Talk:School for Creative and Performing Arts/Archive 1

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.

Archive 1

Article title

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Perhaps should this be renamed to School for Creative and Performing Arts (Cincinnati, Ohio); since there are multiple SCPA's throughout the country. Peyna 22:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it should because i atend this school and my fellow classe mates have a hard time finding the school website and this acticle when serching on google.

Well, I don't really see the point of this if these other SCPAs don't have an article on Wikipedia.

Narfbite 21:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You do it because it's polite & considerate. Cincinnati isn't the center of the Universe & when ppl search for SCPA or the School for... it should lead to a disambiguation page with dead links to the other schools. --Duemellon (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

negative stuff

Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

The sex scandal involving the students & several staff members happened. It is factual & supportable by any student who was there around that time. The fund loss was there as well as a reaction. Where's an article about the auditorium fire? The fact that Abigail is buried in the backyard of Woodward & the stories of her ghost? Where's the stuff that makes this real? Unfortunately there are things which did happen which will not have articles that would be "School Lore" as well (such as Abigail's ghost), but c'mon, just b/c it's negative doesn't mean it needs sourcing since there's a lot of positive without such sourcing. --Duemellon 23:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

After some search here's an article mentioning it: http://www.gaycincinnati.com/news/index.htm?http://www.gaycincinnati.com/news/newzstu.htm but this does not do it any justice. --Duemellon 23:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing in that link that confirms the information about the sex scandal. I've been there five years and never heard that story (which doesn't make it false), and WP:BLP requires that if you're going to accuse someone of sexual abuse, you need to have a rock-solid source. Abigail Cutter and her husband are no longer buried at the school, and although kids like to pretend that a young Abigail hanged herself somewhere on the fifth floor and haunts the school, she died at a ripe old age and does not haunt anywhere. Mention of the fire would be interesting, and could probably be cited to a reliable source; I'm sure it was covered by the Cincinnati Enquirer when it happened. -FisherQueen (Talk) 00:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I was there during the scandal. You can ask any alumn from '88 - '91 & they'll confirm it. Yes, that article does confirm it because it is mentioning it. I have more details than that article as well as any alumn from that period. There was not a lo of press coverage because it was a huge embarassment & digging it up on the 'net will be pretty hard because it was before local news stations had an internet presence.

Abigail's remains are still behind the school, or at least the plaque there says so. Going out the 2nd floor door to the street perpendicular to 13th, there's a rectangle about 5-7 paces from the back door. It says that's where her mortal remains lay. I can simply get a pic of it to prove so & post it.

Now, you've heard that "rumor/legend" about Abigail's ghost or whatever & that's fine. We have corrobrating evidence showing it's a legend or rumor. We could post it as a rumore/legend or whatever. It's fine.

As for caling it "negative" stuff, it's factual stuff & can't/shouldn't be barred simply because it's negative --Duemellon 10:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"In the wake of a sex scandal involving a former school official, at least one teacher, and what the previous principal called a purge of "pedophiles" on the staff and negative publicity over arson by students at SCPA, new principal Jeff Brokamp approached CORE carefully." That's a source, you're right. Sorry, there were a lot of words on that page, and I missed the sentence that mentions the scandal. But considering the nature of the accusations, I'd personally feel a lot more confident if we could confirm it with another, more reliable source, as per WP:BLP. (I've never heard these stories! I'm glad I met you; I may need to go learn more about this, for my own personal edification whether there's enough verification to add it or not.) We definitely can't accuse anyone by name unless we have a rock-solid source to verify it.
Yes, I'm familiar with the headstone you described, and I actually already have a picture of it. I'm certain that when I read about the school's history, I read that the bodies were moved, but I don't have a reliable source, so I can't add that to the article. I think adding some information about the Woodwards and the history of the school would be very interesting; are you in Cincinnati now? The public library does have some very good sources that we could use to flesh out this part of the article. I've been meaning to go and do the research to expand this article for ages, and just haven't gotten around to it yet; you're welcome to it. I could even be wrong; maybe between the two of us we can find some verification one way or the other.
And no, I am not a reliable source, nor is the fact that impressionable teenagers tell ghost stories the same thing as evidence that the building is haunted. We'd need a reliable source, like a book, newspaper, or magazine, in order to assert that. I've never even met a kid who claimed to encounter a ghost, or to know anyone who had, so even if I were a reliable source there'd be nothing to report except that kids love spooky stories, which isn't exactly news. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, you're getting me interested again in trying to flesh this article out. There's a history of the school that has just been printed in the new school handbook, I'll try to grab a copy as an additional source of information. Between us, we can probably come up with the research to build this into a better article; this school has a lot of fascinating history that isn't even mentioned in the current article (which I think was probably written by current students). -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Here may lie the Woodwards, unless they lie somewhere else now.

I went ahead and uploaded my photo of William and Abigail Woodward's headstone at SCPA; it's at some reliable information about them would definitely be useful in the history section, though I don't know whether we'll decide to include the photo in the article or not. I wonder if we could find a non-copyrighted photograph of the Woodwards? -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think I'm wrong about the grave. CityBeat is still reporting them as buried there as recently as 2001, and I can't find any evidence that they aren't... I can't remember where I read it, so for now, I'll assume that there are bodies under that memorial stone. Cool. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Found sources! I feel like a researching hero. discusses the sex scandals of the early 90s and even names the name. There's an article that I think is about the arson in the Post as well, but this site requires membership and I can't find it in the Post's archives, so one of us may need to go to the library for this one. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This source isn't really about the arson- it's about the principal's resignation- but it does have a few relevant details. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest disclosure

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have made significant edits to this article, and I am employed by this school. I have tried to write in a way that was neutral and verified by sources in accordance with Wikipedia policy, and I'm disclosing my conflict of interest in a spirit of good faith. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your disclosure. I am a former alumn from '90. I don't think my possible conflict of interest is as great as your's but now you know if you needed to. I wanted to thank you for your efforts to incorporate the factual history even though it is embarassing to the school. --Duemellon 17:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. As long as it can be verified, there's plenty of good stuff to say about the school, so there's no need to sweep anything under the rug- and if I wanted to, then that really would be my conflict of interest making the article biased. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Legends & Rumors

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

How do we go about getting a verifiable source for the legend of Abigail's ghost. It would seem you've heard it. I've heard it. Plenty others have too. So it's a story that persists but has no reason to be documented anywhere in tangible form.

What other rumors & legends have there been that have persisted? --Duemellon 02:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The ghost story... I don't think there's much there, to be honest, that's all that useful to pursue. The article will be more interesting if we focus on the real history than kids' stories... there's a connection between the school and the Underground Railroad that might be interesting, if we can find some sources and some details. -FisherQueen (Talk) 10:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Other Details

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

I'd love to have some other former alumns & currrent students take a look at this stuff. I'm sure they have more details to the "Academic Acheivement" award we got. I remember being brought out to the front parking lot while Mr. D announced from the balcony above the entrence (the one in room 325) we won the recognition. We had a banner draped in front for years. I don't think it's still there. Our biggest academic rival was Walnut Hills at the time.

When did the basketball team go away? When did it come back? Did they win anything meaningful?

When was the Woodward site officially declared "Historic"?

The ground breaking ceremony for the new school at Music Hall was earlier this month, right? --Duemellon 02:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I was at the groundbreaking; and it was covered pretty widely in the Cincinnati press. I have one of the stories referenced in the article already if you want to see pictures. There's a web site now for alums, just getting developed, at www.scpaalumni.org. I think they even have forums. But of course the article has to be based on reliable sources, not just memories- memory is fallible, and students don't always have full understanding of what's going on anyway. Some of the stuff you're asking is before my time, and in any case, I wouldn't trust to my memory without being able to cite it. The historic landmark marker was fairly recent... 2004 or 2005. There's probably a news article about it out there somewhere. We could definitely do more reading, find more sources, and add more information. -FisherQueen (Talk) 10:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I just want to reinforce- you shouldn't be adding anything if you aren't also adding a reliable source. Don't add anything that is based on your own memories or knowledge. Only add information if you can also add the source of that information. Look at the paragraphs I added for an example of how to do it. I'm going to go ahead and remove the unsourced stuff, so that you can re-add the paragraphs one at a time as you find sources. -FisherQueen (Talk) 10:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

We're running into a bit of a problem because the source for some of these is undocumented common knowledge. There's a need for sourcing when something is to be disputed. However, these details are known. Kind of like how you heard & I heard the same ghost story. There will be no articles, there won't even be an internal school paper mentioning it. Yet we both can verify the story's existance. They don't need to source saying "Gravity pulls things", nor that there is such a thing as a shadow. They don't need to source that the 1st President of the US was George Washington either. Giving it the heading of "Legend/rumor" even suggests it doesn't have to be sourced as long as it's a recurring or known rumor.

I know the 1st year they expanded to include 4th grade was 1980 because I was the 1st 4th grade class & the 1st group of "Survivors". It's in my yearbook that we're the 1st survivor, but should I cite it saying "In my yearbook it says so"?

I went to the school for years, returning each year, to the senior show. There's no documentation on the senior show. There's no playbill or school newsletter detailing it. It happens every year. They sing that same songs & have been since the movie "Fame" came out.

I don't have access to documentation to prove the award for acedemic acheivement. Again, this isn't something documented in the local media. It should be in the archives of the school or maybe even some old pictures. I don't have access to those resources but I know it happened.

We both know the school building was declared a historic site. You were there. I was there. There's a plaque out front. We don't need to source it seeing as there is no dispute.

There will be no documentation that there is no homecoming dance. Why would anyone write a report about something that isn't there? Same with the intermediary graduation ceremonies. Other schools have separate graduations, SCPA doesn't. You just come back the next year.

There is documentation there are 9 periods. All you need to do is cite a current student's class schedule. How do we compare that to the other schools in the area? They won't/don't mention they have 6-8 periods in their day on their individual entries either. We know it's true.

I understand you want to be sure things are sourced. Some of the information doesn't & won't have documentation but is still known. That is the same for this article as well as many others. If they were really a stickler for sourcing there wouldn't be a single sentence entered in any article that wouldn't source tag every single noun and verb. There is a lot more leeway. If me & you aren't disputing the fact, you can tag it as "unsourced" ^{[citation needed]} & maybe someone in the future will find a relevent article. --Duemellon 12:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, information really does have to be sourced. I can source a statement that George Washington was the first president; that article has sources verifying the fact. There are lots of sources in the article about how gravity works, too. You can read the Wikipedia policy on the subject if you like; Wikipedia doesn't have very many actual rules, but the rule that all information needs sources is one of them. Often, if something can't be sourced -like the fact that the school day has nine bells, or that seniors have a talent showcase every year, or that there are no homecoming dances - it's because it isn't important enough to write about. If the local paper doesn't think it's important enough to cover, it probably isn't important enough to be in an international encyclopedia, either. And of course, just because something is 'common knowledge' in a school doesn't make it true- like your earlier statement in the article that the school was funded by US President Woodward, when there was no such president. Sourcing helps us avoid errors. I'm sure that your English teachers at SCPA taught you that, when writing a research essay, one always has to cite one's sources of information. That's the kind of writing we're doing here. It really is a Wikipedia rule and a requirement for every essay. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The other thing we run into is what qualifies as a "source"? After all, we have some guidelines but a lot of things don't fall into the clean category of being an internet or library archived source. Going to SCPA was unique in several ways. That is important & relevent. We could get into a debate about how to qualify something as important or not but that would be a pointless exercise in nitpicking & POV. Leaving information up that is unsourced is not a foul unless someone disputes the informations validity. Or, just as I mentioned, every verb & noun in any article would have to be tagged.

What do you consider to be acceptible non-internet & non-library archived sources? --Duemellon 17:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There isn't any need for us to debate which sources will be acceptable; the Wikipedia community has had much conversation on the subject, and the answer is at the reliable sources guidelines page. The question of how to qualify something as important has also been discussed at length, and the answers the community has come up with are at the notability guidelines page. It's good that the community has discussed these subjects and come to decisions separately, so that we don't have to have the discussion over again on every article; those are the standards we use for every article. If you want to participate in the discussion over what kinds of sources are reliable, or change the conclusions the community has come to, you should do that at the reliable sources talk page, not here, where only a few people are likely to read it. But until the guidelines are changed by the community, they are the guidelines we use for every article. Yes, even though SCPA is special to you and I, we will still follow the guidelines in this article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 08:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problems

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

A mechanical plagiarism detector picked up multiple copyright issues in the lead of this article. Among them, in the lead

text is drawn from [1] (see also [2]) (At least some of this text entered the article here.)
text is drawn from [3].

In the next several sections duplication from [4] as well as considerably more from [5]. I am blanking this article pending a full investigation to see if we can determine when copyrighted content was introduced. If permission cannot be verified for duplicated text, it will have to be deleted in accordance with copyright policy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The text in question is drawn selectively from the school's Fact Sheet and FAQ. The material in the lead appears elsewhere in the article, as well, where it is properly cited. Some of this material, including admission requirements and the Mission Statement, it is difficult not to quote directly without distortion, and the source is cited in the article. Other material is drawn selectively from those sources and not duplicated directly but edited throughout. I hope this helps clarify.Vaughanchris (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the image Old Woodward.png, it is sourced to Michael Husman, who has released it under a free license. Vaughanchris (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that citation is not all that is necessary to efface copyright concerns. In addition to citing the source, any material duplicated from an unfree source must meet the conditions of WP:NFC. This not only indicates when we may duplicate text, but reminds that we cannot do so extensively.

I have resumed running this through the mechanical detector, which misses subtler issues but is good at picking up more extensive ones. So far, it has also picked up issues at [6]. Compare, for example, this text from the article:

During the second and fourth quarters, a student’s progress in each Arts major is assessed through a “Proficiency Review Process.” In this review process, each student makes a presentation to the faculty of that particular Arts department. The faculty of that department will assess the student’s work and assign a rating. For students in grades 4-6, this is a developmental process, which familiarizes them with the responsibility of presenting their artistic work for review. For students in grades 7-12, this process is designed to be developmental first, but it also carries with it an obligation on the student’s part to maintain a rating of Passing or Excellent or they will not be permitted to remain in that Arts major.

With the text of the source:

During the second and fourth quarters, a student’s progress in each arts major will be assessed through a “Proficiency Review Process.” ... In this review process, each student will make a presentation to the faculty of that particular arts department. The faculty of that department will assess the student’s work and assign one of the following ratings: Excellent, Passing, Warning, Failure. For students in grades 4-6, this is a developmental process, which familiarizes them with the responsibility of presenting their artistic work for review. For students in grades 7-12, this process is designed to be developmental first, but it also carries with it an obligation on the student’s part to maintain a rating of Passing or Excellent.

I'm afraid that this constitutes at best a very close paraphrase. Our copyright policy requires that material be completely rewritten in your own words. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The "Academic and Artistic Acheivement" has also matched [7], [8], [9]. For example, the text in the article from "Over the years, many students...Edinburgh, Scotland" is copied directly from page 4 of [10]. The use of this non-free text is not justifiable under WP:NFC. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The next section also finds various text matches: [11], [12], [13], [14]. The sections "The Friends of SCPA" and "School Leadership" hit on the .pdf as well, at page 16. The "Old Woodward" section hit on [15] (Text "The first successful school in the city opened there in 1831, and remains the oldest public school west of the Allegheny Mountains. Famous Woodward graduates include President William Howard Taft" is a close derivative of "The first successful school in the city, Woodward today remains the oldest public school west of the Allegheny Mountains. Famous Woodward graduates include President William Howard Taft.") --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have submitted a replacement article on the temporary page which addresses all of the identified concerns as well as other potential issues and more closely cites the sources of all of the information concerned. I would request that the new article be used in place of the prior one and that the copyright conflict be removed.Vaughanchris (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Assessment

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Now that copyright issues have been resolved this is actually a pretty impressive article, and it certainly deserves C-class. Further improvements are needed for B-class though, and this could be a Good article with plenty of effort. For importance, I would give this Mid-importance for the history and alumni as it stands. However, Taking the Stage which appears to have had national coverage can justify High-importance.

File:SCPA Historical Marker.PNG either needs an OTRS permission tag or the licence needs to be clarified. The website linked appears to allow commercial use of their work, as needed for Wikipedia, however they do not specifically licence their work under Creative Commons, hence the generic {{Attribution}} may be the correct tag for this image. I would avoid squashing text between images and infoboxes, try to follow the guidance at MOS:IMAGE.

The lead is a little long, it should only introduce and summarise the article, see WP:LEAD; only the longest articles usually have four paragraph leads. The lead is a little promotional, which is not a good tone to start an article in. I would advise against mission statement sections per WP:MISSION; they don't add much to the article. Elements of promotion also come out in other places in the article, avoid vague statements like "SCPA is known for its professional quality productions, and performance is an integral part of each student's education." and "SCPA has a strong record of academic achievement." Who is saying this? Do all sources agree? The history section is generally well written, though as it is primarily about the past it should probably come earlier in the article. The alumni section is impressive though it should be better sourced. Really every single individial needs a reliable source confirming their attendance. Entries also need to be notable per WP:NNC, so most of those listed should have blue links to their own article.

Finally, the article could do with some stylistic improvements. Most of the current section headings are appropriate; WP:WPSCH/AG#S will give a full listing for ideas on possible expansion. External links should be avoided within the text per WP:ELPOINTS, for sourcing please only use <ref></ref>. The current heading hierarchy is inappropriate in places. Level 2 headings should be used for every major section (except the lead), with level 3 and higher used for sub-sections within major sections only. Currently some major sections have level 3 headings, this should be corrected. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is coming on nicely. Now that most of the issues of the previous assessment have been addressed I am giving this article B-class and adding it to potential good article candidates list at WP:WPSCH. I see this article is having a peer review, I think it would be good to get some feedback from some other editors there to help get this article to GA. I will give a few further tips however including: (1) Some more references are needed for the alumni section, and I don't think each person's name should be in bold per MOS:BOLD. (2) Some images in the article are hosted on Wikipedia when they could be on Wikimedia Commons. I would consider moving images there, creating a gallery for this school there, and linking it from the article using {{Commons}}. See WP:COMMONS for help. (3) The reference list is quite short for the length of the article, try adding a greater variety of references when you can. (4) The external links sections seems to be a little long, I would suggest cutting it down in-line with WP:EL. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus. Nomination was partially withdrawn, and never got much support. — æk ^Talk 03:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

{{movereq}}

School for Creative and Performing Arts → School for Creative and Performing Arts (Cincinnati, Ohio) — I noticed similar wikipedia article names, have listed the current items and some other similar ones at School of Creative and Performing Arts (disambiguation page). Seems these two should get more specific article titles. doncram (talk) 11:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

School for the Creative and Performing Arts → School for the Creative and Performing Arts (Lexington, Kentucky)

I'm not a fan of disambiguation where no duplication exists, as with the one in Lex, KY. If there is another school with the same name - not similar but the same - then disambiguation should be uncontroversial. But I don't see the need for disambiguation just because the names are similar, or because there might be another school with the same name. That's like disambiguating the University of Miami and Miami University (the former is in Miami, Florida; the latter is in the Miami River valley in SW Ohio), which some people also seem to find necessary. cmadler (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think "University of Miami" vs. "Miami University" are more different than two long phrases differing only by inclusion of "the" or not. In this Cincinnati elementary/high school context, i think it comes across as a little Ohio-centric to assert implicitly that the world should know that omission of "the" means one is speaking of the Cincinnati school. Clarification in the article, also, indicates this is just one of about 350 arts schools in the U.S. as of 1993, and it is just mildly asserted by a local publication that this school is "one of the oldest" and a model for other schools. It just does not seem to be the wp:primary use for such a broad phrase. Adding a clarifying "(Cincinnati, Ohio)" removes the explicit or implicit claim that this is world-class exceptional extraordinary and all that. So I think the move should be made. doncram (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not feel strongly either way, but will point out that other schools are also known by "SCPA," (e.g.,San Diego School of Creative and Performing Arts) which is how those who are familiar with the school most often refer to it. I would guess that would be a popular search term, in which case disambiguation of some sort would be helpful.Vaughanchris (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- A disambiguation page already exists at SCPA. cmadler (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  - Thanks, Cmadler, i've now added links between SCPA (disambiguation) and the new School of Creative and Performing Arts (disambiguation). I interpret Vaughanchris's comment as mild support for the move. Thanks. doncram (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually i don't care so much about moving/renaming these now. I've added a disambiguation hatnote to each of the two articles proposed for moving and built up the disambiguation page that the hatnote links to. So the general disambiguation problem is addressed somewhat. I'm okay either way, moving or not. doncram (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Informal review

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Hello. I've been asked to take a look at this article — my comments will be posted below. Benny the mascot (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead: "SCPA has historically been among the highest-scoring public schools in Cincinnati..." — How so? In what respect? Benny the mascot (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
More details on the academic curriculum are needed. Benny the mascot (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Tara Patrick/Carmen Electra

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Was not an alumni. To co-opt some other school's alumni to make SCPA look better is childish if not dishonest. --Duemellon (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it says here, here, and here that she was. She did not graduate, but it says here that "all alumni meeting these criteria are to be included on an alumni list, regardless of how much time they have spent on a school roll, from one day to several years, and whether or not they graduated." The entry needs a reference, but they all do and I will add them shortly. But her own article says so too and proves it. It is linked. You could have checked there before being rude here. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Information reworded

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'm dropping a note to give a wider explanation of this edit. These charges are unproven, and the subject was distressed at the inclusion of this information. Not only is it damaging to him personally but also professionally. In these cases, we are duty-bound to do as much as possible to protect the subject of any article, and it is well within the scope of BLP to tweak these pages accordingly.

With an article that focuses on a person as a primary subject, perhaps it would be different; but in this case, inclusion does not appear to be a necessity, nor is it a primary topic for the article. Please consider and discuss this before reverting.

Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your edit. In my view, they simply minimize the nature of the allegations to the detriment of the article. The fact that he was -- indisputably -- accused of rape, and that the accusations were never publicly resolved is highly relevant to the history of the school, especially in light of the prior history of sexual misconduct and scandal documented earlier in the article. This school had an ugly history of sexual misconduct by the staff which almost shut the place down. The press and the public viewed the allegations against Carlisle as yet another sordid scandal and reacted accordingly. To portray it otherwise, namely, as an undefined "incident" and not the rape accusation and resulting scandal that it was, is a whitewash of what happened. I believe this clearly compromises the neutrality of the article. There is a great deal more detail about this scandal in the sources that I have not included here, also in the spirit of WP:N. But the scandal and the nature of the scandal must be mentioned.

Further, you have not only removed the entirely accurate claim that no charges were filed, but also the clearly reliable source from which that claim was drawn. There is no justification for such an edit. I have suggested below one alternative, namely, to include the claim that Carlisle publicly denied the charges and reliable source that supports that. I have offered to provide such a source if requested. Based on my extensive search of published sources, I believe this is the only verifiable claim of that nature to be made. But removing valid sources when you don't like what they say is not acceptable.

Please either state your objections clearly in terms of wp:blp, namely by presenting some evidence that the sources for the material in question are problematic, or restore the material you just reverted. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If there is no further debate, I will go ahead revert the changes under discussion. I will wait a few more days for any additional comments. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

John Carlisle Rape

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

(Copied from User talk: Nasty Housecat)

Hi, I am John Carlisle the former principal accused of rape at SCPA. I do request that the word rape be removed from the article and the fact I was cleared put back in. I understand your point. The girl that made the accusation resolved my lawsuit against her in December. Part of what she agreed to was a court order signed by the judge ordering the word rape removed from the record. I can provide you with a copy of that court order if you would like. Thank You.Marshallsig (talk) 07:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Please understand that I have no personal knowledge or interest in the events in question and have sought only to adhere strictly to WP:BLP, in light of the special scrutiny applied to Featured Articles. The many published sources I have found (including the appellate decision in the civil suit), use the word "rape" and I have followed those sources exactly in my editing of this article. Further, the sources I have found claim only that "no charges were filed", not that there was a definitive finding of any kind. I have followed that language closely in my edits, as well. (I did the same for the allegations about Dickinson). I have located at least one article where Carlisle (using the third person) denied the charges. I would not object to an addition to that effect, provided that a reliable source could be provided (I will post a link if requested). Nor would I object to any other changes supported by appropriate high quality sources. BLP requires that contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced be removed. I have reverted several edits in that spirit. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Misinformation

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have corrected misinformation in this article regarding specific provisions of GCAEC's agreement with the Cincinnati Public School district, and someone continues to circle back and undo those edits, thus perpetuating misinformation.

GCAEC's Partnering Agreement with CPS specifies that GCAEC has three seats (not five) of twelve of the SCPA LSDMC.

Also, the ongoing funding commitment to the school is $500,000 every five years (not $150,000/year, or even $100,000/year, but $500,000 every five years).

Both of these items can be verified in the Partnering Agreement.

Thank you. 66.161.245.30 (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Karen Dorn, Executive Director, GCAEC

The information you removed is supported by reliable sources which contradict the information you are adding. This is the only reason I have reverted your changes, as a noted in my edit summaries. I don't question your personal knowlegde the facts here, but the information in the article must be verifiable. Do you have any reliable (i.e., published and/or accessible) sources that support your version of the facts that we could cite here? An article? A website? I support any change to the article that meets WP:V and WP:OR. Nasty Housecat (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of a response, I have looked for sources that would support the suggested revisions, but without success. I have made the following edits to address the concerns that the facts have been misrepresented:

I have edited the claim about the LSDMC to highlight the fact that it is the Enquirer's claim, and included the year, 2003. Since it seems the arrangement may have changed later, this seems the most accurate way to present the facts as far as we can source them.
I have edited the claim about the pledge to date the information to 2010. Again, it may have changed, but that was the information available at the time.

Please do not revert these changes again without discussing here. I follow this page and will respond. Unverifiable information should not be added to the article, but I will support any new sources or suggestions for how to present the information more accurately. Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Congrats

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As an editor and a resident of OTR, I was surprised and happy to see this on the main page. Nice work, everyone who contributed to making this article FA. Lithoderm 00:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

OTR not the largest urban HD

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Butte-Anaconda Historic District is a larger urban historic district: OTR has 943 contributing properties in 362.5 acres, while Butte-Anaconda has 6015 contributing properties in 2,720 acres. You can go with {{NRISref|version=2010a}} as a source; summaries of the data can be found by going to http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/infobox.php (run by Elkman) and alternately entering 83001985 and 66000438 (the reference numbers for OTR and for Butte-Anaconda) into the lower blank. I'd do it, but I don't have time to add a decent citation. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on School for Creative and Performing Arts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 19 external links on School for Creative and Performing Arts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on School for Creative and Performing Arts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140630091138/http://www2.ed.gov/programs/nclbbrs/list-1982.pdf to http://www2.ed.gov/programs/nclbbrs/list-1982.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.schoolmatters.com/schools.aspx/q/page%3Dsp/sid%3D60869
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hollywood.com/celebrity/1114132/Cyrus_Voris
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hollywood.com/celebrity/186760/Todd_Louiso_Credits
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bigbureaucracy.com/?p=672

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on School for Creative and Performing Arts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)