Talk:Penleigh and Essendon Grammar School/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This article shouldn't be in the category "Schools established in the 1970's". It's clear from the text of the article and from other sources that PEGS simply merged at that time. It's misleading to suggest that the school is only ~30 years old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.53.33 (talk • contribs)

Infobox

Shouldn't this article use an infobox like other schools (see Scotch College, Melbourne for an exemple) rather than an infobox that suggests it is a business (like the current box does)? Maybe someone with more knowledge could make this change? If not, I might get around to it... sometime. Blarneytherinosaur 06:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality?

This article is unusuallypro Penleigh & Essendon Grammar, seems as if it is more of an advertisement by the school than a true informative page from a neutral point of view.

The section obviously keeps being edited to read as an advertisement for the school by someone inside the school, information that they don't like, such as the Moran family's name, have been taken out, as not to taint the schools so called 'image'.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Theworld2 (talk • contribs)

Hi,

I have edited the section 'notable alumni' to remove the references to the Moran's and to David Tweed. the Shorter Oxford English dictionary defines notable as 'worthy or deserving of note esp. on account of excellence, value or importance...' do you think that these individuals meet htis criterion?

mjongenMjongen 23:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop removing those names. I've reverted you (again). That "criteria" you give is yours, not Wikipeidia's. On Wikipedia, we include notable criminals in the "notable alumni" lists and the Morans are clearly notable criminals and Tweed a notable businessman (or whatever he calls himself). Please stop deleting them. Sarah 04:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ms Ewart I was submitting the Oxford English Dictionary's definition.. This definition is not something that I made up and I believe that it is a more authoritive and older source than Wikipedia. What source do you use to define 'notable'. Are these people excellent, valuable and important? my understanding is that I have the right to edit if not happy with an entry. Please let me know if this is wrong and that you are the person who has the last word on the content of this page . While this 'debate' may be on opinion I am also concerned that you keep replacing incorrect information on the site. MichaelMjongen 09:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Further to my last posting. I have updated the Senior staff list so that it is correct. mjongenMjongen 09:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I am not suggesting you "made up" the dictionary definition. I'm not sure what you mean by "Please let me know if this is wrong and that you are the person who has the last word on the content of this page." I am an Australian administrator on Wikipedia and I am trying to explain to you that the definition you've chosen and are trying to make us use as criteria is not consistent with our actual criteria for determining notability.

Yes, indeed, you are allowed to edit the article, however, it is my job as a site administrator to ensure that your edits conform to our policies and guidelines. Repeatedly removing people because they aren't people you define as "excellent" or "valuable" and do not reflect positively on the school, (or whatever your motives), is inappropriate. You say the source of your definition "is a more authoritive (sic) and older source than Wikipedia". That may be, but we follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies, not dictionary definitions.

You asked what source I use to define notability; I use Wikipedia's notability guidelines which state that, for our purposes, a subject is considered notable if they have been: "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other." Clearly, the Morans and Tweed have been the subject of numerous non-trival magazine and newspaper articles, documentaries and news stories and even included in crime books. I understand that you think these people reflect poorly on the school, however, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a school promotions site or public relations forum. Sarah 04:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, please explain your allegation that I "keep replacing incorrect information". Since October last year, I have made four edits to this article: [1][2][3][4] One of these edits was to delete from the history an edit containing a defamatory allegation and personal details about a student, the other three were reverting your changes to the notable former students list. Please advise which edits you now assert restored false information. Sarah 04:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael, as an employee of PEGS, I think you are compromised and have a clear conflict of interest. It appears that you are allowing your relationship with the school to influence your decision to attempt to remove these names from this article. Wikipedia is not here to promote schools. It is here to provide informative encyclopedic articles that are of a neutral point of view and therefore must include a natural balance of negative and positive information. Please reconsider your behaviour. Sarah 04:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, Firstly I must say what joy your comments gave to several students who have been following this saga with great interest. They were delighted to show it to me in my information learning technologies class (assessing websites) this afternoon and informed me I had well and truly been 'flamed'. I had to agree!:-)

I never knew that David Tweed was an ex student at Essendon Grammar until I read this article. I do find it objectionable and offensive that his name and the word notable are placed within cooee of each other. I appreciate your stance and will not attempt to edit this again. Obviously I felt that the word infamous was more appropriate but do not intend to engage in a futile exercise. I really feel that Wikipedia is using the word notable in an innapropriate context.

I also edited the membership of the senior staff several times to remove a name that should not have been on it, which was constantly replaced. It is now correct. (As a by the by I feel really uncomfortable about my name being published by the Wikipedia.)

You will be aware (I hope) that I edited and softened my comments after consideration of my inital response. I should make it clear that I have been acting personally and my understanding of your encyclopedia's philosophy was that I had this right. We are both aware that Wikipedia is still regarded as a controversial resource and is the subject of much contoversy in the Information community and has been the subject of much debate. Finally can you satisfy my professional curiosity as to where and how you gathered the information that you have about the school. Cheers Michael Mjongen 08:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

G'day Michael, a librarian is hardly senior staff...perhaps you should remove your name to make the article more accurate, seeing that you've already decided its okay to remove things you don't like then the readers won't be confused and you won't be uncomfortable, or if you feel your not up to being 'senior staff' hand in your resignation. theworld2

Hello yourself theworld2. You don't like librarians - shushed one to many times were we? - however it is normal practise for the senior librarian to be on the senior managment team of a school. In the case of PEGS we have a senior team which meets weekly and are designated as senior staff. And while it may bite for you, I am on that team unlike many ppl whose names keep being added to the list. Michael

Just deleted some vandalism on the page- FenderTele

Thanks FenderTele. I have blocked that person. The only thing coming from their IP seems to be vandalism and bizarre comments about Mr Jongen. Sarah 06:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is going to hell in a hand basket, If you are going to delete relevant information, and im looking at you Sarah, then delete the notable alumni or lets see some references for it. theworld2

Lists of current teachers are generally not included in school articles unless the staff members are individually notable, in which case they would be listed under "notable faculty", or, in some cases, collectively with notable alumni under "notable people". Please compare this article with Caulfield Grammar School, a featured article and Aquinas College, Perth, a current good article undergoing feature article consideration. The Schools project, the closest thing we currently have to a schools guideline, advises against transitory staff lists in favour of "timeless information" such as "Names of noteworthy (e.g. award-winning, published) faculty of the past." In removing those lists, I've applied the same notability criteria that we apply to deciding which students and former students qualify as notable. In addition to this, and somewhat peripherally, the staff lists have been contentious, have been vandal targets and combined with Michael's stated discomfort at having his name in the article, I can see no valid reason for maintaining it. Removing a list of names of not notable people who do not independently qualify for biographies does not in anyway depreciate the article. Those names would not mean anything to anyone outside the school community. I have not remove the notable students list because they are typically included in schools articles, whereas, current teachers are not. However, if you want to look at removing former students who cannot be verified by reliable sources, we can certainly do that. Sarah 09:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Senior Staff

Graeme Roger is no longer the head of the English department as he is deceased.