Talk:Occidental College

as a film location
I cut this long list because it is WP:UNDUE detail and many of the films were unsourced. The only source for the whole section was the college's own homepage. Not enough NPOV and also not enough facticity. The oxy homepage didn't explain where these bizarre lists came from, and it's more trivia than anything else. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * I saw that you went into the page and deleted almost the entirety of it? It also seems that you like to do this with other pages. Before you do this, please come into the talk page so information can be verified rather than entirely removed. Otherwise, it seems that you are defacing pages. I don't particularly care about the film/television, as this could be changed into a paragraph rather than list, but you removed 1/2 of the entire page. Please discuss first before doing this. Col99100 (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I went over the page again and deleted sections that were problematic because of boosterism and unsourced assertions. You are welcome to re-insert some content if you can find adequate sources. Pls note that NPOV issues are a problem in this article, since referring back to the oxy-homepages is not truly sufficient sourcing. In many cases, however, there was no sourcing at all. The film locations are of questionable significance (this is an article about higher-ed, not real estate), and need cites. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't want to create an edit war (as you've already passed 3RR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring).
 * I understand the unsourced assertions, but it's more helpful to raise that in the talk page to allow for items to be cited than to automatically delete them and create issues with the page. As an editor, you have a responsibility to look for sources, and raise questions in the talk page, before deleting them and limiting available information.
 * At the same time, a description of the campus isn't boosterism -- if it said Occidental had the most beautiful campus in the world, that would certainly qualify, not that it sits on a hillside? I'm not here to debate Wittgensteinian truth, but it relatively qualifies as a "fact." A description of a landscape isn't effusive, per Wiki's description of NPOV. Similarly, the information can be cited.
 * Similarly, noting Greek Institutions is relevant -- it's an important part of most undergraduate institutions, see William & Mary or Loyola Marymount, which are listed in a similar format, for example. I understand that you go through a lot of pages and delete boosterism, but please don't delete things which reasonably don't qualify.
 * Again, local involvement isn't boosterism, per Wikipedia "Boosterism is the act of promoting ("boosting") a town, city, or organization, with the goal of improving public perception of it." Stating that the College has involvement with certain orgs doesn't qualify. Especially because these things can be cited (which I'll take care of). And the tone doesn't claim that these institutions are "the best" or "most important" in Los Angeles - just that they exist. This maintains an NPOV, and is useful information for people trying to learn.
 * I agree with you regarding the film locations section, for what it's worth.
 * Also, being an alumni doesn't qualify as a Conflict of Interest, per Wikipedia. Especially if I maintain NPOV, which I have.
 * This weekend I will go ahead and cite the information that you've deleted from the page, and put it in the talk page, where we can discuss it. If you have a problem with what I've added, then we can come to an agreement. I'll wait before we add it back in so we can come to that agreement, rather than continually violating wiki rules. Col99100 (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

User Col99100: Conflict of Interest, NPOV
@Col99100 is an alum of Occidental, which may be part of the problem. Melchior2006 (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Being an alumni doesn't qualify as a conflict of interest, per Wikipedia. Especially if I maintain NPOV, which I have. Col99100 (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * of course not, but it is helpful to know. --20:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it would be better if you identified specific edits with which you disagree p  b  p  19:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Take a look. --Melchior2006 (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Purplebackpack89 Thanks for taking a look. @Melchior2006 To that point, with all due respect, if it's not a COI, then it shouldn't be listed as such. It seems to me that it's unnecessarily antagonizing, although I know we're both working towards the same goal of a better wikipedia.
 * I appreciate that we're discussing this page (and hopefully can end up making it better).
 * :) Col99100 (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Of course being an alumnus is a conflict of interest. It's not as serious as being a current employee of the college but an alumnus definitely has an incentive to promote their alma mater. ElKevbo (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying - you're 100% correct. I've been incentivized to monitor the page because I'm an alum, in the same way that I edited Jewish History because I'm Jewish.
 * I received the banner because I questioned the wholesale deletions. I didn't add the information that was deleted in the first place, I just asked that we discuss and make the page better before deleting info (and singling me out). Citations were an undeniable problem.
 * And if you have the time, I look forward to collaborating :) I mean no ill-will towards anyone. And appreciate how much you've helped wikipedia! Col99100 (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your consideration. Being marked as non-NPOV is not meant as an affront or disqualification. You can still work on the article, but it is good to think about why you are doing so. I suggest using your expertise and contributing to other articles on Wikipedia, your help is welcome! -- Melchior2006 (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, totally understand @Melchior2006! For what it's worth, I didn't write what was deleted, nor would I contribute something that lacked citations to the degree of what you deleted. And without a doubt, citations were a problem -- I understand why you took notice of everything.
 * I saw it as an affront (and it relatively was) because I suggested we fix what was deleted in the talk page, and then was given a banner and called a problem. I posted in the talk page that we discuss and come to a consensus, in an attempt to maintain a NPOV for the article and make the article better. I didn't suggest that we wholesale keep everything you deleted, just that it be discussed. This is why I was offended I was given a COI banner and called a problem, because I did behave in an appropriate manner. I got one because I asked we discuss + improve before deletion.
 * Alumni status aside, I think a lot of the information deleted can be easily cited and is relevant (e.g., the College's acreage and a short description of the topography). Similarly, a lot should be deleted (e.g., the film list + potential fraternities, among others).
 * I will still work this coming weekend on what was deleted and see if we can agree on what ought to be included + what ought not. I'm sure we'll be able to come to a consensus :) And the article will be better for it! Before I make any edits, I'll put everything in here, and will wait a couple of weeks for for your feedback + if any feedback comes from others.
 * And to your point, to avoid this again, I'll go work on my interests in payments technology. Dealing with this is not exactly why we edit wikipedia haha Col99100 (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)