Talk:Oberlin College

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Oberlin College. 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/20071017184121/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=450&ResourceType=Site to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=450&ResourceType=Site
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021212656/http://www.oberlin.edu/archive/holdings/finding/RG2/ to http://www.oberlin.edu/archive/holdings/finding/RG2/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021212656/http://www.oberlin.edu/archive/holdings/finding/RG2/ to http://www.oberlin.edu/archive/holdings/finding/RG2/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060103194349/http://oberlin.edu/news-info/05sep/art.html to http://oberlin.edu/news-info/05sep/art.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130308054428/http://oberlinheadwaters.com/ to http://oberlinheadwaters.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140414133634/https://home.oberlin.edu/ to http://home.oberlin.edu/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090312081521/http://new.oberlin.edu/ to http://new.oberlin.edu/

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) 19:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

AfD Discussion

Editors of this article might be interested in this AfD discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Gibson's Bakery Lawsuit?

Should this article be updated regarding the Gibson lawsuit? The trial hasn't received a lot of media attention for reasons that aren't clear - even alumni are generally unaware of it, but the college's efforts in supporting student efforts to libel and destroy a local business may meet the notability threshold. 人族 (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I see the Court has ordered the College to pay over eleven million dollars. I am having a hard time finding good cites.--''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 04:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

This case has actually been covered relatively extensively by local, state, and even some national media outlets. Here are a few good citations that I found: [1], [2], [3] -2003:CA:874B:76BD:E9A7:FDC1:7EE:38B2 (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Someone added this yesterday with a couple of marginally acceptable references (NY Post and Washington Times). They added it to the lede but I moved it down to the History section. If someone wants to edit what's there, particularly to change to better sources, that would be great. ElKevbo (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a breaking story and should be kept up to date. Certainly a mass email to alumni from the Oberlin general counsel is part of the story, especially if the general counsel appears to criticize the jury just as they enter deliberations on punitive damages. Angloguy (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Angloguy (talk • contribs) 06:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

It may be helpful to review WP:NOTNEWS. ElKevbo (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I could not find a suitable link to the email. If someone can find a suitable link a simple summary and link would be better. Angloguy (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Then perhaps it should not be included at all. ElKevbo (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Here is another source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:4163:AD00:4115:73AD:8179:56E1 (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The section is, at present, massively over-inflated; compare its length to the section of the 20th century history of the college. "This thing was just in the news" is not a good reason to write multiple full paragraphs in an article on a 150-year old institution, and the event has no lasting significance. Possibly due weight is nothing at all, but certainly not more than a couple of sentences. --JBL (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Definitely not "massively" over-weighted. Both the initial protests and now the lawsuit have been prolific in national news. Very few things about Oberlin have reached that level of national attention. -- Netoholic @ 04:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they have been prolific in national news ... and Wikipedia is not a news outlet and we must consider all viewpoints published in reliable sources, not just those published in newspapers in a 2-week period. Are you really going to make me run an RFC before this cuts down to an appropriate size? (I would be happy to but it is such an obvious waste of time because the question here is so completely clear.) --JBL (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

There are two ways to handle things if you feel a section is "over-weighted" - trim it or expand other sections that are WP:DUE more weight. The subject of this bakery protests/lawsuit is covered at what I see as a reasonable level prior to your massive reduction which leaves out the key information that is relevant to the story. So yes, perhaps if you aren't satisfied, then create an RFC which proposes the two versions. -- Netoholic @ 12:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that there is way too much space dedicated to this issue in the current article; this is a clearly a WP:NOTNEWS issue. ElKevbo (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Following a good piece of advice from ElKevbo, I will forbear on the RfC to allow people actively working on the article the opportunity to get the massive policy violations under control, and revisit it later, if necessary. --JBL (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

This event should be trimmed down to 2-3 sentences and merged back into the parent subsection. The lawsuit, decision, and damages seem to merit more attention than details about the precipitating event. The current 3-4 paragraph treatment is inappropriate under WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• The current text is definitely on the side of "excess" and there is already some creep happening (what, for example, is The December 2017 edition of The Grape, Oberlin's student magazine states that business owners in Oberlin have to confront shoplifting and shoplifters on a regular basis, with the majority of shoplifting carried out by students this doing in the article?). --regentspark (comment) 23:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I just made various edits for NPOV (e.g. the plaintiff's description of the incidents should be attributed to them, and the college's counterarguments summarized) and second the concerns about sourcing right-wing blogs (see below).

However, I respectfully disagree with the suggestion to cut the section down to 2-3 sentences. The unusual, large damage sum awarded by the court and the coverage in reliable sources makes this more than just a tempest-in-a-teacup about, say, pundits complaining about an overly politically correct statement by some student. And on the other hand, the article is full of minutiae that seem much less relevant for the regular reader - about amateur music societies, building sustainability grades from 12 years ago, the football team's losing streak in the 1990s etc.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to a brilliant intervention by @E.M.Gregory:, there are now *two* sections in the article on this topic. (Possibly, the placement of the new section is better.) --JBL (talk) 00:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• I had looked last week, got around to writing an article this evening, and forgot to look to see if there was now a section on this page. I just put it where I had decided it should go last week. Not adroit. Sorry. However, this meritsa subhead, particularly as the financial implications for the college unfold. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  Agree that this merits a subhead, perhaps even a separate section since political activism is not exactly the right place for it. But the bulk of the material should go to the fork (unless that doesn't survive). --regentspark (comment) 01:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Since there is now a separate article on this topic, as well as a separate section on the page, I've reduced the content included in the "21st Century" history. --regentspark (comment) 00:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

At present mention of the Gibson's debacle has been reduced to a brief paragraph buried under "Campus culture" in a "Gibson's Bakery v. Oberlin College" subsection of its "Political activism" subsection. Might something involving Oberlin that has garnered as much national media attention as has the Gibson's suit and its surrounding circumstances perhaps be more aptly placed in the "History" section's "21st century" subsection? Filing such away under "Campus culture" and "Political activism" seems to me extraordinarily reductive and at risk of giving readers an impression of intentional PR conscious evasiveness (i.e. it may seem to some to have been left out of the more prominently placed "History" section as something disquieting to the university's self image which might further suggest editing tainted by ideological alignments).

--99.32.150.12 (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion is well placed; right-wing media freakouts with no lasting consequences are not of historical significance. Also your should probably turn your "tainted by ideological alignments" glasses inwards. --JBL (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I find it strange to characterize a legal judgement counted in the tens of millions of dollars and the resultant ongoing appellate battle as of "no lasting consequence". And as to "right-wing media freakouts", perhaps some reflection upon phrasing might be warranted on your end as well, eh? --99.32.150.12 (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, maybe you do find it strange, but that says more about you than about anything else. Oberlin is a 150-year old institution of genuine historical significance, that has educated tens of thousands of people and has a $1 billion endowment. The Gibson's lawsuit is certainly important enough to be included in this article (and it is), but it is of minor and impermanent significance. --JBL (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

IIRC (from past reading of associated court documents), Oberlin is on record asserting that there is a danger of such large fines deleteriously affecting the quality and extent of services they offer. However, yes, 3rd-parties (probably to a large degree in sources you've blanketly disparaged) have raised questions as to whether in light of its large endowment Oberlin "doth protest too much" and some even go on to suggest that Oberlin was intentionally and disingenuously exaggerating in an attempt to wring sympathy from the court. Personally, IDK, I'm not a mind reader, and it's my impression that such institutional endowments are generally set up to distribute periodic earnings to their beneficiary while significantly restricting access to the endowment's principal. So perhaps one might give them some benefit-of-doubt and consider that there may be at least a kernel-of-truth to Oberlin's claims. Perhaps in practice it's more a matter of impact on Oberlin's short term plans for expenditure in years immediately following payment of such penalties (rather than a threat to their long term viability). --99.32.150.12 (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

One of Oberlin's failed arguments during the lawsuit was that they should not have to pay damages because their endowment could not handle it. That would make your claim that the size of insitution's endowment renders the matter of "minor and impermanent significance" specious at best.HoundofBaskersville (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I came across the following reports.

• Malaiya (talk) 01:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Legal Insurrection?

The blog legalinsurrection.com is clearly inappropriate as a source; any references to it (and any information that cannot be sourced elsewhere) should be removed asap. (I have posted an advertisement of this on WP:RSN.) --JBL (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Not to disparage William A. Jacobson's "rising up against established authority; rebellion; revolt" (to quote the site's masthead), but I agree that using a partisan blog like that in such a politically charged matter is not warranted, especially since we have various more suitable sources now (including the NYT and other newspapers). Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• William A. Jacobson is notable and can be cited.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Alex Jones is notable and can be cited. (Assertions are fun!) This is a run-of-the-mill political blog, it is not usable for anything except the author's opinion. --JBL (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• very cute, but the two are hardly comparable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I concur with User:E.M.Gregory and with User:Netoholic's response to the WP:RSN posting:

* reliable, at least for coverage of legal issues. This falls within WP:SPS as produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Media Bias/Fact Check rates LI's factual accuracy as "high" and not failed a fact check. The factual content of LI's frontline coverage of this court case in particular has been cited by many other reliable news sources[4][5][6][7]. -- Netoholic @ 22:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

While editorial content on the Legal Insurrection site seems to me to have a clear overall socio-political slant (which they seem pretty open about, others are not all so forthcoming in my experience) the factual content seems well researched and robustly referenced. Particularly as it relates to Gibson's Bakery v. Oberlin College matters. In such they often draw from the accounts of a regional journalist who has attended in person most all of the proceedings throughout and furthermore regularly both link to and embed full text copies of official court documents. In doing so they offer readers both many first-hand accounts and a comparatively rare readily-at-hand opportunity to follow up by judging the actual official record—and Legal Insurrection's, or anyone else's, editorial interpretation of it—for themselves.

In light of User:JBL's expressions both here and above in § Gibson's Bakery Lawsuit and in the pattern of their edits within the article itself I'd like to respectfully suggest they engage in some self inquiry as to whether their own socio-political biases (and/or sense of WP:OWNership) might be interfering with their ability to distinguish "factual" from "editorial" in regard to this topic and to extend reasonably neutral consideration to other editors.

--99.32.150.12 (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

albino squirrel links

The links on the phrase "albino squirrel" don't provide much useful information, since the majority of squirrels that people call albino are technically not albino, but "leucistic". See Tree squirrel#Albino and white squirrels... -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

How is it possible that in an article about a college that has existed from 1880s references 1 and 2 are missing and from 2021 71.178.33.122 (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)