Talk:Gibson's Bakery v. Oberlin College

The amounts listed in the Verdict section demonstrate that the author is innumerate

They don't add up, indeed are inconsistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.21.28 (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Bias in the article

Why does the article repeatedly name the gibsons but not the thieves (per their guilty pleading in court). Wikipedia, so woke.... only the victims get named, even though they broke no laws, and a jury found they were defamed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.176.48 (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I really don't see the relevance here to the article. How is the name of this individual useful to a reader in understanding this article. It's important to, for example, include he's a black student as that factors heavily into the rest of this article. However, it seems like this is an attempt to "name and shame," and sounds like POV to me. Theheezy (talk) 06:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Please read the entire article. The named individual pled guilty to his crimes, in open court, and he was/is a legal adult. It's a matter of public record, and is reported by reliable sources. I'm not aware of any reliable source that elided the individual's name from publication. That's typically reserved either for under-age individuals or witnesses/victims who could be compromised by having their identity exposed. None of that applies here. Anastrophe (talk) 08:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, I'm questioning the relevance of this students' name to the legal case, which is the topic of the article. This article is not about The people vs. Jonathan Aladin.

If you look at the line of reasoning that got this name added to the article, clearly it's a degree of POV pushing. I did a quick survey on the topic of Google News, almost no sources include the name of any of the students because they are tangential to the legal case itself.

Not mentioning the students name:

[1][2][3][4][5][6]

Not mentioning the students name years 2016-2020:

[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]

The only links that came up which do mention the students name are in the Oberlin Review (A college newspaper), and an article about bakery news i found here: [16].

Given that this is the case, I find it hard to argue that mentioning the students' name is Wikipedia:DUE here and isn't some form of POV coat racking. If you disagree, could you let me know your line of reasoning as to how name is relevant and due in this article? Theheezy (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from, however, Mr. Aladin's actions were the proximate cause of everything that has happened since. Proximate cause is pretty well established as notable to any legal case. Recall that the number of results from Google searches isn't a measure of notability. You are free to interpret it as "name and shame", whatever that means. However, Mr. Aladin is a priori notable to the case, for his actions precipitating it. Anastrophe (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I don’t know if there is a different procedure regarding how relevance is established on law articles. Certainly, I’m hoping that it’s same as the rest of Wikipedia which should err on catering to the layperson as opposed to trained legal professionals. I stand by my statements, however I’m not going to split hairs over it.

For now, I’ve added an in text attribution to The Salon as recommended for sources considered biased instead of perfectly reliable. Let’s hope a better source emerges, or maybe consensus changes over time. Theheezy (talk) 07:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

There's several other reliable sources for the info. Salon will suffice, since it's already used just a line below. That a 'liberal' online magazine published an 'everything you need to know about' the Oberlin case, and this particular datum is not opinion but just a statement of a fact of the incident, I think it's unlikely to be meaningfully disputable. Anastrophe (talk) 08:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Here ya go: "The verdict comes nearly three years after a skirmish broke out between Jonathan Aladin, a black student at the liberal arts college, and Allyn Gibson Jr., the son and grandson of the owners of Gibson's Bakery and Food Market, a family-owned establishment near the college's campus in Oberlin, Ohio." https://www.salon.com/2019/06/14/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-bizarre-lawsuit-between-oberlin-college-and-a-local-bakery/

And: "The case stems from an act of shoplifting. On November 9, 2016, immediately after the election of President Trump, an Oberlin student, Jonathan Aladin, attempted to shoplift several bottles of wine from Gibson’s. Allyn D. Gibson, the grandson of the store’s owner, was clerking. He noticed the attempted theft and ran after Aladin. An altercation ensued across the street which ended with Aladin and two companions, Cecilia Whettstone and Endia Lawrence, beating Gibson as he lay on the ground." https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/how-oberlin-played-the-race-card-and-lost — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.101.1.116 (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing aside, I really don't see the objection to naming individuals who were significant participants in a matter that became the subject of major public debate, especially since the three of them subsequently stated, in court, that they did not consider the bakery's actions to be caused by racism. Giving their names is just as significant as giving the names of individuals who said that the bakery was racist, such as the two deans who are quoted in the article, and named. The whole thing is a matter of public interest, and we shouldn't censor names. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I've added a link to NBC News article naming Jonathan so we can avoid clunky wording. Theheezy (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

To add to the article

To add to this article: didn't the two bottles of wine drop onto the sidewalk and break during the scuffle? If so, why not mention that in the narrative? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure the breaking of the bottles is all that significant to the case, but if you have a reliable source for it (or it's in one of the existing sources), you're free to add it to the article. Indyguy (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

This is mere speculation, no mention of where the editor 'heard it from', nothing. I don't see that the article is blocked for IP editors. Thus my determination that it was not constructive. "I heard that one of the astronauts on the moon quoted from the Koran. If so, should this be added to the article?". Anastrophe (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, if it's mere speculation, then there won't be a reliable source. That's why I said the editor could add it with the proviso that it have a reliable source. I, in good faith, assumed his question was a legitimate one about improving the article. His edit history appears to be constructive. Indyguy (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

We have differing interpretations of this IP's edit history. Yes, there are constructive edits. I also see a fair number of 'what about this' with no effort in looking for sources - even when it's obvious the editor has specific information in mind -

• https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Milton_Wright_(academic)&diff=prev&oldid=1098650112&diffmode=source
• https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ralph_E._Erickson&diff=prev&oldid=1095060287&diffmode=source
• https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Angelus_Silesius&diff=prev&oldid=1094891545&diffmode=source
• https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Heather_Cox_Richardson&diff=prev&oldid=1093829422&diffmode=source

Again, if the IP isn't blocked from editing the article, they can do it themselves. Too often with speculative queries like this, it winds up being 'I thought of something - someone else actually determine if it's legitimate and appropriate to the encyclopedia, then add it for me'. My removal via 'unconstructive' was unintentional though. I use ultraviolet and hit that button, which gives no intervening dialogue, so it was a fait accompli. Oh well. Anastrophe (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of the bottles breaking. It’s a minor point and doesn’t strengthen the charge of shoplifting. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk)

Naming of article

The court case is officially Gibson Bros., Inc. v Oberlin College. https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/06/09/gibson.bakery.v.oberlin.college.lawsuit.pdf Should we move this article? Mokadoshi (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm by no stretch of the imagination expert (or even passable) at such matters - but would a redirect suffice? As long as people can get to it by a reasonable facsimile of the case name that should be adequate. Or not! cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 05:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with not moving the article. I've added the official name to the infobox. Mokadoshi (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Too many quotes?

By my estimates, it looked like there was about 4900 bytes of direct quotations in this article, out of a total 18,000 bytes of prose, or around 26%. I have no idea how this compares to other articles, I've shortened some of the longer quotes in this article, but if it still seems too high I'd welcome suggestions on quotes to delete. Mokadoshi (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

"rain fire and brimstone"

I just deleted a quote purportedly from an angry Assistant Dean that she wanted the school to "rain fire and brimstone on that store" after the students pled guilty and received punishment for the assault and robbery. This is an incendiary quote that is discussed online where this Wikipedia article has been linked. The only problem is that I can't find any reliable source that this came from. The article has a citation, but it's to an opinion piece. Because I can't find it anywhere else, I think WP:RSOPINION applies. If anyone else is able to find something, we can put it back. Mokadoshi (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Of course, only after I posted this message did I find it in the Supreme Court appeal document. My Google searches weren't picking up anything. At least now it's properly cited. Mokadoshi (talk) 11:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Did Oberlin ask multiple businesses to give a "free pass" to first-time shoplifters, or only Gibson's?

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: Thank you very much for your work tweaking my recent changes. I agree with most of your changes. My only question is the title of this topic. This claim stands out to me because sources about the evidence used at trial in the case fall back to one of two primary sources: the original complaint and the appeal. The first one states: "Gibson's would not push criminal charges against first-time shoplifters" (page 16, continued onto page 17). The second one states the same thing (page 26). So where did the claim that Oberlin asked "all local businesses" come from? I looked at the source in the article, the Weekly Standard (now Washington Examiner). Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources states that much of the site is opinion. The way the article is written, it seems to me this was originally an opinion piece and perhaps lost the tag when the site got redesigned.

I don't think it is sufficiently reliable to substantiate this claim. I added Better Source Needed, and would recommend re-deleting the claim if we can't find a better source. If we do find this sourced elsewhere, I'd ask where this is coming from if not the primary sources, in order to avoid Citogenesis. Again, thank you so much for the difficult work of reviewing my many recent changes. I hope to get this article to GA class soon and I appreciate the feedback. Mokadoshi (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mokadoshi, this is a fair point. My mistake; I hadn't looked into the cite in the detail you have. Yes, we need a better cite for the alleged general statement by Oberlin to all businesses. One other comment: you've taken out the testimony from Holloway, another of the employees at Gibson's Bakery, quoted in the Friedersdorf article. I personally thought that testimony was pretty striking. We don't know how it affected the jury, but I would suggest putting it back in. I appreciate that we don't want the article to be over-burdened with quotations, but I think for an article about a trial, it's important for the reader to get as much info about the testimony as is possible, to assist in understanding the issues and the outcome. Overall, thanks for all the work you've done. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I've added it back in. I am trying to reduce the length of quotes, but this one is short compared to how it used to be. My intention wasn't to remove any quotes that significantly added to the article. Mokadoshi (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed this sentence since I still haven't found any other source. We can always add it back if one appears. Mokadoshi (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gibson's Bakery v. Oberlin College/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Mokadoshi (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Voorts (talk · contribs) 20:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I am quickfailing this nomination under 2b (WP:RS) and 4 (WP:NPOV). The article is slanted toward the POV of the bakery and conservative commentators, while Oberlin's position gets more limited coverage. For example, Oberlin's First Amendment argument is mentioned, but no secondary sources regarding that position or commentators agreeing with that position are discussed in the article. Additionally, several conservative blogs/op-eds are cited for factual propositions, such as: [17], https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/06/18/oberlin-and-the-price-of-wokeness/], [18], [19]. Per WP:RSBIAS, while bias does not make a source unreliable, factual claims should usually be to non-biased sources. Additionally, WP:RSPS requires the Washington Examiner (e.g., [20]) to be attributed. RSPS also considers Forbes contributors posts (e.g., [21]) to be GUNREL.

Other than the above, the article is well-written and follows the MOS at a GA level of quality. Although not required for GA, some of the references could use some cleanup. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § RfC: Legal Insurrection

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § RfC: Legal Insurrection. Mokadoshi (talk) 04:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)