Talk:St Patrick's College, Ballarat

message: In breaking news "St Patrick's College Ballarat has resorted to open vandalism of the Wikipedia website rather than formulate strategi to protect current and future students" - I will MAKE SURE that is a front line headline. NO DOUBT. I will give you until 2:00 pm tomorrow to revert the article to the truth. Otherwise - I will revel in developing my response in a different media outlet.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.153.223 (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  St Patrick's College Keeps a very Close Watch on Wikipedia

message: It is interesting that a number of the factual, and fully referenced, statements regarding abuse of students at this College are vandalized an removed. I have made a cursory check on the IP adresses of those deleting these references an they - in one case track back to the College itself, and on another to a Christian Brothers administrative centre. I suspect that all changes can relate to similar sources. Could I put forward the following thoughts:-
- The school denying the abuse feeds into a view that the school, and the Church, are indifferent to the suffering of victims.
- There will almost certainly be a formal inquiry into these events. The IP adress of those who have deleted to date will be investigated.
- Those deletions will track back to St Patrick's College.
- The next headline will be that the school continues to add to the hurt of victims by denying the abuse.
St Patrick's College needs to stop trying to hide it's past neglect of students and instead concentrate on communicating what strategies have been put in place to ensure it never occurs again.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.153.223 (talk) 11:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Severe Vandalism

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: After reading this article, I have found there is a lot of unreferenced material that seems to be conjecture rather than actual facts. An effort to bring this article up to an apt standard will be made, I'm not sure who wrote this article but it is apparent that it hasn't been updated in some time either. Also, I feel this article needs more in the way of images. I'll request permission to take photos of the college and have them posted up and referenced. --In a café we debate decadence a summer butterfly flits (talk) 05:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referenced material 

message: - sometimes referred to colloquially as St Pat's or SPC -
I feel this is necessary - even in the school's own webpage SPC is used as an acronym  - Please notify me if otherwise.--In a café we debate decadence a summer butterfly flits (talk) 09:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added the Colloquial terms 

message: I have removed this section for several reasons: it is mostly not about the school, it it very poorly sourced, it gives undue weight to abuse allegations/occurences. If it is to be replaced, it must be properly sourced, kept to an appropriate size, and should be directly relevant to a reader's understanding of the school. Kevin (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that I'm not advocating a whitewash, but it needs to be in proportion, and be properly sourced. This article http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/06/13/1023864324376.html] contains enough for a sentence or 2. Kevin (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of abuse section 

message: It is Wikipedia policy that references must be provided to substantiate that any particular people are "aulumni" of schools.  If references aren't provided then the names should be removed.  I am therefore giving interested editors some time to find such references. Thanks. Afterwriting (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alumni 

message: From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
<< Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. People are assumed to be living unless there is reason to believe otherwise. This policy does not apply to people declared dead in absentia. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to our three core content policies:
* Neutral point of view (NPOV)
* Verifiability (V)
* No original research (NOR)
We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 16, 2006, and May 19, 2006; Jimmy Wales. Keynote speech, Wikimania, August 2006. 
Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden: "WP:BLP applies to all living persons mentioned in an article"  The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material.
POLICIES WHICH YOU ARE OBLIGED TO FOLLOW >>
Please ensure that all edits to this article are in strict accordance with these policies.  Any edits relating to alleged ( or proven ) sexual abuse cases MUST include RELIABLE references.  It is arguable whether references from a sexual abuse victims' advocacy website can be considered to be adequately reliable for such BLP-related issues.  Please try to use more reliable and neutral sources such as online newspaper articles.  I am not opposed to "censoring" legitimate information - but it absolutely must stricyly follow the BLP policies and guidelines.  Thanks. Afterwriting (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP policy  

message: From the Wikipedia policies on using sources:
<<Self-published and questionable sources
Questionable sources
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties.
Self-published sources (online and paper)
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable.
"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.
Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
# the material is not unduly self-serving;
# it does not involve claims about third parties;
# it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 
# there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
# the article is not based primarily on such sources.  >>
Afterwriting (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable and questionable sources 

message: It is interesting that a number of the factual, and fully referenced, statements regarding abuse of students at this College are vandalized an removed. I have made a cursory check on the IP adresses of those deleting these references and they - in one case track back to the College itself, and on another to a Christian Brothers administrative centre. I suspect that all changes can relate to similar sources. As a journalist, could I put forward the following thoughts:-
- The school denying the abuse feeds into a view that the school, and the Church, are indifferent to the suffering of victims.
- There will almost certainly be a formal inquiry into these events. The IP adress of those who have deleted to date will be investigated.
- Those deletions will track back to St Patrick's College.
- The next headline for this school will be that the school continues to add to the hurt of victims by denying the abuse.
St Patrick's College needs to stop trying to hide it's past neglect of students and instead concentrate on communicating what strategies have been put in place to ensure it never occurs again.
:I have moved this part, inserted by IP 124.190.153.223 to the talk page. Cst17 (talk) 11:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Temporary Comment on Constant Vandalism

message: I've removed the bulk of this section again, and figured that rather than using edit summaries I'd explain my reasoning here. First, I have a general problem with due weight - this is a significant problem in the school, and warrants inclusion. However, it relates to the events that happen during a relatively short period during the early 1970's. It was an extremely nasty series of events, which wonder to have an impact, but I'm not sure that a third of the article here needs to be devoted to this. Other than that:
* Many of the events discussed related to St Alipius Boys' School, rather than St Patricks. While there is a relationship between the two, it isn't currently clear to me how strong that relationship is - the current wording is that the same people ran both schools, but I'm not sure to what extent this relationship held, and the extent that the St Patrick's College article should be covering events at St Alipius. This may well be a non-issue, though - I just don't know enough here to make a call.
* Much of the material was poorly sourced, raising BLP concerns - other than being very uncomfortable with the use of Broken Rites as the core source for this information, some of it is simply sourced to "The Age", without necessary information, and one is sourced to a discussion forum. Some is not sourced at all, including some extremely serious allegations. 
* I'm always worried about "X has denied knowledge..." comments, as in one case here, as they are poisioning the well. If there is no evidence that they knew presented, then there should be no need to say that they denied knowing.
* The "Coverup and Denial of Abuse" is a mix original research and synthesis.
* The entire piece is very much POV in tone. This is understandable, considering the nature and extent of the abuse, but it is important that the tone here is always neutral.
* There was some apparent copyright violations in the text.
* Some material relates to events that had nothing to do with Ballarat.
* It mentioned someone by name who was never convicted.
There is no doubt that this is a major scandal, and I agree it should be mentioned in the article. But I think it should be handled carefully, and potentially cover details as a separate article so as to properly cover material which goes beyond the school. - Bilby (talk) 12:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this, good choice.  I am particularly concerned about the POV of the sections and false convictions. Mr.weedle (talk) 04:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of abuse section (revisited) 

message: Substituted at 06:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment