Talk:Francis W. Parker School (Chicago)

Untitled
"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)


 * 'Is this the John Alexander Coleman who taught at Wesleyan and NYU and wrote Diversions and Animadversions? Or another one entirely?' MarkBernstein (talk) 21:06, 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)


 * Speculation: might the intent of the original passage have been that the Weekly was the first school paper to be both composed and printed by students? Early school papers were most often sent out to print shops.MarkBernstein (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2010 (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)
 * The guidelines for schools articles on Wikipedia hold that no current or former staff/students be named in the article unless they meet the general notability requirements. There are a few exceptions (eg, a list of former principals/headmasters/etc. is fine), but otherwise attempts to include non notable staff/students will almost always be reverted according to consensus of the editors.  For more information on this, please check out the article guidelines for school articles. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:41, 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)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170415135354/https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20170315/lincoln-park/francis-parker-school-new-library-5-million to https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20170315/lincoln-park/francis-parker-school-new-library-5-million
 * Added 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.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

It is on video
This is credible and it is on video 24.45.206.203 (talk) 04:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * This should be excluded. Even if the video contains a direct confession by the dean, its source is a far right organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.44.211.7 (talk) 04:10, 8 Dec 2022 (UTC)


 * Project Veritas is not a "far right" organization. If that's what their wikipedia article claims then the article contains misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.232.198.224 (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

You can’t discredit the confession due to the source. JT EOD (talk) 04:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Quite the contrary: the source is known for manipulating videos (see the Project Veritas article). —C.Fred (talk) 04:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * By whom? I've heard this talking point parroted over and over again, and never seen much in the way of hard proof that them "manipulating" videos, other than by sources that are biased in the other direction, which, by your own logic, must make them not trustworthy. 174.31.94.84 (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Project Veritas has never manipulated video. These are nothing but hyper partisan claims made by their detractors. They are lies. There's never any evidence presented, it is purely ideological. 47.232.198.224 (talk) 05:20, 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)


 * I agree. The so called accusations can, and probably will be eventually mentioned on Project Veritas' own article as another example of their disinformation, as well as LGBT grooming conspiracy theory, of which this is an example of, with reliable sources that hard-debunk them. Provided any reliable source is going to bother wasting any more time debunking the lies of a thoroughly discredited far-right propagandist. 46.97.170.38 (talk) 11:36, 9 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)


 * None of those are reliable sources. Also, terms like "alphabet soup mob" are not acceptable on wikipedia. I should warn you that your behavior is bordering on the disruptive. 46.97.170.38 (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please respect the correct punctuation of 'alphabet-soup mob'. It has a hyphen in it. PortholePete (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WBEZ is the Chicago affiliate of NPR, which, by wikipedia standards, is about as reliable as a source can be.
 * By wikipedia standards, the reliability of Fox News is inversely proportional to how controversial the subject is. Something like the score to a baseball game? Yes. Something as controversial as this subject? No. Better to leave it out.
 * The third article is actually from National Review, which was founded by conservative William F. Buckley Jr., who had his own TV show on PBS called Firing Line. Back when Buckley was alive, and things were more civil, Buckley was well respected across the entire political spectrum, and people of all political views were happy to be invited to appear on his TV show. And even the most left wing of high school history teachers was willing to accept the print version of National Review as a source for school reports. Today, by wikipedia standards, National Review would probably not be considered a reliable source. Better to leave it out.
 * So that's one out of the three that we can actually use.
 * I will add this link to the Chicago Sun-Times, which is the biggest circulation newspaper in Chicago. It's just as reliable as the WBEZ article. We can definitely include this one.
 * https://chicago.suntimes.com/education/2022/12/8/23500799/project-veritas-chicago-school-sex-ed-lgbtq-francis-parker
 * So that's two highly reliable sources. An NPR affiliate, and the biggest circulation newspaper in Chicago.
 * I support adding this content to the article.
 * SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The question then becomes, what of the event is worth mentioning in the article? Looking at the Sun-Times article, the salient points would be that the school was forced to increase security after it was the target of a misrepresentative PV video. —C.Fred (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And then you'd still have to mention what the video was about and why it supposedly misrepresents what the dean said. So, six of one, half-dozen of the other. Add the frickin' material to the article and stop using bias to not add it, even though Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased. (Shyeah, right!) 47.12.161.150 (talk) 10:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

This is my proposed text:


 * In December 2022, WBEZ reported that the school had "tightened security and disabled its Twitter and Facebook accounts after a video of its dean of students secretly recorded by a conservative group went viral on Wednesday. The video captures the dean talking last week about a visit to Francis W. Parker School by an LGBTQ health organization to discuss queer sexual health with high schoolers. The video of that conversation was edited by the right-wing group before it was posted." The conservative group in question was Project Veritas. The school responded with a letter to the school community which stated, "... we are heartbroken that one of our colleague’s words have been severely misrepresented for a malicious purpose." The Chicago Sun-Times wrote of this, "The video captures the dean talking last week about a visit to Francis W. Parker School by an LGBTQ health organization to discuss queer sexual health with high schoolers. The video of that conversation was edited by the right-wing group before it was posted."

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)


 * The whole idea of an LGBTQ health organization organizing such an event is ludicrous. Speculating that the video is a deep fake is silly. It's much more likely that O'Keefe dressed up like some creeper, and ambushed the dean with awkward questions, who said whatever he thought the other person wants to hear before calling the police on him. Wouldn't be the first time. 46.97.170.38 (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What do your allegations about what O'Keefe "much more likely" did have to do with anything? Nothing. You cannot base edits on what you personally believe. 47.12.161.150 (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The other person allged that the video was a deepfake. You cannot base edits on that either. None of that changes the fact that this story belongs on the "Project Veritas" and "LGBTQ grooming conspiracy theory" articles. Adding it here would be WP:COATRACK. 46.97.170.38 (talk) 09:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments and feedback everyone. I will not be adding any of this content to this article. I really appreciate your comments and advice. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Dear gawd, shut up and add the info!
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)
 * We're trying to find a way to mention the stink that's been raised, without pretending that any responsible grown-up thinks O'Keefe is anything but a scabrous scam artist. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  03:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How about don't. O'Keefe has his own article, as does the conspiracy theory he's playing into. There's no reason to drag the whole school into the cesspool of right-wing culture wars. 46.97.170.38 (talk) 09:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for admitting that your ideological slants are impacting what information appears on Wikipedia. If this had been a video about a conservative handing out Bibles in a social studies class, you'd have been all over it in a heartbeat. Wikipedia is as bad as Conservapedia. Both are trash. Gfy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.12.161.150 (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)