Talk:St Peter's College, Adelaide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is related to the WikiProject Adelaide. This Project is an attempt to enhance, organise, and standardise articles about the city of Adelaide, Australia.
You can discuss the Project at its talk page, or see a list of open tasks here.
Flag St Peter's College, Adelaide is part of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Australia To-do:

This article is related to the WikiProject Schools. This Project is an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
Current Collaborations: Greenwich High School - New Albany High School (Indiana) - St. Mary's High School (Calgary) - St Albans School (Hertfordshire) - Wesley College, Melbourne - Pope John Paul II Catholic Secondary School - Mundelein High School

Contents

[edit] Oakbank brawl

Is it being emotive by describing this event as a 'brawl'?

That's what the newspaper said at the time. A group punchup without any rules is usually a brawl - as it can't be described as a battle (eg in wars, etc).Blnguyen | rant-line 07:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The article refered to to support this statement is now over 1 year old (5 Jun 05) Certainly its validity has 'expired'. --Whemswee 23:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No, in fact for a source, a year old is relatively recent. A source does not simply 'expire.' To claim so is incredibly naive. --j--

You obviously have not read the article. Just because this was the case over a year ago, does not mean it is the case now. --Whemswee 03:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this about the punch-up. However old it is, it still happened.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I clearly have read the article. No the article was about the paedophilia, yes the punch up did happen. --j

The so called Brawl involving saints students, was infact between Old Collegians of the two schools, not current students. this is merely the media manipulating the facts to make headlines. many media sources will do whatever they can to cut st peters college down (especially the nearby Channel 7 and The Advertiser newspaper)!

Actually the brawl did involve students who were at the time attending both PAC and St Peters. The main instigators and culprits were seen as old scholars, but students who were at the time in year 12 were also involved in the fight. Badgeroonibin 16:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I can feel an edit war coming on regarding this particular incident so let's discuss it. The brawl is not notable as it does not directly relate to the school itself. It happened at Oakbank, which is not a school event. The fact that the majority of the participants were allegedly old scholars or students of Princes and Saints does not really constitute an entry into the school page. Try making a page entitled "Saints-Princes Old Scholars Rivalry" and see how far you get. Basically, it is of no interest to someone seeking information about the school.--EDH 05:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Child abuse claim

This is a matter that is still to be heard by the courts it is unwise for Wikipedia to make such claims. In Australia, one is innocent until proven by Court of Law to be guilty. What the Headmaster of the time did, or did not do, has yet to be substantiated. --Whemswee 00:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


Funnily enough, people dont know what they are talking about. it was not a headmaster of the school who alledgedly commited these acts, but rather the school chaplain. the incoming headmasters first act was to sack this member of the staff! and these events are alledged to have occured in the early 1990's. so they are not infact recent events. the man in question however was only extradited back to Australia last year. that may be considered recent.

  • The recent edit by User:Javsav has portrayed a misleading interpretation of the facts presented in the article from The Age. It was implied that a number of students had been systematically abused for a period of time, whereas in reality there was only one single incident that occurred just after school had finished for the day; the victim reported the incident immediately, and by 6PM the chaplain was packing his bags. The school decided not make the matter public at the request of the parents. Also, mention of the "balinese boyfriend" is surely inappropriate and irrelevant. The grammar wasn't too good, either. I have fixed these errors.

--EDH 01:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the 'bad grammar' - I didn't actually write the 'misleading interpretation,' I just reverted it from when it had been previously deleted. Additionally, while we're on the topic of the use of language, your recent edit to the Da Costa section of the article is rather un-encyclopaedic. Javsav 18:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for wrongly attributing the edit to you; I had not seen it before and it was not marked as a revert. Side issue - how is it that my edit to the Da Costa section is unencyclopaedic, especially considering it replaced a totally uncited rumour?--EDH 23:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is Wikipedia?

We must ask ourselves to whom do we more closely associate; the Encyclopedia Britanica or an English tabliod newspaper. I hope the former.--Whemswee 00:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if you could spell "Britannica" then you may be able to associate with that Encyclopedia. Until then, stick with a 'tabloid' newspaper, the age, and please use better headings on your talk page comments - at present they are ambiguous --j--

That's great. No offence to the first person intended. How about you try Encyclopædia Britannica. Ozdaren 09:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Da Costa millions?

Any thought about this subject. It is along held view in Adelaide that St Peter's were tricky with the estate of a certain Da Costa who had willed his fortune to the catholic church. It is often understood that St Peter's were able to acquire these funds through an interesting legal argument. Does any one know the truth of this skeleton in the St Peter's closet? Ozdaren 09:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

this is not confirmed, only what i heard during my time at the school: It was 100,000 at the time. which is now millions. PAC claim that the money is rightfully theirs as it was to go to the Uniting church. however, this story is merely hearsay and it is highly likely that the money legitimately belongs to saints.

Da Costa was a catholic his whole life. In writing his will he intended to leave his fortune to the Catholic church. To this end he bequeathed his fortune and estate to the Archbishop of Adelaide, not realising that at the time there was no Catholic Archbishop of Adelaide. There was, however, an Anglican Archbishop of Adelaide. As a result of this obvious mistake a legal battle between the Catholic and Anglican Churches ensued, where the Anglican Church was award the Da Costa fortune. The Anglican Church in turn gave the fortune to Saint Peter's College. At no point in time did the debate involve PAC, which although belonging to the Uniting Church now, was originally methodist and thus did not stand to benefit either way. PAC does not and has never made any claim to the Da Costa fortune, so maybe if you are unknowledgable on the matter you should refrain from commenting, or perhaps be more careful regarding what you consider "hearsay". Badgeroonibin 15:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Hi Pottsy. Javsav 15:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Any citations for this? I'm aware of all the above claims but have never seen any actual documentation or evidence for or against any of it. --EDH 23:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that so many accusations of "hearsay" have been levelled in the absence of any supporting evidence. Well I'm happy to say I can now put this persistent myth to rest. This rumour is totally fabricated. Benjamin Mendes da Costa was the grandson of Luis Henriques Mendes Da Costa (b. 1632), a Jew whose family had fled the Spanish Inquisition. Although Jewish by race, Benjamin was raised an anglican in London. Da Costa was not a "devout catholic", his family had never been catholic, and his ancestors came to London via France to avoid persecution by catholics! He came to South Australia in 1837, and returned to London in 1848. Da Costa died in 1869. His will explicitly states that a portion of his estate (then valued at 20,000 pounds) was to go to the "Council of the time being for the Church of England Collegiate School of St Peter's, Adelaide, South Australia". (John Tregenza, "Collegiate School of St Peter, Adelaide, The Founding Years 1847-1878", 1996. I can post the original sources too if you're still unconvinced.) Any questions? --EDH 11:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you consider that a history of Saint Peter's may be slightly biased? Javsav 18:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I assume you want me to post the sources cited in the SPSC history. The text of the will is contained in the Papers of Benjamin and Louisa Mendes da Costa, East Sussex Records Office, HOW 25. A, series 36. An entry in the diary of Bishop Augustus Short, dated 7th March 1869, acknowledges the bequest of da Costa to the college. His familiy heritage is cited to a source named Spector (possibly a magazine or periodical) "The Mendes da Costa Story", pp 1-2, and from an interview with Dr R. Zuckerman of the University of Adelaide History Department. Wikipedia's own Da Costa page supports this, making no mention of catholic faith. If you have any evidence at all to the contrary, please let us all know about it.--EDH 23:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The supposition that Saint Peter's College attained Benjamin Da Costa's funds through an 'interesting legal argiment' are baseless. Benjamin Da Costa had many links with the Church of England. In his will he specifically requested that his estate in Adelaide was to be alloted to the Collegiate School Of Saint Peter. It was never the intention that Da Costa's assets were to be given to the Catholic Church. Many people presume that since Da Costa was of Spanish origin; he was to give his estate to the Catholic Church. 04:53, 28 September 2006 auhc

I note that the description of the false myth has been removed from the article. Isn't it worth mentioning since it appears to be so widespread? I'm sure I have seen documented accounts of the rumour (most debunking it). At any rate, it generated much comment in the talk section. Shouldn't we set the people of Adelaide straight?--150.101.48.2 11:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Baccalaureate

I know this has already been attended to once, but the mention of IB still implies that only the less-able students attempt SACE ("the remainder of the students"), which is certainly not the case.

I dont know what the current edit was when u wrote that but "Saints offers two matriculation programs. Most students complete the South Australian Certificate of Education (SACE), and a smaller number (20 to 30 per year) study the International Baccalaureate." doesn't imply that at all

Javsav 15:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been changed. No worries. --EDH 23:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not a school newsletter

The several recent large edits by user:Agir are 100% factually accurate, yet in my opinion inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. Recent results in the debating and a total rundown of every drama, music, sporting and outdoor activity the school provides should not be included in Wikipedia; if people want to know that, they can go to the school's website or read their newsletter or prospectus. A similar thing has already been done to the Princes page and it just serves to ridiculously expand the article into a large block of information of pretty narrow interest. However I will be the first to admit that I'm not an experienced Wikipedian, so what do people think about this? --EDH 13:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know wether people wish to know information about the school however i don't see that there is anything wrong with the article containing more information regarding the school rather than the smallest amount of information possible?? I don't really want to clog up the article with useless information which many other school pages have, which refer to every intricate detail about school programs and the studens who quit and move around through the programs, however i feel it is important that atleast some significan informaiton is known about the school's current curriculum. Do people agree with this? I have no problem either way, if you want the information then i feel that i can provide it however if people don't feel it is needed then i'm happy to leave it as it is. Thanks Agir

Thank you for your feedback however i do still think much of the information deleted by EDH was relevant. In reference to the page you reccomended "Caufied Grammer" in sydney they have an extensive summary of the school's program which i feel i was describing in this article. I certainly understand that some of the references regarding the success of school teams etc may not fit into the article however as per the "model article" of caufield grammer i feel that many of my additions have merit in being there. --Agir 10:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

Since the end of term 3 of 2006 many staff have left. There are 2 factors responsible for this; their retiring age and/or the change in administration. There have been major changes within the school. The positions which many staff have left have been filled by much younger teachers.

One addition to the school was the new signage which has been posted around the school. These signs, made of concrete are large and obtrusive. It can be noted that the whole sign upgrade cost the school are fare amount of money. This money could have been better well spent on upgrading the Chaplain's house etc.

[edit] Who can say they really know Saints?

I'm going to play the devil's advocate and ask who do you think knows more about life at Saints? Those who are living it (or did in the very recent past) such as the staff and the students? or the media and an encyclopedia? I am incredibly distressed that information could be considered as insufficiently sourced or cited because there is not enough evidence from the media or encyclopedias. Honestly, do these sources know as much about the life and culture of a school as well as those who are part of that culture? And if we relied only on these sources, is it not doubtful that these sources would have a large amount of relevant cultural information? I thought that one thing that made Wikipedia so special was that you could find cultural information and a whole plethora of viewpoints, not just what is considered as cited fact.

I for one, would not consider discussion - on the recent redundancies of many, respected, well-liked, experienced, committed and skilled staff which is part of the many circles who are closely tied with Saints - as immaterial or unsubstantiated. As part of these circles myself, I have to say it does have relevance to the future Saints as staff and students are central to the school community (the students do care about the redundancies for staff they have learned to appreciate). Also as part of this circle, I know that this is a heatily discussed topic, how can another relying on media and encyclopedic articles know this type of cultural information?

Contested opinions, viewpoints and persepectives are discussed in other articles especially those where highly cultural issues are discussed. Yet this information in this article is deleted in this as immaterial and unsourced, unsubstantiated, uncited, whatever you may call it. Can the inconsistency be any more transparent? Some might say that it is not backed up by academic point of view, or by media reports, etc. But can you really say that those who are actively part of the Saints life do not have some authority on this topic? whilst those who are not part of this community at all and are completely outside do have authority, when it is likely that their information only takes into account information from more official people (such as the headmaster, etc.) and not other staff and students. Can you really say that the managers and directors can speak for the employees of a company, and that the employees do not have some authority in discussing how they company is running? Do I have to go as far as to point out that academic (yes academic!) studies on processes in companies do take into account, to a very large extent, the responses of employees? Obviously if studies and theories are based on this, they must have some degree of authority on the matter. Yet here, students and many staff obviously have no say, it is only official opinion that counts.

All the while more, let us not forget that the cultural aspects of Saints cannot be fulfillingly and satisfactorily discussed in encyclopedias and media reports. If anyone is still persistent on the need for these sources let me ask you what you would do in this situation. You want to know everything about a family, who is not particularly so important and prominent in society, that little information would be found in published articles of any form on the cultural aspects of the family. You might be able to find out their names, ages, relations (in terms of relatives), health, occupation, income, etc. Yet will you ever find out how they function as interdependent people in a family? Will you know who gets along well with who? There are so many more things that are so obviously unattainable from mere publications. This is the case for a school. It's not the greatest institution in the world, you won't find as much information on it as you would for Harvard University just to use as an example. You clearly will not be able to have any insight on many of the cultural aspects of the school other than official reports in school newsletters and magazines (yet who would dare deny that these are incredibly biased in self-praise, as no school would try to create impressions that it is unsatisfactory). These aspects can only be found in the valuable contributions of those who are acively part of the Saints culture. It is an outrage that what is an issue that is strongly discussed in the community can be considered as immaterial.

NG- student of the year 12 class of 2005.


Nice insight, I agree.

I agree, mate, and well done on putting a brave opinion out there. I recall removing something that was added along those lines because it read a bit too much like a personal attack on the school management. But if there is a serious issue in the school community, by all means be bold and add it, that's the beauty of Wikipedia. If you back up what you write with a decent discussion in the talk section then I reckon you'd at the very least get yourself a few allies. Good on you!--EDH 08:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid you might need to read over several of our policies and guidelines to gain a better understanding of what Wikipedia is and is not. It is encyclopædia and accordingly verifiabily ultimately determines whether content is included, not truth. Consequently, information which you have discovered personally and which is not confirmed by reliable sources is prohibited on Wikipedia. Hence, the opinions or actions of staff, students and family may only be noted if they are sourced appropriately. The issue of relevancy or immateriality that you raise is something which is resolved amongst editors through discussion. However, neutrality and the fair and balanced presentation of information is non-negotiable. Thanks, --cj | talk 08:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/_/Talk%7ESt_Peter%27s_College%2C_Adelaide_5390.html"