Talk:Salesianum School

Trivia

I strongly contend that the Trivia section should be put back up. - Schrandit 19:12, 19 March 2006 (EST)

And it can stay, as long as it only contains verifiable and encyclopedic material. The addition of unverifiable material is against Wikipedia policy. Please do not continue adding this. Thank you. Fightindaman 00:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I only partially agree with Fightindaman. The trivia section should not stay or be reintroduced, regardless of how verifiable it is. If there is verifiable encyclopedic material, it should be worked into the body of the article or one of its sections. HokieRNB 13:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

But what does it mean to be encyclopedic in our context? In the context of a properly marked section I feel these little bits of information can only help give the reader a better understanding of a school's enviroment. Take a look at Yale; its not terribly important to know that at graduation seniors smash clay pipes but it doesn't detract from the more serious parts of the page and is fun to know. I think the trivia section should stay. - Schrandit 07:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Flo Danko worked at Salesianum from 1965 to 1992 and is remembered as "the french fry lady"

Would it fall into the category of "trivia" to note the heavy history of sexual abuse of students by faculty? Does it obviate "trivia" to delete mention of the most recent graduate to attain notoriety, Paul Cianci.

Burying the truth cannot be justified, and that anyway Wikipedia is not a medium for doing so.

This article is not lacking in trivia. It is lacking in principal facts.Macdust (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Clubs

Zombie club? - Schrandit (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This article omits a long and significant past problem of sexual abuse.

The school's own website acknowledges a longstanding problem of sexual of abuse of students by faculty. This acknowledgement appears to have been made under the force of a legal settlement. Students were violated and the violations were kept secret. These facts deserve at least as much attention as the athletic achievements of school and its graduates. Macdust (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Right now,this information is in the lede and reads awkwardly as it does not mention the school. Should be rewritten and placed in a separate section, perhaps under history.Wkharrisjr (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The current verbiage was cut and pasted from the official statement in the hope of minimizing the hazard of misstatement, although there is a hazard even in selecting which clauses to use. But the passage does read awkwardly and not just because it does not mention the school.

This entry appears to tended by editors better suited than I to find acceptable phrasing. Perhaps the subject could be opened by first mentioning the regime of precautions currently in practice, and then followed by mentioning the history of abuse that motivated these precautions.

As for the location of the information, do move it if you think it historical, not essential. To some researchers it will be most important, so it has to be in the article. --Macdust (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)