Talk:St Patrick's College, Mackay/Archive 1

st pats
The User: Robz0r keeps reverting my edits to this page. He has not contributed much to this article, while my edits have contibuted greatly to this aricle and I believe he should stop reverting my edits. Can somone please tell him to stop reverting my edits and to contribute to the article instead? Alice Mudgarden (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually I tend to agree with his edits in the 'house' area. Better to use wikification rather than duplicating too much information. Create or update other pages as necessary. My edit will probably follow as a suggestion but I won't compete in a revert war :) And hi from a St Pat's (well, CBC) student from the early 70's --Bcsr4ever 13:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No. I think that the Houses section should have some info on the people they are named after. And if people want in depth info on the person, they can click the link Alice Mudgarden (talk) 04:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The section is about 'sporting life' and the school houses.. It is not a section on History, which is where such entries would belong (especially Edmund Ignatius Rice). Simple information, such as what the houses actually represent (for example year 12 boys, etc) and who they are named after with a link would be sufficient. Duplicating info is uneccessary as the information about these people is only a click away for those wishing to know more. Here the reader is likely more interested in the sporting activities of the school rather than biographies of persons who are not actually connected with sporting activities. They have little need to click on additional information since you have likely included more biographical information than they want (since they are reading about sporting activities) and yet omit other information which may be more relevant, such as what class compromises year 12 grls. If you have additional biographical information about these persons then you can add that to the appropriate articles. Also it's probably worth looking at wikipedia as a collaborative effort rather than trying to write articles alone as you would with a personal web site. I personally vote for less biographical information in the description of the sporting houses :) --Bcsr4ever 05:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well it's not really a "duplication" of their articles, it's more of a summary. Maybe there should be a little less info but I think some is needed, as some users may not want to read a huge article about someone, but just get some backround info on who the Houses are named after. I do think it is relevant to have info about the people the houses are named after and you are more than welcome to just make it have a little less if you want. This is Wikipedia. On another topic, I don't suppose you have anymore information to add to the history section, as what is already there is quite brief and was taken mainly from what me and robz0r can remember from a speech done by Mr Brown at the start of year 11 (mayber you know him). Alice Mudgarden (talk) 00:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a short summary is okay, but these, to me, seem too long (personal opinion). I don't have any more on history, sorry, but this is probably an area which could use a little more. I'll see what I can dig up. --Bcsr4ever 12:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Article
I must say, that since I checked this article last, I am very impressed with the way it has developed. Great work. --rob.mck. 11:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, Robert's impressed? I've never felt so accepted in all my life. Alice Mudgarden (talk) 05:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section
I have removed the controversy section from this article for now. Please don't try to re-insert it without discussing here first. Whoever thought it was appropriate to have a section titled "List of things to get higher in rank and be accepted into Club 21" was seriously mistaken. The whole thing was uncited, and I doubt you'll find a source for those "facts" - and don't go quoting Yahoo Answers, because that clearly does not meet the criteria of WP:RS.

The whole section shouldn't even exist in the article, because as per WP:CRITICISM, criticism/controversy sections are generally frowned upon, as they are a POV troll magnet and attract edit wars. Genuine criticisms should be integrated into the article. This story got enough coverage to warrant a mention, but not a section of it's own. Perhaps a new section titled "Social life" could be made, and a brief statement about the issue, and Mr Eamon Hannan's response could be added to it.

The whole story has been blown way out of proportion. It's not as if these girls were a real club that gave out official membership cards, who meet up at an official club house everyday. Basically it's just a group of friends. And correct me if I'm wrong, but kids have always formed groups of friends and always will.

To be honest, I believe it's a smear campaign by the author of the original article against St Patrick's College. I could be mistaken here, but I'm fairly certain that this is the same author who periodically writes negative St Pat's articles - spread out just far enough that you won't notice the pattern. I don't know why; maybe they didn't get accepted into the school, or an ex of theirs went there, but they have a serious axe to grind with the school.

It probably happened like this; some girl is upset because a group of girls at school wouldn't let them sit with her at lunch, so she cries to her parents. Parents are naturally upset because their daughter wants to hang out with the "cool kids" who have sex, do drugs and are anorexic. Mum goes off and blabs to her friends, and eventually a "journalist" hears about it and writes up a sensationalised account of an "exclusive girls club that promotes sex, drugs and anorexia", and at a Catholic school no less. Her editor thinks "Wow, this may well sell a few papers so I don't need to check if this story is actually true". Then all the parents and grannies still stuck in the 1950's get all worked up and this makes national news. Seriously, it must have been a slow news week, because a story about a group of friends is not in any way newsworthy. But then again, it concerned sex and drugs, and that's the sort of shit that sells - I mean you only need to look at the recent release of Grand Theft Auto IV to see all the misinformed, sensationalised media coverage that anything relating to sex/violence and young people can attract.

So don't try to insert this misinformation in a controversy section, because seriously, it's not a big deal at all. Alice Mudgarden (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Alice on all points. This sort of behaviour (adding stuff in like this repeatedly) can actually be considered disruptive editing from an admin point of view - sadly this sort of stuff is fairly standard fare, I've seen it on other school articles, and people got blocked on those occasions as well. If you want to write that stuff somewhere, go start a blog with it and see how long it lasts under the blog provider's terms of service - my guess is under 24 hours. Orderinchaos 10:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Second that. Five Years 18:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)