Talk:St Peter's College, Adelaide

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

message: 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)
replies: text:  That's great. No offence to the first person intended. How about you try Encyclopædia Britannica. Ozdaren 09:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Wikipedia? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Da Costa millions?

message: 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)
thread_title: Da Costa Arcade sale

message: 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)
thread_title:  International Baccalaureate 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Not a school newsletter 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Who can say they really know Saints? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Unreferenced information

message: 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)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: (moved content to Wikipedia: Australian Wikipedians' notice board) Doug butler (talk) 07:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honourific prefixes in List of Headmasters