![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"The school achieved notoriety in the spring of 2003" would be better as "The school achieved recognition in the spring of 2003." "Notorious" and "noteriety" generally have a negative meaning and are different from "noteworty" or "renown." I made the change and hope the author has no objections. Interlingua 04:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
If you propose to add someone as a notable alumni who is not a well-known name, please explain on this page why you think the person should be added. -- DS1953 talk 15:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
RE: Notable Alumni This is a sensitive issue, but it should be clear that forms of vanity etc. should not be tolerated. We are all important; we went to Parker after all! Let's just keep cool on the "notable alumni" section.
Can we get rid of John Alexander Coleman as a poet becuase its actually just a kid who thinks hes funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.242.57 ( talk) 07:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
RE: the Weekly. It is an old paper, yes, but as it began in 1911 it could not possibly be the first student run paper. The citation is from a Parker publication and they may believe that they are unique, but give 200+ years of education in the US and colonies prior to 1911 it is just not possible. For example - The Tattler is the student newspaper of Ithaca High School (Ithaca, New York) Founded in 1892, it is also one of the oldest student newspapers in the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixmama ( talk • contribs) 23:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
It used to say the current student government president. How come it doesnt anymore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.242.57 ( talk) 18:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
How about adding a section to the page about the high school's student government? This section would talk about the student government and its role and purpose at parker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nate2019 ( talk • contribs) 15:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Francis W. Parker School (Chicago). 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://weekly.fwparker.org/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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
This is credible and it is on video 24.45.206.203 ( talk) 04:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
You can’t discredit the confession due to the source. JT EOD ( talk) 04:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
You don’t need to build consensus around hard evidence, nor do you try to discredit the evidence because of the source. This is basic fact finding. JT EOD ( talk) 04:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
You are definitely going to have to mention it in some shape or form, even if it is only to draw reference to the sudden absence of their entire Twitter account. A covert video of a similar quality supporting anything to the left of the political centre would automatically be accepted as a source without question. Wikipedia's goalposts move whenever the mob considers it in their interest. PortholePete ( talk) 10:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
The accusations can't be ignored forever. The video is pretty clear about the basics. Best to cite at least those. 2603:6081:3D03:58F5:1F63:1112:D794:1C8B ( talk) 18:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
The contents of the video have now been cited here: https://www.wbez.org/stories/a-chicago-private-school-defends-lgbtq-sex-ed-after-right-wing-viral-video/6436d6b5-3f20-4074-9482-5e48ebadb1a8 and here: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chicago-school-center-project-veritas-hit-offers-affinity-groups-prek-says-white-kids-cant-attend as well as here, although I don't know if this counts as a source rather than a search result: https://news.yahoo.com/chicago-school-defends-sex-toy-004827966.html
The first source even says something that the alphabet-soup mob would like to hear, so that surely meets Wikipedia's criteria. PortholePete ( talk) 11:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
This is my proposed text:
The wikipedia article Project Veritas cites numbrous examples of reliable sources, such as the Washington Post, comparing original video footage to the deceptively edited videos that were released by Project Veritas. In many cases, this proves that the videos that got relased were deliberately and deceptively edited by Project Veritas. In some of these cases, courts ruled that Project Veritas was guilty of defamation, and ordered them to pay compensation to the victims. Therefore, I look forward to reliable sources proving that in this new example, the school dean did not actually act happy and excited while saying that his school handed out sex toys to underage students. This deceptively edited video is available at the Project Veritas YouTube channel. I think the entire video is a deep fake, because there's no way that the dean of a school for underage children would ever say those things, or act happy and excited while saying them. So I look forward to reliable sources proving that the entire video is a deep fake.
SquirrelHill1971 ( talk) 20:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
References
Whatever your personal thoughts about O'Keefe and PV are, they are completely immaterial. News sources like WGN, WBEZ, Chicago Sun-Times, and more ARE COVERING THE STORY! Add the frickin' allegations already. 47.12.161.150 ( talk) 03:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"The school achieved notoriety in the spring of 2003" would be better as "The school achieved recognition in the spring of 2003." "Notorious" and "noteriety" generally have a negative meaning and are different from "noteworty" or "renown." I made the change and hope the author has no objections. Interlingua 04:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
If you propose to add someone as a notable alumni who is not a well-known name, please explain on this page why you think the person should be added. -- DS1953 talk 15:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
RE: Notable Alumni This is a sensitive issue, but it should be clear that forms of vanity etc. should not be tolerated. We are all important; we went to Parker after all! Let's just keep cool on the "notable alumni" section.
Can we get rid of John Alexander Coleman as a poet becuase its actually just a kid who thinks hes funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.242.57 ( talk) 07:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
RE: the Weekly. It is an old paper, yes, but as it began in 1911 it could not possibly be the first student run paper. The citation is from a Parker publication and they may believe that they are unique, but give 200+ years of education in the US and colonies prior to 1911 it is just not possible. For example - The Tattler is the student newspaper of Ithaca High School (Ithaca, New York) Founded in 1892, it is also one of the oldest student newspapers in the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixmama ( talk • contribs) 23:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
It used to say the current student government president. How come it doesnt anymore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.242.57 ( talk) 18:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
How about adding a section to the page about the high school's student government? This section would talk about the student government and its role and purpose at parker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nate2019 ( talk • contribs) 15:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Francis W. Parker School (Chicago). 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://weekly.fwparker.org/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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
This is credible and it is on video 24.45.206.203 ( talk) 04:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
You can’t discredit the confession due to the source. JT EOD ( talk) 04:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
You don’t need to build consensus around hard evidence, nor do you try to discredit the evidence because of the source. This is basic fact finding. JT EOD ( talk) 04:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
You are definitely going to have to mention it in some shape or form, even if it is only to draw reference to the sudden absence of their entire Twitter account. A covert video of a similar quality supporting anything to the left of the political centre would automatically be accepted as a source without question. Wikipedia's goalposts move whenever the mob considers it in their interest. PortholePete ( talk) 10:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
The accusations can't be ignored forever. The video is pretty clear about the basics. Best to cite at least those. 2603:6081:3D03:58F5:1F63:1112:D794:1C8B ( talk) 18:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
The contents of the video have now been cited here: https://www.wbez.org/stories/a-chicago-private-school-defends-lgbtq-sex-ed-after-right-wing-viral-video/6436d6b5-3f20-4074-9482-5e48ebadb1a8 and here: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chicago-school-center-project-veritas-hit-offers-affinity-groups-prek-says-white-kids-cant-attend as well as here, although I don't know if this counts as a source rather than a search result: https://news.yahoo.com/chicago-school-defends-sex-toy-004827966.html
The first source even says something that the alphabet-soup mob would like to hear, so that surely meets Wikipedia's criteria. PortholePete ( talk) 11:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
This is my proposed text:
The wikipedia article Project Veritas cites numbrous examples of reliable sources, such as the Washington Post, comparing original video footage to the deceptively edited videos that were released by Project Veritas. In many cases, this proves that the videos that got relased were deliberately and deceptively edited by Project Veritas. In some of these cases, courts ruled that Project Veritas was guilty of defamation, and ordered them to pay compensation to the victims. Therefore, I look forward to reliable sources proving that in this new example, the school dean did not actually act happy and excited while saying that his school handed out sex toys to underage students. This deceptively edited video is available at the Project Veritas YouTube channel. I think the entire video is a deep fake, because there's no way that the dean of a school for underage children would ever say those things, or act happy and excited while saying them. So I look forward to reliable sources proving that the entire video is a deep fake.
SquirrelHill1971 ( talk) 20:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
References
Whatever your personal thoughts about O'Keefe and PV are, they are completely immaterial. News sources like WGN, WBEZ, Chicago Sun-Times, and more ARE COVERING THE STORY! Add the frickin' allegations already. 47.12.161.150 ( talk) 03:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)