Talk:St Francis Xavier's College, Liverpool

Edits
For some reason the following edits were recently made, amongst others:

- removal of a mans willy from his body who had previously attended SFX college. - removal of Controversy section - removal of "Foundation schools" See Also link

And various other more minor edits.

Those making such edits should DISCUSS THEM HERE FIRST and also add the reason for any minor edits to the "Edit summary" box in the editing page.

Any removal of sections, or minor edits that don't appear to be for a legitimate reason or to improve the article, will be treated as vandalism and reverted forthwith.

Liverpool Scouse 00:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

We have already stated that the sections on Choir and Contoversy must be removed for LEGAL REASONS. THere are also factual inaccurate statements in these sections as well. Please do not repost them again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueman2000 (talk • contribs)


 * Without sounding rude, you are misguided. The sections you insist on removing, Blueman2000, are sections fully referenced and supported by reputable media companies - the references are available for your viewing by clicking on them.  Also, the controversy section includes information on a legal proceeding that is now complete, and, as already stated, contains facts that are not only widely available in the public domain, but that are reported similarly on various different news carriers.  I fail to see any "legal reasons" why they should not remain, but given I have a strong legal background, if you would care to enlighten me as to what they may be rather than to keep chattering on about ambiguous "legal reasons", I will consider what you put forward, otherwise those sections will remain. Thanks.  Liverpool Scouse 00:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

BLP removals
As per WP:BLP, I have removed the "controversies" section - simply put, this section unnecessarily reports scandal and gossip about an otherwise private citizen. Furthermore, it does not seem substantially relevant to the college. Please do not re-add this section without having a very good explanation, in the section, for its relevance both to the larger article and to Wikipedia, remembering that Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Phil Sandifer 03:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Phil, as per your talk page:
 * I'm afraid your edit was misguided. The controversy section SHOULD remain - you have removed a large portion of the article, whereas, if you felt the section violated WP:BLP, it would have made more sense to remove the individual's name instead and make reference to "a teacher"; rather than blanking a whole section, which smacks of vandalism to me.  The section is relevant, as the matter was of great public interest, also it concerned a public figure, the leader of a world famous choir.  Indeed, it did not contain, to paraphrase yourself, "scandal and gossip", it is factual, referenced, material (as per WP:BLP).  You claim it is not "substantially important to the college" - this seems to be a rather ignorant remark, as I'm sure the implications of such a case being in the public eye and the substantial ramifications for the College would be obvious to anybody - it IS a significant event in the recent history of the College, despite the fact it might not sit well with some editors. Edits reverted.  Please do not blank these sections again unless you can provide some further discussion on this Talk page FIRST.   Liverpool Scouse 14:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:BLP, particularly the portion noting that "An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm." 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." Given that this person does not appear notable enough to have his own article and that cursory research suggests he is in fact most notable for these accusations, it is inappropriate to retain the material. I have removed it again. Please do not reinsert it. Phil Sandifer 15:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

John Darwin attended the SFX in Hartlepool, not Liverpool, so I have removed him as an alumnus... thank God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.182.119 (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi just wondering if anyone has got the schools crest to upload? User:tsange 14:49 24/01/2009 —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC).

Found the crest is every one Ok for me to upload it? (I should be able to use it under "fairuse" logo) User:tsange14:54 24/01/2009 —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC).

Founder?
Hi, Just thought you should know that the college was founded by the Society of Jesus NOT St. Francis Xavier. How could it be? He died in 1552. The college was dedicated to him. So I have changed the founder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsange (talk • contribs) 13:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Bishop
Didn't the present bishop of burundi or somewhere like that go 2 sfx? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.214.78 (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The only info i can find about Burundi is this: "Bishop Vincent Malone (former auxiliary in Liverpool) and Bishop Paul Gallagher, the Pope’s representative in Burundi, both attended SFX College and worshipped in SFX Church." Tsange —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC).

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on St Francis Xavier's College, Liverpool. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080628022826/http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/News/newsdetail_0707.asp to http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/News/newsdetail_0707.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091016031040/http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/f0000336.shtml to http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/f0000336.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Controversy Section
This section has been disputed in the past, back in 2007, with numerous reasons as to why it should be removed. Whilst we respect that news articles are out there in the public domain, the effected person has successfully requested that Google remove these articles from its search engine. Furthermore, this person is still a private citizen and has moved on with their life, this being added back in now can only be for one reason, to cause harm and to serve their own interests. I worry for this persons mental state, having to relive this again now that this Controversy section has reappeared.

In addition to this, there are numerous inaccuracies told in the section. No prison time was served, no quoted sources mention prison for example.

I respectfully ask that this section be removed and not be re-added. Sheephead89 (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)