Talk:Oberlin College

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

International Cooperation[edit]

This section seems to have been created to note the fact that individual students participated in this certain exchange program, though it seems like an extremely minor point, and it doesn't discuss other types of exchange programs/scholarships that send students to various countries. Thoughts on deletion of section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhgtg (talkcontribs) 16:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Oberlin ratings[edit]

This page includes the information that "Oberlin was ranked among the 20 friendliest campuses for LGBT students in The Advocate's College Guide for LGBT Students." Based on this, I think it is legitimate to include Oberlin's ranking as an unfriendly school for Jews by a Jewish newspaper. For the editors that think that is undue, please explain why Oberlin's ranking for friendliness for LGBTs is relevant and its ranking for friendliness for Jews is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talulah James (talkcontribs) 15:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I have nothing against including any rankings. But you do need to show that the ranking is meaningful and not WP:UNDUE. For example, do various reliable sources discuss these rankings? The point is that anyone can throw up a ranking, we should only include ones that have some traction in the broader world.You need to demonstrate that with the friendliness for Jews one. --regentspark (comment) 17:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
At a minimum, a reliable secondary source should be provided to establish that somebody besides the editors of The Algemeiner cares what The Algemeiner thinks. The same is true of The Advocate; it should not be cited as the only source for its own ratings. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

And yet, neither of you has deleted the information about The Advocate's ranking, or provided the type of secondary information that you asked for from me. Nevertheless, I will provide what you asked for Talulah James (talk) 01:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Talulah james

You could just go ahead and delete it yourself. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit! --regentspark (comment) 01:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Talulah James, the idea is that you get consensus here first and then post the consensus version on the talk page. Labeling an entire college or university "unfriendly toward Jews" is not something that should be done lightly. We should first see if the view is significant enough to be included. If it is, we need to see if there are opposing perspectives. If there are, we need to frame our text appropriately. Please use the talk page and stop edit warring. --regentspark (comment) 13:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I have provided all sources that were requested of me. You asked for secondary sources showing people care what the Algemeiner thinks, and I gave four. What are your other problems? Since no one has a problem with the Advocate, it seems like there is a double standard being applied. Talulah James (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Talulah James

Please provide reputable sources; several of the ones you have provided - the National Post, the New York Post, and Truth Revolt - are low quality at best and complete garbage at worst. ElKevbo (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

National Post is a National Canadian paper and New York Post is a top New York paper. Plus, the fact that I provided four shows that many people read the Algemeiner and care what it says. The fact that you may not like these papers does not make them "complete garbage." Talulah James (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Talulah James

Per WP:CON "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns..." Concerns were raised over secondary sources, and secondary sources were provided. Other than Truth Revolt these are good sources. Therefore, all legitimate concerns have been met. For those that are still seeking to delete this information, I wonder whether you may have a conflict of interest, for example, alumni or even administrators of the school seeking to protect its reputation? If so please see WP:CONFLICT " Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest.[a] That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions or integrity.[b] COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia." Moreover, the failure of the editors who deleted material to respond to the last comment also does not seem to show good faith. Judy Somerville (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Judy Somerville

I can't speak for anyone else but I have very little to say to someone who genuinely believes that the National Post, New York Post, and Truth Revolt are high quality sources that should be used as the basis for adding information to encyclopedia articles. ElKevbo (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
This is a list of all the Wikipedia pages that rely on the New York Post as a source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/New_York_Post&limit=5000 There are literally thousands. Also, no one has objected to the Jewish Exponent as a source. Your objections are not valid. If you continue to block this edit, the assumption that you are acting in good faith will be difficult to maintain. Judy Somerville (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Judy Somerville
Let me see if I've got this straight. The articles in New York Post (a marginal news source), the National Post, and The Jewish Exponent don't mention Oberlin, just that the Algemeiner published a list. The only "source" cited in support of the inclusion of Oberlin in the list (beside the Algemeiner) is TruthRevolt?!? That's no source at all! — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Your initial comment was that you needed to see that someone cares what the Algemeiner thinks. Four sources that care what the Algemeiner thinks were provided. One, the NY Post, is a source cited frequently in Wikipedia. Even though The NY Post does not mention Oberlin specifically, because Oberlin is a small school, it shows that the Algemeiner list is consequential. In contrast, you still have not deleted or made the same requirement of the rankings from the Advocate. Why are you are applying a double standard? Talulah James (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Talulah James

TJ, please read WP:RS. None of the sources you've listed are remotely reliable and do not demonstrate that these rankings have any significance. --regentspark (comment) 20:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
If you would read more carefully, Talulah James, you would see that I wrote "At a minimum, a reliable secondary source should be provided to establish that somebody besides the editors of The Algemeiner cares what The Algemeiner thinks." (emphasis added) That is a bare minimum requirement, which I believe you have satisfied although it appears other editors do not. However, no reliable source has been cited to show that anybody cares what The Algemeiner thinks about Oberlin, the subject of this article, not even a student newspaper. I think that's telling.
After meeting minimum sourcing requirements, you need to satisfy other editors' concerns that the material you wish to include does not give undue weight to a relatively unimportant aspect of the college and that we keep the coverage in relative proportion to its importance, as determined based on other reliable, published material on Oberlin. Even if we could find a dozen reliable sources about it, does the fact that the dining hall has been painted green belong in this article? (I just made that up as an example, and I'm not trying to trivialize Jewish life on campus, but I hope you understand my point.) In importance, The Algemeiner's "1st Annual List of the US and Canada's Worst Campuses for Jewish Students" is obviously more important than the color of the dining hall, but is it something that warrants a two-sentence paragraph? Any mention at all? You need to convince us that, even though no reliable source seemed to cared enough to report Oberlin's ranking in The Algemeiner's list, Wikipedia should report it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)