Jump to content

Talk:Los Angeles Film School

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikified

[edit]

I removed the Wikify tag and reformatted, adding section headings and rearranging existing text. Now someone needs to go in and make it sound less like PR material from the school. Jim Dunning 03:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alumni comments discussion

[edit]

Dude, it is clearly PR bullshit on this page. Wikipedia is supposed to supply facts about a topic. I've contacted the Wiki people and hope you realize you won't win this one. Facts can't be changed nor can they be denied! And instead of a simple removal, bring your little set to the table and lets discuss the issues, I want the school to do well. Fact is they DIDN'T teach things they said they would. Fact is there is not enough equipment in the school. Fact is the school is overcrowded. It's not slander or spam if it is true and factual. User:InstantReplay 3:08, 20 June 2007

I'm not sure who "Dude" is, but I'll respond. I understand you are someone with a strong, apparently negative, criticism of the school. That's fine, but Wikipedia is not a message board or forum to air grievances or make suggestions for improving the school. That is why I have removed the "Alumni comments" section. Feel free to check other school-related articles and you'll see that none has an analogous section.
Since you feel the article content is lacking or unbalanced you are not only free to contribute to it, but encouraged to, adding appropriate material that is verifiable. This means you need to provide information from a reliable source and it cannot include any original research. Unfortunately for what appear to be your purposes, your opinions and claims about LAFS are considered to be "original research". If, however, you can find a reliable third-party source that supports your views and allegations, then feel free to include that information in the article; it will be welcome.
So, please do not take offense when the "Alumni comments" section is "simply removed": it is not personal, it is Wikipedia policy. Also, another official Wikipedia policy that may be initially frustrating for you is verifiabilty: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." So I am not disputing your veracity, just asking you to provide reliable sources for your statements (and that you add them to the article in an encyclopedic format).
You're right, this article reads too much like PR copy and I flagged it as such. It needs some additional, objective content. So please add it. I will be glad to work with you on it. Feel free to contact me on my Talk page or here on this Talk page. If, however, you're only interested in airing grievances and school-related (not article-related) suggestions, then try The MySpace LAFS forum or this DVInfo discussion. Jim Dunning | talk 05:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The school is also insanely off on the male-female ratio. My girlfriend went there, attended a class of 40, and there were 3 (Yes, only 3) women in her class other than her. That made 90% of the student body male, and after attending for 5 months on a long commute to get there, she was left completely unsatisfied with the promises of being taught things she simply wasn't, but was coming home upset every day because of the blatent sexism of the business, the unprofessional attitude of a number of staff members and teachers, and the school in general. I read this article and it sounded just like one of those brochures they hand out, and is not in any way accurate to the real Los Angeles Film School, which is what this article is supposed to be about. TheJudge310 23:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will repeat what I posted above: if you have something to add to add to the article with verifiable third-party sources, then please do so. The contributions will be welcome.
Jim Dunning | talk 12:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I feel for the original poster, it is difficult to find objective documentation to support comments like his no matter how true or objective they may be. That said, perhaps these objective facts about the students suing the school in a class-action lawsuit will help shine some light on the matter: http://www.avclub.com/articles/la-film-and-recording-school-sued-for-bribing-stud,48909/ http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/thr-esq/class-action-lawsuit-claims-film-57903 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informer151 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty section -

[edit]

Aside from a single reference to the labor protest, there are no references for anything in the faculty section. Also, the recent addition of the unreferenced union organizing information appears to be from Nesdon Booth ("Nesdon"), who is the Course Director at LA Film School. If this is the case, he is part of the organization this article is about, and he is a manager offering his own opinion on an internal labor dispute in which he is actively involved|.

It almost seems like the faculty section should be removed until there's some verifiable third-party sources?

Zota (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a previous entry with many factual errors which I corrected. I tried to make an accurate, objective history of the events, trying to remove what were opinions from the former edit. This raises a interesting issue for me in general about Wikipedia's process. I realized that these events re: LAFS, which I have intimate knowledge of, have not necessarily been documented by a third-party source. While there are some "third party references" that are no more than political action press releases.
So, an eyewitness of event, that may not been written on widely (and therefore diversely) by third parties, becomes suspect, while inaccurate rumors, which may be reprinted or widely circulated, become the only information that is allowed.
I will attempt to add published references to support the facts I have included, and will make another edit to try to expunge any opinion from my entry. But I believe that Zota's characterizations of my entry as "opinion" is not borne out by an examination of the language. I removed value judgments, and instead added declarative statements about facts and events that should be verifiable from NLRB documents.
Nesdon (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nesdon.
Wikipedia's three core principles are Neutral point of view, Verifiability and No original research.
You are a major party in an active dispute regarding the subject of the article. You are contributing your own first person perspective of your experience. And you are unable to provide outside documentation of your experience. So for this subject, it is extremely difficult for you to avoid contradicting these basic principles.
And since you are describing biographical details of your own experience with this subject matter, you should also read about Wikipedia's guidelines on biographies of living persons and Dealing with articles about yourself. Wikipedia is really not the place for you to describe your personal experiences with your employer.
Again, until there is some kind of documentation, it might be best if the entire faculty section were deleted. There is simply no documentation for anything there. Perhaps the union organizing dispute could be moved to an abbreviated "controversies" section, if some reliable published source could be found.
Zota (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply Zota,

First, your link to "dealing with articles about yourself" seems self referential, and I was unable to find the intended reference. Can you supply a reference to this subject?

I am still trying to find ways to reference documents from the NLRB to support the history as I have written it.

I understand the wikipedia principles, but have a lot of trouble allowing entries stand that I know to be false. I get why a policy of review of sources as opposed to accurate information needs to be in place: he-said-she-said is generally unresolvable. I find the inclusion of discussions in wikipedia to be one of its aspects that solves much of this for me, as even verifiable third party sources, while concrete, often leave those of us wishing to discover the truth in the same he-said-she-said dilemma. Reading the arguments from either side about their entries allows a higher level of understanding of the information.

May I ask that my comments remain while I seek definitive references from NLRB filings and decisions, which will be definitive. Nesdon (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The public NLRB case documents - includes charges, Administrative Law Judge's ruling against the school (04/06/2011), and the NLRB federal board's decision upholding said ruling (03/26/2012): http://www.nlrb.gov/case/31-CA-029627

There are also press articles covering faculty speeches given during the unionization effort: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/03/union-rally-backs-organizing-drive-at-private-la-film-school.html http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118016865?refCatId=1066 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informer151 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ACCET accreditation - film / recording school

[edit]

Statement in question: "As a result, the school lost its accrediting through the Accrediting Council for Continuing Education and Training (ACCET). (ref: http://www.accet.org/directory)" Obviously this reference isn't, but I've done some quick research and it does not appear to be made up, although unfortunately the best reference I could find came from accet.org itself (pdf). However, this refers to the LA Recording School losing accreditation, as distinct from the LA Film School which does not appear to ever have had ACCET accreditation. The article needs to be clear on this, and I think it may help explain current edit-war. —WOFall (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I came here from recent changes patrol, because I noticed the removal of sourced content on rather flimsy grounds. I have absolutely no preconceived notions here; all of the content in question can go, if a satisfactory explanation is provided. Specifically, all the sources I can find support the class action suit, yet the other editor involved insists on removing it periodically. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per the ACCET (the direct source cited by the original poster): The Los Angeles Film School AND the Los Angeles Recording School never had their accreditation status revoked ACCET.org. Web links and phone numbers were provided. They were removed for reasons I cannot understand.
Furthermore, the school is nationally accredited by the ACCSC accsc.org. This cited information was removed twice without cause.
The accrediting body should be a reliable source in both cases.
There is reference to a class action law suit that never took place. This too was removed (by me) and the removal was denied. Yet, a reliable source proving a class action law suit occurred was never provided. If a reliable source cannot be provided, the reference to a class action law suit need to be removed. Blogs that lead to news sources which are ultimately broken links are not reliable sources.
I would like my original modifications reinstated as they are verifiable and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1MicheleWiki (talk • contribs) 18:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@1MicheleWiki: First of all, add your comments at the bottom of a thread, indent your comments, and sign your posts. As for your grievances; first off, simply repeating what you said on your talk page is getting you nowhere. The ACCET website you provided does not contain this school in their directory, so the only source you have provided fails verification. Sources exist for the class action suit; not the best, perhaps, but several exist, making it highly unlikely that it was a fabrication. If you have any evidence contradicting that, you need to provide it. Your word, and mine, for that matter, count for absolutely nothing. I think you would also be well served by reading our policies on verifiability and conflict of interest. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. (non-admin closure) Biblioworm 00:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Film School → The Los Angeles Film School – Correct full name of the school is The Los Angeles Film School, per its website and official materials. Tylergarner (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see in this post Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest my employer is Full Sail University, a sister-school to the Los Angeles Film School. I’d like to participate in the discussions about this article, in an effort to help the article better comply with Wikipedia article standards. I’m aware that this presents a conflict of interest, and so I've carefully read the WP:COI guidelines, and intend to follow them closely. Where I am discussing content related to the Los Angeles Film School article, I will limit myself to proposing changes as opposed to making the changes myself. I've made this declaration on my user page as well.

Per the above request template, my first proposal is to correct the name of the article to The Los Angeles Film School. This is the full and correct name of the school, as reflected in the school's official materials and on its website. Tylergarner (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lightly oppose. The official website does indeed consistently use "The Los Angeles Film School", however third parties do so less frequently, preferring "the Los Angeles Film School" or simply "Los Angeles Film School". For instance, Google's sponsored ad for lafilm.edu promotes "Los Angeles Film School", and this usage seems to be very common.
On the other hand, "Los Angeles Film School" doesn't grammatically demand a the in use, so it is significant that one is applied consistently in official sources, and often in other sources. This is in contrast to examples at WP:THE#Universities. —WOFall (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"On the other hand, some universities only refer to themselves as "The University of X", even in running text (e.g. The College of New Jersey). If such usage is prevalent on university press releases and press kits, contact information, "about" pages, and internal department websites, and it is reasonably common in external sources (try a Google search), then it is more appropriate to name the Wikipedia article The University of X.”
The school does consistently refer to itself as "The Los Angeles Film School" and it is reasonably common that sources refer to the school that way, which seems to be in alignment with the guidelines and support the changing of the name of the article to "The Los Angeles Film School.” Tylergarner (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

New draft for this article

[edit]

As I mentioned in my request to rename this article, my employer is Full Sail University, a sister-school to The Los Angeles Film School. While following the WP:COI guidelines, I am here to offer some proposed changes to this article to help it better comply with Wikipedia's guidelines and standards for college articles.

The current article suffers from a number of issues, including a lack of sources and non-standard sections for articles about colleges. To address these issues, I've redrafted the article, adding in proper sourcing and generally making sure that the article complies with the WP:UNIGUIDE. Because of my COI, I won't make any edits to this article directly. Instead, I've uploaded my draft of the article to my userspace User:Tylergarner/The_Los_Angeles_Film_School for volunteer editors to look at. Below I have also included a list of changes that I am proposing.

  • Suggesting that ‘‘’The Los Angeles Film School’’’ be bolded in the first line of the article as a compromise vs. changing the article’s name. I understand the points made above and the consensus that this page should stay as “Los Angeles Film School”, but I hope editors will consider bolding the school’s full official name in the first line. This is what has been done at University of Texas at Austin
  • Clarifying the Los Angeles Film School founders and providing more detail on the school's foundation and early years.
  • Added notable founding faculty to History Section.
  • Providing better citations and clarity to the relationship between Los Angeles Film School and Full Sail University.
  • Moved legal dispute information to be chronologically placed under the History section.
  • Moved the Facilities section to better follow the structure under the WP:UNIGUIDE
  • Facilities section has been rewritten into a paragraph form, instead of a list.
  • Provided additional sources and details to Facilities.
  • Expanded on the Academics section to include information about the accrediting body, notable educational certifications, and the school’s efforts in the military community.
  • Underneath the Academics section, Degree programs has been expanded to introduce degree focuses that are not currently discussed in the article.
  • Added credible Noteworthy faculty and staff, and Noteworthy productions and events underneath the Academics Session.
  • The Noteworthy alumni section has been rewritten to include only the most notable graduates, and proper citations.

I would also like to address the section in the current lead in regards to the ACCET accreditation, which has also been previously discussed on this Talk Page. As seen in this document from the ACCSCT (now ACCSC) stating the initial grant for accreditation in 2005, The Los Angeles Film School has always been accredited through this accrediting body and not the ACCET. The lawsuit referenced in this section was filed against The Los Angeles Recording School, not The Los Angeles Film School, as seen in this court document (enter case number BC450620). While The Los Angeles Film School and The Los Angeles Recording School shared ownership, the school was its own entity. I would suggest that this section may be more appropriately placed on Los Angeles Recording School's Wikipedia page. Lastly, as see in this document, The Los Angeles Recording School never lost their accreditation, but rather resigned it to pursue other accreditation.

Despite my COI, I've done my best to stay neutral, balanced, and in line with all of Wikipedia's policies, but please let me know if you have any concerns. --Tylergarner (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would like to note my understanding that COI editors are not encouraged to present drafted sections/articles; rather specific factual errors, biases, etc. should to be pointed out, and hopefully addressed by other editors. However, applying judgement, and considering the precedence set by your involvement with the Full Sail article, I think your draft can be accepted after some review. It is most important that you are acting transparently, and also helps that the article currently needs improvement that it is unlikely to find elsewhere.
For now, I want to focus only on the ACCET issue, as it has previously been contentious and directly relates to your COI. I agree that, if present, it would belong in the history section, and not in the lede, and I also agree that the current presentation is misleading to biased. The lawsuit is plausible and gives context, but references are sketchy on whether it materialized, so this is in the air.
However, I am not convinced that the matter should be elided entirely. My understanding is that LARS was in the process of merging with LAFS, and while they only "shared ownership" at the time, LARS is subsidiary to LAFS now. (If possible, I would suggest that the history section could be expanded to explain this consolidation, though I can understand if it is not sufficiently documented by references.) Thus it is somewhat relevant to the article.
I suggest something like: "In 2010, following a proposed lawsuit, a decision was made by ACCET to withdraw its accreditation of The Los Angeles Recording School. The decision was stayed on appeal, and the school was permitted to resign its accreditation amicably, following the transfer of remaining students to The Los Angeles Film School, which is accredited by ACCSC." (Referenced and expanded or wikilinked as appropriate.) This could be tied into any remarks that may be made on the consolidation. —WOFall (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your detailed comments, User:WOFall and apologies for the delay in reply as I was traveling. I'd like to note first that under the current COI guidelines and best practices, presenting drafts for review is allowed, otherwise I definitely would not have done so. Your reply above sounds like you'd be ok with reviewing the draft in any case, so thank you in advance.
To give some more background to the relationship of The Los Angeles Recording School to The Los Angeles Film School: With the expansion of The Los Angeles Film School into a degree granting school in 2010, the owners of the school embarked upon the consolidation of other school operations into The Los Angeles Film School. Operations from The Los Angeles Film School’s affiliate (not subsidiary) The Los Angeles Recording School were transferred to The Los Angeles Film School and subsequent students interested in recording arts enrolled in the recording school at The Los Angeles Film School.
For the lawsuit and accreditation details, your wording sounds ok to me, with one exception. Although in order of events, the resignation of ACCET accreditation came after the filing of the suit against LARS, the two were not at all related. In fact, there's no source that links the two. The Los Angeles Film School have explained to me that due to the consolidation of operations to The Los Angeles Film School, the recording school’s enrollments were winding down because the students were enrolling in the recording program at The Los Angeles Film School under ACCSC. Around this time the recording school received an ACCET site visit. They had already decided to relinquish ACCET so that the only accreditation was ACCSC, which is perceived as the more prestigious accreditation. The action letter referred to in this letter from ACCET was a result of the site visit, and the school's withdrawal from the accreditation was a result of the fact that the school only had 20 or less students left that hadn't been enrolled into The Los Angeles Film School.
So, what I'd like to suggest is using your suggested wording in the History section but with a small tweak: "In April 2011, a decision was made by ACCET to withdraw its accreditation of The Los Angeles Recording School. The decision was stayed on appeal, and the school was permitted to resign its accreditation amicably, following the transfer of remaining students to The Los Angeles Film School, which is accredited by ACCSC." Does this work for you? If so, I think the links I provided above would be the best sources and I can prepare those.
Also, I saw that you've made a few edits to the draft in my userspace. I'll be looking at those closely and will make any adjustments needed. --Tylergarner (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. The important part of your argument is "there's no source that links the two", and I can certainly agree with that much, so your amended wording is fine.
I can't remember exactly what changes I've made to your draft, but I apologize if any of them seem aggressively reductive to you. I'm probably being more stringent than strictly necessary.
My only other content-related concern is over the section Noteworthy faculty and staff. Hal Lieberman is notable enough, but I would say that the other two are not. (A rule of thumb would be that they have, or should have, their own article.) Perhaps you'd be interested in replacing them with some names from the current article? I'm also happy for it to be a one-line section or to be merged elsewhere. Overall, I'm happy with the rest of the article. —WOFall (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks WOFall, I've had a chance to look over your edits and all look good to me. Where you'd indicated a source, date or clarification was needed, I've now added that into the draft in my user space. I have also clarified the relationship between the film school and recording school. If you think that everything looks good, would you mind moving my draft into the live article? --Tylergarner (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed Bartesaghi as not sufficiently notable. I also wasn't sure if you wanted the logo or not, so I threw it in. Anyhow:
 Done Thanks for your contribution. —WOFall (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WOFall, thank your for your review, expertise and collaboration in implementing these changes into the article. Through your feedback and guidance, this article is in a much better place factually and in-line with WP:UNIGUIDE. Thank you. --Tylergarner (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit section

[edit]

Hello. I'm starting a new thread to discuss the Lawsuit section that was added in January of this year. As a reminder, I am an employee of Full Sail, which is a partner of LA Film School. Back in 2014, I worked with editors to improve this article. My plan is to follow the same process I did back then: make suggestions for the article here and then discuss them with others. I won't edit the article myself. I'm hoping for a similarly productive and enjoyable experience this time around.

I've noted that Wikipedia has changed its policy regarding disclosures for editors with conflicts of interest, so I've updated this page with a template clearly declaring my affiliation. I have never edited the article, so I believe I'm in compliance with all the other rules for COI editors.

Since the last time I was here, another editor added a new section about an old lawsuit with the explanation that it has been "omitted".

I'd like to point back to my discussion with WOFall, during which we went over the particulars of this lawsuit in detail and determined whether it should be included in the article. To clarify further, the Los Angeles Film School and Los Angeles Recording School were dismissed from this case—in 2012 and 2013, respectively. With this in mind, the section seems irrelevant and I'd like to propose its removal.

I look forward to hearing others' thoughts. --Tylergarner (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updates

[edit]

Hello again. Though my last request is still open, I wanted to share the remainder of updates I have to suggest for the article. The changes are in three sections of the article: Degrees, Noteworthy productions and events, and Noteworthy alumni. I've placed the full sections with my suggestions to my userspace User:Tylergarner/LAFS_updates. Here's a summary of what I changed.

  • Degree programs
    • Removed two programs the school no longer offers related to game production & design
    • Added a new interactive media design program
    • Noted which of the school's programs can be completed online or are only available online
  • Noteworthy productions and events
    • Added three productions that feature the school or students: Tale of a City, Skee TV, and Real Rob
    • Added the school's partnership with Paul Oakenfield that resulted in the "Electronic Dance Music Academy"
    • Added that LA Film School has hosted both the Animayo Festival for multiple years and several events from "The Q&A Screening Series"
  • Noteworthy alumni
    • Added Hannah Lux Davis, Flying Lotus, and Matt Villines
    • Updated Brandon Trost's credits and referneces

For anyone new to the page, I need to disclose that I am an employee of Full Sail, which is a partner of LA Film School. I make suggestions to this page only and will not edit the article myself. I'd like for another editor to review these updates and move them to the article if they are in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. --Tylergarner (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Los Angeles Film School. 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.

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) 03:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Los_Angeles_Film_School&oldid=1208587628"