Talk:School of Visual Arts

message: Hi, I'm 99% sure that the story about Haring and Basquiat being expelled after graffiting the SVA building is an urban myth. The story I have always been told (and I am on faculty at SVA, so who knows the bias of this story) is that Basquiat was never formally enrolled and would sneak into classes; the two of them would mark up the buildings, but not to the point where it was a major issue. Haring eventually dropped out to pursue art outside of school. Years later, he was awarded an honorary BFA from the school.
72.68.5.42 14:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: keith haring story

message: Hello, I think the name "The Triumverate" might be spelled wrong.  It could be "The Triumvirate".  Unless it is spelled wrong on purpose. --darklilac 20:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  triumverate 

message: Some sections remain unsourced and most importantly the notable persons sections.  Wikepedia guidelines mandate that mention of living persons be sourced or immediately deleted.Mysteryquest (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  unsourced sections 

message: Sources are already being added. Gutting the article doesn't help add a single source, and only makes it more likely that sources will never be added or that the entry will be reinserted without a source. If you'd like to actually help address the problem, I invite you to join me in adding sources. Alansohn (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 95% of the persons listed as notable are not sourced and may not even be notable.  Finding sources should not be that difficult, when they were added, the source for their notability and the fact that they are connected with the school should have been listed.  The Wikipedia guidelines on who is notable and the fact that references to living persons must be sourced are clear.  Why is it so hard to find sources?  I'm not gutting article, I'm removing unsourced material which arguably should not be in it.Mysteryquest (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Below is Wikipedia policy concerning material on live persons. 
Sources
Reliable sources
Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.
Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links (see above).
Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).
Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?
Editors should also be careful of a feedback loop in which an unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article gets picked up, with or without attribution, in an otherwise-reliable newspaper or other media story, and that story is then cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original speculative contention.
Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material
Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals if the information is derogatory. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy.
'''
These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.
Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no neutral version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details).
    I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.[2]
Thus, if source cannot be found to show that these persons attended the school they need to be removed.Mysteryquest (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The other issue is that many of these persons do not appear to meet the criteria for notability spelled out in Wikedia:Notability People.  If you review that WP:BIO you will clearly see that without sources many of these persons do not meet minimum criteria for notability.Mysteryquest (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: *I have no objection to removing individuals where there are red links. While I appreciate your cutting and pasting of Wikipedia policy (which as it turns out is a violation of the Wikipedia GFDL, though I do not plan to report this as a violation), I am already familiar with policy. Again, gutting the article doesn't help add a single source, and only makes it more likely that sources will never be added or that the entry will be reinserted without a source. I will repeat my offer. I have already been adding sources to this article to support notability and the connection to SVA. I invite you to assist me in adding sources.  After all, finding sources is not that difficult. I assume you'll have it done by tomorrow. Alansohn (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well as cordial as your invitation is, I must decline it. The editors who listed the "notable" people must have had sources to base their decision to include them and such they are in a much better position to list those sources than I am, and if it is not so difficult I'm sure they will have it done by tomorrow.  As concerns Wikipiedia policy on notability and biography of living persons, I listed it because it seems to have been ignored.  I do not believe deleting 50 or so persons of dubious notability and whose connection to the school is completely unsourced is gutting the article.  The article still covers the school in depth even though much of it is unsourced.  I moved them to the talk page so that they could be reinserted when sources could be found that establish their connection to the school and their notability.Mysteryquest (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: As for your allegation that I am somehow trying to play games to make a point, I deleted the names in accordance with Wikipedia policy on notability and the fact that biological information on living persons MUST be sourced or removed.Mysteryquest (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: *For someone who emphasizes the ease of adding sources, your declining the invitation to actually help solve the problem seems most ungracious. I didn't add these names. Unlike you, I assume that they were added in good faith. Rather than butcher the article and disrupt efforts to improve it, I have been regularly reviewing the article and adding sources here, and on related articles, for the individuals listed, one by one. I fail to understand why you have drawn the line arbitrarily at removing clearly notable individuals, when under Wikipedia policy you can compound you are entitled to remove about 95% of the article. I'm not sure why you are so intent on pushing your WP:POINT violation, and I fail to understand how on earth this disruption is supposed to be improving this article. You seem to have a deep and fundamental misunderstanding of what it takes to build an encyclopedia, demonstrated by your simultaneous refusal to allow the article to be improved and your refusal to actually do anything to solve the problem you have only exacerbated. Alansohn (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: If 95% of the article is notable persons, it needs work.  I fail to see how I have exacerbated the problem of the lack of sources by pointing it out.  You stated that the sources would be easy to find, not I.  Again, deleting a section on notable persons is hardly butchering the article as that long a list of "notable" persons does not contribute much to an article on a school in my humble opinion and is of questionable encyclopedic value.  All the same, perhaps I was too hasty and zealous in deleting the names while you are looking sources for them and in retrospect I may have removed some names which are linked to wiki articles which contain sources which bolster their notability and their connection to the school.  I felt that moving them to the talk page was a good compromise.  As concerns sources, I am always at a loss as to why they are missing.  When an editor adds content, he or she is getting the content from someplace and why the source is not added at the same time I find bewildering, unless there is no source or its not a reliable one.  Thus, I may not have assumed good faith because of this bias.  I do believe that the list is infiltrated with persons who are not notable and for whom reliable sources cannot be found and that those persons should be removed as the list is long enough without their inclusion.Mysteryquest (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: *I will never add an individual as a notable without a source (or at least strong reason to believe one can be found, accompanied by a "fact" tag). The easiest time to do it is when adding it to an article. Unfortunately, most people don't do it that way. Where the individual is notable (evidence by the existence of an article), I will be more than willing to assume good faith and try to help the editor out by searching for a source. I have been adding sources to this article, and I assume that there will be more work to do here for a while. I have already removed all individuals without either an article or a source. I have every reason to assume that I will be able to find sources for most of the others. If not, I will tag or remove each of them. This is not "my" article, and the fastest way to improve it with sources is to have multiple people adding references. If you are interested, you can feel free to add away at your leisure. Alansohn (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I know that several of the instructors removed from the list (like Matt Madden and Jessica Abel) can be verified by looking at any recent course catalog, I think the people who listed then were probably took classes with them and didn't think to verify it formally. Is there a specific way to cite a course catalog?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.2.158 (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re removal of notables