned by the courts for inappropriate reportage. The issue of sub judice is not up to you to assess, if it even applied, it is a court matter. As this reportage has not been contested that concern is moot.

If in fact it is simply that you find the topic offensive, or detrimental to the school, then as unfortunate as that is, wanting to hide the truth or construct a sanitized profile of the school is not an appropriate response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.109.111.195 (talk) 04:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Whether a consensus develops to include the material or not, the history section is not the place for it. Undue weight does apply, and word counts are a good indicatior of relative weight given to a topic. In this case you have claims about a recently abandoned court hearing given almost as much space as the entire basic history of the school. I'm not entirely sure where such a thing might fit into this article, but in any case there is nothing in the sources that says that SPSC was found guilty of "material negligence" or whatever the wording was, merely that there were claims lodged to that effect. Also, please leave the material out until we can develop some sort of consensus. And please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) --Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

15 October 2008: Presumably the consensus is going to be determined by you? Moreover, why a consensus on factual reportage? Your actions seem more akin to censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.109.111.195 (talk) 09:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

15 October 2008: Fewer words, wholly accurate, referenced and objective. If that gets removed I would suspect Yeti Hunter must be trying to keep the issue quiet for some reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.109.111.195 (talk) 09:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, because adding a blatantly in-your-face heading (this diff) before practically all of the other information about the school is an attempt at bipartisan resolution? Yes, consensus will be determined by me, at least in part. That's the very definition of consensus. I don't agree that the information improves the article and therefore consensus does not exist. You are the one who needs to prove this belongs in the article (see WP:BRD).

Look, I've known about this case for many years and have been following it somewhat closely, and I think it's a disgrace that the bloke got off scott-free and that the victim has been having such a hard time. But this is an article about the school, not about Mountford, and the school has not been convicted of any wrongdoing (claims ≠ facts). If and when that changes, then perhaps there will be a stronger argument for inclusion, but that's not presently the case.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

23 October 2008: It seems unfortunate that a "consensus" needs to be reached on the inclusion of factual material, however offensive anyone finds it. Yes, it was an unfortunate issue, yes it should not dominate an article on Saints, but it ought to be a component of such an article otherwise we can only assume that the revert edits are being undertaken because it is felt the incident reflects poorly on the school. It is a factual historical (and current) event in the School's life. There is no sensationalism or misreporting. There appears no reason for any censorship on this issue, or a sweeping under the carpet in the hope that it might all just go away. By the way, I like the approach of a demand for a consensus. They should try that at the UN! If you can demonstrate where this reportage is not factually correct I would be happy to rewrite it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.109.106.45 (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Au contraire, consensus is always needed. Yes, it is sensationalising and misrepresentative (if not strictly "misreporting") to present "claims" as fact, and additionally there has not been any conclusion to this case; it has not been ruled that the school (as opposed to one of its employees) acted in an inappropriate manner. I'm sure you would like to portray me as trying to "censor" or "sweep under the carpet", but the "facts" (as opposed to as-yet-unproven allegations) do not support your postion. I do not think the case for including this material holds up. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

25 October 2008: No unsubstantiated claims being made here. All that is presented is a matter of public record. The school has been the subject of claims (see court records), John Mountford is the accused (see court records), has been the subject of police arrest and subject to extradition from Thailand (see court records). The charge in 2005 is a matter of public record as is the accusation he abused a college student. There is nothing sensational about any of that, just fact as recorded by the courts and various agencies including the police, customs and DFAT. If you think they are sensationalizing it I'm sure they would love to hear about it. If you think there is an error in the court transcripts you should inform them of that. If you think the police were in error to arrest and extradite Mr Mountford you should raise the issue. No media outlet has been sanctioned in reporting the factual detail above. The topic may make you feel uncomfortable but the details are wholly factual. If you can point to an error in any of them I would be happy to correct same.

- More recently the school has been the subject of claims it knowingly hired a paedophile priest, John Mountford, in 1990. Court documents show concerns were raised about the conduct of Mountford before he was hired by the College. Mountford was charged in 2005, accused of abusing a St. Peter's College student in 1990 and 1991. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.109.111.235 (talk) 13:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I've said all I need to say in the previous entry. If you can reason why these unproven allegations should be included, then let me know. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"I think it's a disgrace that the bloke got off scott-free and that the victim has been having such a hard time" This kind of personal opinion by Yeti Hunter is just that and not factual and should be removed. The bloke got off because the charges were dropped as no evidence was tendered ( see court records). The man who made the allegations refused to have them tested in a court of law and is not a victim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.4.108 (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The man who made the allegations is now attempting to get compensation from the school for something which has never been proven to have happened. He says he was traumatised by this event ( in court records) and thus is unable to work and earn money. Yet in his website www.fpworldwide.co.uk he is seen to be the owner of a hospitality consultancy company. It is also a matter of record that he applied for work at the Holiday Inn Sydney just before he aborted the first trial and claimed in his application he was successfully employed on a large salary. He also claims that the alleged abuse resulted in a variety of illnesses; yet is a matter of court record that these illnesses pre-date the alleged abuse. Any trial would have brought all these facts into the public domain but as he dropped the charges this could not be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.4.108 (talk) 15:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the forum in which you should be waging this battle.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Yeti. Of course you are right. But what other forums are there - as the man will not allow his allegations to be tested in a court of Law ( Mountford has always been keen for this to happen as he claims to be innocent of the allegations)and the media is not interested in knowing why the allegations are false and for financial gain? A huge amount of factual information is available to show this but how can it be put into the public domain to show that Mountford did not do what is alleged and that Saints is thus not liable to pay a cent of compensation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.4.108 (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

A large amount of space has been given above to people who seem to want to up the anti against Saints in an attempt to get compensation for something which is only an allegation and also to encourage the opinion that Mountford is somehow guilty without a trial taking place - this is what Rann did using Parliamentary privilege and what the media continue to do. A balanced view, not waging a battle, would seem to call for comments from the other point of view that the man has fabricated his allegations for financial gain. This would give more balance on this discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.4.108 (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. WP:NOT still applies. The current consensus is to leave the section out entirely. I think it is wise not to start challenging that consensus now, because believe me, the saints-bashers are always out there. And in any case, neither point of view belongs in an article about the school.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand the man making the allegation is now to be paid out of court ( this is fact) a huge amount of compensation by Saints. Very sad to hear he is to richly benefit from his fraudulent allegations which have never been tested in a court of law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.208.74.97 (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, this is borderline material for WP:TALK. I would suggest that this discussion be courtesy blanked or removed outright, but I think a more experienced editor than I should make the call.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you are right Yeti. Now that the man is to be greatly compensated by the school for unproven allegations the discussion is very different. To be rewarded for a false allegation is an insult to all those who have indeed been abused —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.208.73.86 (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

References

What is Wikipedia?

We must ask ourselves to whom do we more closely associate; the Encyclopedia Britanica or an English tabliod newspaper. I hope the former.--Whemswee 00:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if you could spell "Britannica" then you may be able to associate with that Encyclopedia. Until then, stick with a 'tabloid' newspaper, the age, and please use better headings on your talk page comments - at present they are ambiguous --j--

That's great. No offence to the first person intended. How about you try Encyclopædia Britannica. Ozdaren 09:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Da Costa millions?

Any thought about this subject. It is along held view in Adelaide that St Peter's were tricky with the estate of a certain Da Costa who had willed his fortune to the catholic church. It is often understood that St Peter's were able to acquire these funds through an interesting legal argument. Does any one know the truth of this skeleton in the St Peter's closet? Ozdaren 09:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

this is not confirmed, only what i heard during my time at the school: It was 100,000 at the time. which is now millions. PAC claim that the money is rightfully theirs as it was to go to the Uniting church. however, this story is merely hearsay and it is highly likely that the money legitimately belongs to saints.

Da Costa was a catholic his whole life. In writing his will he intended to leave his fortune to the Catholic church. To this end he bequeathed his fortune and estate to the Archbishop of Adelaide, not realising that at the time there was no Catholic Archbishop of Adelaide. There was, however, an Anglican Archbishop of Adelaide. As a result of this obvious mistake a legal battle between the Catholic and Anglican Churches ensued, where the Anglican Church was award the Da Costa fortune. The Anglican Church in turn gave the fortune to Saint Peter's College. At no point in time did the debate involve PAC, which although belonging to the Uniting Church now, was originally methodist and thus did not stand to benefit either way. PAC does not and has never made any claim to the Da Costa fortune, so maybe if you are unknowledgable on the matter you should refrain from commenting, or perhaps be more careful regarding what you consider "hearsay". Badgeroonibin 15:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Hi Pottsy. Javsav 15:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Any citations for this? I'm aware of all the above claims but have never seen any actual documentation or evidence for or against any of it. --EDH 23:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that so many accusations of "hearsay" have been levelled in the absence of any supporting evidence. Well I'm happy to say I can now put this persistent myth to rest. This rumour is totally fabricated. Benjamin Mendes da Costa was the grandson of Luis Henriques Mendes Da Costa (b. 1632), a Jew whose family had fled the Spanish Inquisition. Although Jewish by race, Benjamin was raised an anglican in London. Da Costa was not a "devout catholic", his family had never been catholic, and his ancestors came to London via France to avoid persecution by catholics! He came to South Australia in 1837, and returned to London in 1848. Da Costa died in 1869. His will explicitly states that a portion of his estate (then valued at 20,000 pounds) was to go to the "Council of the time being for the Church of England Collegiate School of St Peter's, Adelaide, South Australia". (John Tregenza, "Collegiate School of St Peter, Adelaide, The Founding Years 1847-1878", 1996. I can post the original sources too if you're still unconvinced.) Any questions? --EDH 11:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you consider that a history of Saint Peter's may be slightly biased? Javsav 18:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I assume you want me to post the sources cited in the SPSC history. The text of the will is contained in the Papers of Benjamin and Louisa Mendes da Costa, East Sussex Records Office, HOW 25. A, series 36. An entry in the diary of Bishop Augustus Short, dated 7th March 1869, acknowledges the bequest of da Costa to the college. His familiy heritage is cited to a source named Spector (possibly a magazine or periodical) "The Mendes da Costa Story", pp 1-2, and from an interview with Dr R. Zuckerman of the University of Adelaide History Department. Wikipedia's own Da Costa page supports this, making no mention of catholic faith. If you have any evidence at all to the contrary, please let us all know about it.--EDH 23:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The supposition that Saint Peter's College attained Benjamin Da Costa's funds through an 'interesting legal argiment' are baseless. Benjamin Da Costa had many links with the Church of England. In his will he specifically requested that his estate in Adelaide was to be alloted to the Collegiate School Of Saint Peter. It was never the intention that Da Costa's assets were to be given to the Catholic Church. Many people presume that since Da Costa was of Spanish origin; he was to give his estate to the Catholic Church. 04:53, 28 September 2006 auhc

I note that the description of the false myth has been removed from the article. Isn't it worth mentioning since it appears to be so widespread? I'm sure I have seen documented accounts of the rumour (most debunking it). At any rate, it generated much comment in the talk section. Shouldn't we set the people of Adelaide straight?--150.101.48.2 11:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Da Costa Arcade sale

On another matter, WHAT is wrong with those particular fuckwits (you know who you are) who keep deleting the da Costa arcade reference? ARE YOU FROM ADELAIDE? For God's sake, PUBLIC DOMAIN DOESN'T ALWAYS mean some crappy web blog you can hotlink to; it DOESN'T ALWAYS mean that New York Times has it as a front page article! In this case, public record means that the info is held on State Government (Lands Titles Office) computers, and is only accessed from inside the building itself - if you want to see the record so badly, go to Currie Street and bloody look it up yourselves!!

As for the 'rundown' state of the arcade, I work in the property industry as an EXPERT in valuations and it is widely known, commonly held and easily understood my most PROFESSIONALS that the reason the arcade sold for BELOW MARKET VALUE, is because of its rundown state and unused cinema complex functionality. It is ALSO widely known and understood that Saints sold the complex, not from financial difficulty, but because they LACKED THE EXPERTISE IN MAINTAINING the complex in its current state. If that's not a good enough explanation for you, then fuck you! 203.122.216.222

Whoa, easy tiger! Are you new to Wikipedia? You may need to read WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:NPA. I removed the reference the most recent time because it was uncited. If you think this fact merits inclusion in the article badly enough, go to the LTO and get the record yourself. It's not my place to run around after the uncited claims of others. Secondly, you say you're an expert in property. That's great. But I'm not, and neither are 99% of wikipedia's editors. There is no way for us to verify your original research that it is run down, because it has not been published by a reputable source (at least not one that you have cited). Thirdly, to then add more unverifiable claims to the effect that Saints were somehow incompetent reeks of anti-Saints bias. And finally, you personally attack me and other fellow editors from the anonymity of an unregistered IP address? That's cowardice, my friend. In conclusion, don't replace the reference until you've been to the LTO yourself.--ABVS 08:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

International Baccalaureate

I know this has already been attended to once, but the mention of IB still implies that only the less-able students attempt SACE ("the remainder of the students"), which is certainly not the case.

I dont know what the current edit was when u wrote that but "Saints offers two matriculation programs. Most students complete the South Australian Certificate of Education (SACE), and a smaller number (20 to 30 per year) study the International Baccalaureate." doesn't imply that at all

Javsav 15:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been changed. No worries. --EDH 23:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a school newsletter

The several recent large edits by user:Agir are 100% factually accurate, yet in my opinion inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. Recent results in the debating and a total rundown of every drama, music, sporting and outdoor activity the school provides should not be included in Wikipedia; if people want to know that, they can go to the school's website or read their newsletter or prospectus. A similar thing has already been done to the Princes page and it just serves to ridiculously expand the article into a large block of information of pretty narrow interest. However I will be the first to admit that I'm not an experienced Wikipedian, so what do people think about this? --EDH 13:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know wether people wish to know information about the school however i don't see that there is anything wrong with the article containing more information regarding the school rather than the smallest amount of information possible?? I don't really want to clog up the article with useless information which many other school pages have, which refer to every intricate detail about school programs and the studens who quit and move around through the programs, however i feel it is important that atleast some significan informaiton is known about the school's current curriculum. Do people agree with this? I have no problem either way, if you want the information then i feel that i can provide it however if people don't feel it is needed then i'm happy to leave it as it is. Thanks Agir

• I concur with the opinion of User:Edwinski (EDH), the detail is not appropriate. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, specifically, the section on Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Much of the material removed by EDH is presumably included on the school's own web site. It does not to my mind form an appropriate part of an encyclopadiea article on the school.--Golden Wattle ^talk 19:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback however i do still think much of the information deleted by EDH was relevant. In reference to the page you reccomended "Caufied Grammer" in sydney they have an extensive summary of the school's program which i feel i was describing in this article. I certainly understand that some of the references regarding the success of school teams etc may not fit into the article however as per the "model article" of caufield grammer i feel that many of my additions have merit in being there. --Agir 10:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Changes

Since the end of term 3 of 2006 many staff have left. There are 2 factors responsible for this; their retiring age and/or the change in administration. There have been major changes within the school. The positions which many staff have left have been filled by much younger teachers.

One addition to the school was the new signage which has been posted around the school. These signs, made of concrete are large and obtrusive. It can be noted that the whole sign upgrade cost the school are fare amount of money. This money could have been better well spent on upgrading the Chaplain's house etc.

Who can say they really know Saints?

I'm going to play the devil's advocate and ask who do you think knows more about life at Saints? Those who are living it (or did in the very recent past) such as the staff and the students? or the media and an encyclopedia? I am incredibly distressed that information could be considered as insufficiently sourced or cited because there is not enough evidence from the media or encyclopedias. Honestly, do these sources know as much about the life and culture of a school as well as those who are part of that culture? And if we relied only on these sources, is it not doubtful that these sources would have a large amount of relevant cultural information? I thought that one thing that made Wikipedia so special was that you could find cultural information and a whole plethora of viewpoints, not just what is considered as cited fact.

I for one, would not consider discussion - on the recent redundancies of many, respected, well-liked, experienced, committed and skilled staff which is part of the many circles who are closely tied with Saints - as immaterial or unsubstantiated. As part of these circles myself, I have to say it does have relevance to the future Saints as staff and students are central to the school community (the students do care about the redundancies for staff they have learned to appreciate). Also as part of this circle, I know that this is a heatily discussed topic, how can another relying on media and encyclopedic articles know this type of cultural information?

Contested opinions, viewpoints and persepectives are discussed in other articles especially those where highly cultural issues are discussed. Yet this information in this article is deleted in this as immaterial and unsourced, unsubstantiated, uncited, whatever you may call it. Can the inconsistency be any more transparent? Some might say that it is not backed up by academic point of view, or by media reports, etc. But can you really say that those who are actively part of the Saints life do not have some authority on this topic? whilst those who are not part of this community at all and are completely outside do have authority, when it is likely that their information only takes into account information from more official people (such as the headmaster, etc.) and not other staff and students. Can you really say that the managers and directors can speak for the employees of a company, and that the employees do not have some authority in discussing how they company is running? Do I have to go as far as to point out that academic (yes academic!) studies on processes in companies do take into account, to a very large extent, the responses of employees? Obviously if studies and theories are based on this, they must have some degree of authority on the matter. Yet here, students and many staff obviously have no say, it is only official opinion that counts.

All the while more, let us not forget that the cultural aspects of Saints cannot be fulfillingly and satisfactorily discussed in encyclopedias and media reports. If anyone is still persistent on the need for these sources let me ask you what you would do in this situation. You want to know everything about a family, who is not particularly so important and prominent in society, that little information would be found in published articles of any form on the cultural aspects of the family. You might be able to find out their names, ages, relations (in terms of relatives), health, occupation, income, etc. Yet will you ever find out how they function as interdependent people in a family? Will you know who gets along well with who? There are so many more things that are so obviously unattainable from mere publications. This is the case for a school. It's not the greatest institution in the world, you won't find as much information on it as you would for Harvard University just to use as an example. You clearly will not be able to have any insight on many of the cultural aspects of the school other than official reports in school newsletters and magazines (yet who would dare deny that these are incredibly biased in self-praise, as no school would try to create impressions that it is unsatisfactory). These aspects can only be found in the valuable contributions of those who are acively part of the Saints culture. It is an outrage that what is an issue that is strongly discussed in the community can be considered as immaterial.

NG- student of the year 12 class of 2005.

Nice insight, I agree.

I agree, mate, and well done on putting a brave opinion out there. I recall removing something that was added along those lines because it read a bit too much like a personal attack on the school management. But if there is a serious issue in the school community, by all means be bold and add it, that's the beauty of Wikipedia. If you back up what you write with a decent discussion in the talk section then I reckon you'd at the very least get yourself a few allies. Good on you!--EDH 08:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you might need to read over several of our policies and guidelines to gain a better understanding of what Wikipedia is and is not. It is encyclopædia and accordingly verifiabily ultimately determines whether content is included, not truth. Consequently, information which you have discovered personally and which is not confirmed by reliable sources is prohibited on Wikipedia. Hence, the opinions or actions of staff, students and family may only be noted if they are sourced appropriately. The issue of relevancy or immateriality that you raise is something which is resolved amongst editors through discussion. However, neutrality and the fair and balanced presentation of information is non-negotiable. Thanks, --cj | talk 08:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced information

It's been a while since I've checked this page. In the meantime I've been defending St. Mark's College (University of Adelaide) from a trolling campaign which has forced editors to track down citations for every single claim in the entire article. As Saints is another institution with plenty of people who'd gladly knock it, we'd be well served by making the article bomb-proof. I'm well aware that just about everything in the Saints article is perfectly right, but we have to cite it. I'll get the ball rolling by tracking down some of the notable alumni.--Yeti Hunter 01:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Honourific prefixes in List of Headmasters

(moved content to Wikipedia: Australian Wikipedians' notice board) Doug butler (talk) 07:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)