Talk:Xavier College

/Archive2004-2009, /Archive2010, /Archive2010-2016

Vandalism & inappropriate edits
This article falls within the remit  of WP:WPSCH and has now been edit protected against further addition of inappropriate content. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Roger Franklin (journalist) - add to "Notable alumni" list?
Should Franklin be included in the list of "Notable alumni" given his editorship of Quadrant Online, in addition to his notable career in journalism & his published books, or does he belong only on the "List of Old Xaverians"?

N.B. I'm assuming that he's been accurately listed as an Old Xaverian? Can anyone confirm this? Is there a citation? Cheers! 110.22.191.65 (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Controversies
This is an encyclopedia. What is the point in bringing up issues that while controversial nowadays, were standard practice 60 years ago. In 1961 I was beaten about the head and face with the wooden back of a blackboard rubber by a fresh-out-of-university 23 year old math teacher. My face needed stitches to my eyebrows. Nobody gave a flying fig. I had been mistaken as the disruptive child in the room. Ironically, some 30 years later, that teacher was 'suspended' on full pay for sexual abuse of female students - but it's not in the Wikipedia article about that school. Times change. Let's keep our Wikiepedia articles about schools on a relevant tack. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
 * Not all schools have a (known) history of sexual abuse. I cannot accept that it was standard practice in all schools. It has never been acceptable, despite your suggestion that it was "standard practice". It seems reasonable and relevant to me to identify those organisations that did "permit" it. HiLo48 (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't condone any of those practices, but it seems to me that you've completely missed the point I am making here. And apparently you teach at a secondary school? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I misunderstood. Want to try again? HiLo48 (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Brought here by the posting at WT:SCHOOLS. I think it absolutely this is appropriate content for an encyclopedic article. However, I think it also probably only merits a sentence, maybe two, incorporated naturally in the history section rather than its own distinct section. It is part of the history of this school and painful though it is, does seem to relate to the institution as a whole rather than simply a single teacher. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 07:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have read the reference from 2013 and found significant problems- the allegation of a threat of face slapping is only hearsay, and WP does not do that. The article says someting is about to happen- WP doesn't do conjecture. Six years later are we still waiting. The reference doesn't give names so it can't be verified. But yes a section is appropriate- it does need to be reported. I will edit the section and leave it open to improvement- particularly if more references can be found, ClemRutter (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , why is a section appropriate? Why not just include it in the existing history section? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. I was being rather definite. I glaced up at Stonyhurst who do this as a separate section called 'Scandal' I looked at the reference given, and it struck me that the story was a legal tussle, involving church and state rather than the the development of the school. History is not just a timeline of referenced facts (mea culpa!) but needs to have outcomes, to be worthy of inclusion. We can ask- how did that affect future generations. Did this? Well not sufficiently for us to find press coverage. Putting it in History, it would have undue weight and could stifle the rest of the section. The allegation needs to be reported, it could be massive so a separate section is safer. WP has fulfilled its duty of care this way and it could be proven in future by examing the edit log. Sure, I could be wrong. ClemRutter (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You're suggesting if we included information in a history section, rather than as a single sentence in its own section, an editorial decision if there ever was one, that we would be legally liable? I am also having a hard time reconciling this with the idea that putting it in history would be UNDUE, that is one fact among many, rather than it's own prominent section. Personally I think WP:CRITS has a lot of value in cases like this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As you say it is an editorial decision- if someone has a good sentence in mind then, fine. If not I would like to see a little bit more added so we know the enquiry outcome. We have removed the hearsay and speculation, which was necessary,  we have discussed it and given editors some guidance, and pointed them at WP:CRITS. Thanks. ClemRutter (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Australiaisms
Could some one read through the article and explain terms that would not be understood off the island, or wikilink. I hit DUX and ATAR, It is a tricky one, as a inline explanation is fine but needs a reference- an inline interpretation of the data is WP:OR and a no no. --ClemRutter (talk) 12:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Both terms are now Wikilinked. I will note that "dux" appears to be Scottish in origin, not Australian. HiLo48 (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Koska Hall sale
Plans to sell Kostka Hall have come to light which should be included, could also combine with a new section on the Xavier College 150 years plan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FBFD312 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * As someone who seems to know more about this than most us are likely to, you may well be the best person to create that content. Just be aware, in particular, of our requirements for reliable sourcing of all content. HiLo48 (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)