Talk:Schoolies week

message: Some major clean-ups, as this article was rife with advertising-esque commentary from an event management group who are not notable enough for their own article, passive-voice passages and bad grammar. It's still messy, and requires several verifications and references to remain as-is. Lenky (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. A lot of it is advertisement garbage. Depor23 (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major clean 

message: Re the insertion of sentences promoting Vanuatu as a schoolies location:
* The claim that this is the "new" schoolies location is unsourced. Wikipedia's verifiability policy makes clear that sources are required for new claims such as this. If Vanuatu is genuinely the latest schoolies location, there will surely be some mention of this in reliable independent sources, and these can be referenced in the article.
* The wording of the claim strongly resembles original research. It is suggested that Vanuatu offers an increased level of safety without compromising a party atmosphere. Fine, but says who? If an editor has been to a schoolies week in anuatu and found the above to be true, that's a primary source and not sufficinet for inclusion in the article.
This article contains many unsourced statements and it might be argued there is no need to single out the Vanuatu claim for removal. None of the other schoolies locations have references either. Unfortunately the existence of other stuff is not much of an argument - there shouldn't be any unsourced statements, and as schoolies weeks get blanket coverage there is no excuse for not referencing all the others.
Rather than edit warring over the Vanuatu reference, how about we all work toward referencing it and the other claims? As a compromise solution to get started, I've left the Vanuatu claim in with a fact tag but removed the originalr esearch later in the piece.
Any other views or comments would be welcome. Euryalus (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vanuatu 

message: Roy Whitney and I hitched down to the Gold Coast after the final exams in 1972, and stayed in a house with half a dozen other Grade 12 students, mostly girls I think, drank beer, listened to music, kissed the girls and did some serious frotting, had a party that grew somehow to about 60 kids, a few fights broke out, I got punched in the jaw for looking at some toolie's girlfriend's bum, someone said the cops had arrived, most of us bailed out of the windows and hid out along the beach until the cops had gone. Was this the start of Schoolies? Unlikely. Who pays any attention to the previous year's after exam parties? I reckon the same sort of thing would have happened in 69, 70, 71. It's a cultural phenomenon now, but I don't think it really "started" in any historical sense at any particular time or place. I would say it grew from the general youth culture phenomenon of the late '60s.Robertwhyteus (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of "history" not verifiable 

message: The article mentions the risks, but going by this ABC piece, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-18/schoolies-stats-at-a-glance/3679080, there's only one death per annum. Given there are 40000 participants around the ages of 17-18, and the event goes for a week, if you do the maths this represents a much lower death rate than would otherwise would be expected. Ordinary Person (talk) 09:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Risk of death