Talk:School for Creative and Performing Arts
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Article title
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)
[edit] negative stuff
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)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- 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)
- 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)
-
-
-
- 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)
[edit] Conflict of interest disclosure
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)
[edit] Legends & Rumors
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)
[edit] Other Details
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 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)
-
-
- 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)
- What do you consider to be acceptible non-internet & non-library archived sources? --Duemellon 17:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] WikiProject class rating
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)