Talk:Ringling College of Art and Design

Fair use rationale for Image:Ringling logo.gif

Image:Ringling logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Needs improvement

The history section should be rewritten as prose rather than as bullit lists. Racepacket (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Promotional data removed - source identified

Geo-location and IP address identifies the source of extensive promotional data that has been removed from the article as the school itself. Purely marketing and promotional materials should not be entered into articles, please refrain from further entries of this type. ----83d40m (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Concerns

Much of the content comes from [1] or similar and appears to be copyright.--Lucas559 (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ringling College of Art and Design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050323184059/http://www.tblc.org:80/fsc/archives/lspivey.html to http://www.tblc.org/fsc/archives/lspivey.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Lawsuit and Misconduct of Associate Dean

The associate dean of students for residence life, Christopher Shaffer, was accused of "mishandling sexual assault allegations," among other misbehaviors listed in this article, and was supported by dozens of other students. The dean sued the first accusing student for defamation and was later fired. Is this notable enough to be listed in the article? SWinxy (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Good question. Typically, we try to figure out if an incident (e.g., a lawsuit, serious accusations of misconduct) is focused on the institution or someone who happens to work there. If the institution is only tangentially involved or not involved at all, the information probably doesn't belong in this article. We also try to figure out if the incident is likely to have a lasting impact on the institution. We cannot and should not include all information about what has happened and is happening at an institution but we try to focus on what is of lasting importance. For example, if the incident appears to be a "flash in the pan" that isn't going to result in any meaningful changes at the institution, it might not belong in the article.

It's pretty easy to see that answering those kinds of questions can be very difficult or impossible for an incident that recently occurred or is still occurring; it's much easier to do this work with information that is clearly historical so we have the benefit of hindsight. This is one reason why many editors shy away from including much information about contemporary occurrences and incidents - it can be difficult or impossible to separate the meaningful and lasting from the merely interesting or available.

You should also be aware of our policy about how and what we write about living people as that definitely seems to be relevant in this discussion.

Finally, I would not use the word or concept of "notable" when discussing what should be included in an article. In Wikipedia, we usually use that word to focus on what topics should have their own article. It's a subtle, perhaps nit picky suggestion but one that can prevent a lot of confusion. "Noteworthy" might be a good synonym that avoids this potential confusion. ElKevbo (talk) 01:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight. Is it noteworthy? I think it is. The school is pretty involved as it happened by a higher-up, on campus, on school-related topics like financial aid and sexual misconduct reports, and I think the institution is quite involved in this. Additional thoughts are welcome. I will be adding a section to the page. SWinxy (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. – The Grid (talk) 04:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The college has been not been found guilty of any wrongdoing, unlike other institutions that have entries about legal action in their pages (see Penn State, e.g.). There are also pages for other institutions that do not have misconduct included (see Harvard, e.g., where professors have been found guilty of long-term plagiarism, sexual harassment, etc.). This matter doesn't seem to warrant a section on its own; if included at all, it seems a brief mention with a citation of the article would make much more sense. Wheats97 (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources tag

I think it's worth removing the primary sources tag (WP:PRIMARY). It looks like this article includes primary sources appropriately, as the source of basic info (such as the name of the college president) and not any additional interpretation. Jed (talk) 04:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Relation to John and Mabel Ringling?

It would be great if someone who knows where to look could add information on the relationship between the Art College and the Ringling Museum and other Ringling things in Sarasota. Not a lot of easy info to get in a 5 min search. 04:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedgold (talk • contribs)

Reads like an advertisement

As a alumn from this school, the section on Library reads like an advertisement. The RCLA is pertinent to the college's funding, rich people donating money to a non-profit to avoid taxes. The 4th paragraph is the most egregious, writing in metaphor about location of the library within campus. The section on the library's namesake is incredibly glowing and makes no mention the source of Goldstein's wealth. You can't write about the namesake of Carnegie Hall without mentioning the American steel industry LordoftheRaccoons (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)