Talk:St. Francis Xavier's College (Liverpool)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Schools This article is related to WikiProject Schools, an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet been assessed. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary. [FAQ]
Schools Portal
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within Schools. Please rate the article.

[edit] Edits

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

- removal of Choir section
- 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)

[edit] 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#Reliable_sources). 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)