Talk:Saint Ignatius' College, Adelaide/Archive 1

message: There is a dispute whether Henry Keogh should be mentioned on this page. Please discuss and present arguments for or against inclusion instead of edit warring. Kusma (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To move some discussion from my personal talk page: We do not have to include every verifiable fact about a subject in the article. Do multiple reliable sources about the school (not about Keogh) include that he went to school there? If not, mentioning him here might violate WP:UNDUE. If no sources have mentioned that all these people went to the same school, writing this here would be a violation of the no original research policy. Are there sources about the school that focus on the issue? Kusma (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Even if that yearbook exists: if the only source for "Henry Keogh attended Saint Ignatius College" is an old school yearbook from before the murder case, mentioning him here will be considered "original research". Are there other sources? Kusma (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully disagree with the "original research" label, and agree that the yearbook is a sufficient citation.  The yearbook would be a primary source, not original research. A yearbook as a primary source does not require a secondary source, because no interpretation of the yearbook is being done; just simple reportage of the fact that was presented in it.  Please see WP:PSTS -- Lisasmall 20:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That is a primary source. Are there any reliable secondary sources that mention this? Or in other words: it may be true, but has anybody cared about this information so far? See also our "original research" policy, where "original research" has a precisely defined meaning. Kusma (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: As a tertiary source, we do not typically include information that no secondary source has shown interest in. Kusma (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: To be absolutely honest, having some 'notorious' thing on the school page makes it look like the school influences children on their future outcomes and therefore become murderers. Henry Keogh decided to kill somebody however it has nothing to do with/influenced by the school therefore it should not be included. I do know some people who have attended the school and have made a, lets put it as 'big name' (they aren't murderers like that user's uncle's friend). But it has nothing to do with the school in any way; it has zilch when you talk a bout the academic thing that has made him have this 'big name'. The school has no influence on what it's old scholar's decide to go and do - whether murdering someone like Keogh did or just simply, for example, becoming big as a radio announcer. If something has something to do with the schools influence or teaching style, for example academically Saint Ignatius' College  do teach their students at a high level, it would have an influence. But Keogh murdering someone clearly does not - it is not academic that Henry Keogh killed someone (at this school and every other school they don't teach you how to drown people) and they don't teach you how to become a radio announcer. Whatever Henry Keogh had going through his mind when he murdered his innocent victim was not to do with "hey I remember back 10 years ago to that time when I was taught how to drown peole" (I am being sarcastic) and therefore decided to use it. He must have had something mentally inside that made him want to kill his innocent victim, not saying that what people think is always right, especially in this case. Henry Keogh should not be included on the alumni section - why doesn't everybody just listen to the admin - Kusma. I am sick of this and the users who keep changing it back - to be honest with you get a life other than just sitting at your computer adding information to drag down reputation of a school to make it look like some awful place. How about you revert your ideas before reverting the rubbish you are putting on this page.
It's not an attempt to disparage the school. Other schools have lists of reputable and disreputable alumni. For example the Unabomber's schools are mentioned. Hitler and Wittgenstein attended the same school, a fact mentioned in a wiki page. 
The argument that the school creates murderers (or that the inclusion of Keogh's attendance  suggests it) is as stupid as claiming that the school creates paragons such judges, journalists and sporting stars. Incidentally, none of the less notorious alumni have supporting evidence for their attendance. Excluding Keogh is just bias; an attempt to make the wiki page an advertisement instead of a repository for facts. Shame on you for vandalising the page because some facts discomfit you. 203.122.236.1 14:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You would not believe how furious I am at you. How about you just stop doing this, nothing the school did to him had an influence on him going cuckoo unlike some people like judges where the education the school gave them made them have a good top judge. Unlike you, 203.122.236.1 whose job is to sit around all day putting names of your friends in notorious sections on the school page - you honestly think that I might not be as angry as you categorised it as 'notorious'. Absolutely amazing how addicted you are at putting a murderers name on a page which it had no influence to him on killing people.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.90.223.234 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You just removed  a lot of information about the school that is far more relevant than whether or not some murderer has attended it. Please do not add the Henry Keogh stuff again without a reliable seconsary source about the school that mentions him. Thank you, Kusma (talk) 07:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: I have removed the alumni section, which did not cite any references at all (the only external link did not show that the person in question had attended this college). Kusma (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alumni section removed 

message: I have included a former student for whom there are substansive references. It was a good decision to remove the others until they can be verified. Well done! A. Klapaucius 06:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There seem to be no reliable secondary sources about Keogh attending this school, though, just the yearbook reference, which doesn't really hold up to our standards and is probably quite hard for anybody not in South Australia to get and verify in their library. Kusma (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alumni section restarted 

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 10:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: :Image:SICLogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. DuncanHill (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:SICLogo.jpg

message: User 122.49.137.93 added the comment: "St Ignatius is often regarded as one of the best schools in South Australia and also, one of the most expensive." Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a bulletin board, a blog, nor a social networking site. Encyclopaedias contain verifiable facts - see WP:NPOV for a better description. 
122.49.137.93 says: 
*"St Ignatius is often regarded ... " - What does that mean? "Often regarded" by whom? Why only "often" regarded?
*"one of the best schools" - What does that mean? What is the definition of "best"? How does one measure "best"? Who measured? When did they measure? (What did they measure?) What were the results? Where are/were the results published?
*"one of the most expensive" - similar questions.
In fact, 122.49.137.93's addition doesn't really say anything much at all. Editors need to use specific terms, and/or define the terms that they do use. If they are quoting statistics, they need to state whom/what they are quoting. If they are making assertions, they need to provide evidence to support the assertions. For example, when one asserts "one of the most expensive", as a minimum one needs to supply a publicly accessible reference containing the schedule of fees, and preferably (but not necessarily) other information too, so that other readers can determine for themselves what "one of the most expensive" actually means.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked the college what their fees are. The fees of the most expensive schools in Adelaide are at least 50% higher. I don't think this makes St Ignatius "one of the most expensive"! Pdfpdf (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of language like "one of", "best" and "most expensive"