Talk:University of Ottawa/Archive 1

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


Untitled

Hey I was wondering if anyone can add pictures of the Arts, SITE and Laws buildings. I have photos but have no idea how to. Not very good with this kind of stuff

You need to create for your self a login; then you will be able to upload pictures. Duomillia 03:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Can someone please add more pictures of the Campus and the school's coat of arms. Thank you.

Article Listed on Wikipedia:Third opinion

Dispute

I have listed this article on Wikipedia:Third opinion due to the current dispute between Anakinskywalker and Nameneko.

Nameneko disputes over the use of "premier" and "world-renowned" to describe the university.

While Anakinskywalker says the use of "premier" is justifiable and “world-renowned" refers to the Faculties of Medicine, Science, law itself and their research, professors, and not the institution as a whole.


Support

I have notified Nameneko, Spinboy, 69.198.153.161 and have provided reliable sources that prove the reverts were not biased. The term "premier" have been listed on a Government and Educational (.edu) websites and other reliable sources, and the term "world-renowned" refers to the Faculties itself and their research, NOT the institution as a whole, as noted byNameneko. I believe Nameneko claims are more about his biased views, and, through his actions is sabotaging this page. He has still provided No substantial proof to his claims, which I on the other hand have with relevant sources.

I challenged Nameneko to prove these sources are not reliable as he claims, but, he has just stated that the sources are not reliable because the sources are Canadian. Also, I have posted a European source.

Nameneko, you can't just say these sources are not reliable with out any substantial and relevant proof. Which I have at least provided. I have read through these sources and the information given is reliable. It states facts rather than opinion, which could lead to bias. I do not agree with your statement "The current proof is severely insufficient." That is an excessive exaggeration. I have provided 9 sources that includes a Government website and a Educational(.edu) wedsite. I'm not going to list every source on the interent, Nameneko.

Anakinskywalker

Proof

Government website - Profile

"Strategically located in the heart of Canada's national capital, the University of Ottawa is the most important bilingual educational institution in North America and a world leader in research."

"the University is engaged on the international scene in all key sectors."

"The students of the Faculty of Medicine were recently ranked the best in Canada and the Faculty itself is affiliated with several world-class research facilities "

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/app/ccc/search/navigate.do?language=eng&portal=1&estblmntNo=234567031121&profile=completeProfile

Unviersity of Ottawa - Faculty of Science

"Research at the Faculty of Science has a world class reputation"

http://www.science.uottawa.ca/eng/history.html

"The Faculty of Science, a true centre of excellence that has earned recognition across Canada and abroad for its prowess in the classrooms and the laboratories. This prowess is the handiwork of more than 100 internationally renowned professors, more than 300 graduate students, dozens of postdoctoral researchers and visiting academics from around the world."

http://www.science.uottawa.ca/welcome.html


Unviersity of Ottawa - Faculty of Medicine

"A Faculty that has become a strong and vibrant intellectual force in Canadian and international medicine. Our professors and researchers are among the very best; many of them have won national and international awards for their teaching, their insights, and their research breakthroughs"

http://www.medicine.uottawa.ca/eng/welcome.html

Canadian Universities and Colleges - information on Canadian Universities and Colleges

"Research in medicine and science is what the University is world renowned for"

http://www.canadian-universities.net/Universities/University-of-Ottawa.html


School Finder - Provides extensive information on 1,700 Universities/Colleges/Career Colleges in Canada

"Areas of Expertise - The University of Ottawa offers programs in the areas of management, the arts and humanities, pure, applied, and health sciences, as well as in the professional fields of education, medicine, and law."

"North America's premier bilingual university, the University of Ottawa is a major player in the cultural and economic development of the Canadian national capital region."

http://www.schoolfinder.com/schools/profile.asp?SchoolCode=uotta08&ProfileType=University&URL=keywordresults

Pfizer Canada - World’s largest Pharmaceutical company

"The University of Ottawa Heart Institute is a global leader in the fight against heart disease and Canada's only complete cardiac center, encompassing prevention, diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation, research and education."

http://www.pfizer.ca/english/newsroom/press%20releases/default.asp?s=1&year=2003&releaseID=108

International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions

" "Ottawa U", as it is known locally, specializes in law and medicine."

http://www.ifla.org/udt/dc8/ottawa.htm

Heart Health - Health Unit

"University of Ottawa: An internationally-renowned institution for higher learning"

http://www.healthunit.org/heart/default.htm

Collegium Civitas - Private University in Warsaw, Poland

"Collegium Civitas students have been invited for a period of study at what is regarded as being one of the foremost Canadian universities."

"The University of Ottawa: it is North America's premier bilingual university and one of the most cosmopolitan in Canada"

http://www.collegium.edu.pl/english/international/partner.php

Anakinskywalker


Nameneko, Again, please refrain from adding your personal comments in my section. That is meant for your section on oppose, not for support.

After I shown Nameneko proof with credible sources, he still professes to the sources to be otherwise, which leads to the impression that he has some biased views. Just because some of it comes from Canadians sources does make it biased.

From these statements Nameneko have made, he is then spreading bias views by saying these Canadian sources are biased solely on the fact they come from Canada, even though I have also provided a source from Europe. Therefore Nameneko, you are contradicting yourself and give off the impression of being a hypocrite. Furthermore Nameneko, please do not twist the truth. I wrote the faculties of Medicine, Science, and Law are world-renowned for their research, professors, etc., not the University itself.

Nameneko, you asked for credible sources, which I have supplied, which you then say that the sources are biased and false, when I have proven that they are factual, and that you are spreading your own personal bias to advance your baseless accusations. For you to say these sources are false, again, you are then twisting the truth and I'm calling you on that.

Please provide proof that the information by the Government, Educational Sites (.edu) and other sources are spreading false information. Do not simple reply that “one comes from a Canadian directory and the other from a school directory” and “school directories are worded as such to place schools in as favourable of a light as possible”. As I have said, that reflects your own personal bias about sources from Canada. The sources provided are fair and balanced and do not show a favourable position as you contemplate. All 9 sources are consistent with facts that can be also found on the University of Ottawa website, if you search the entire site thoroughly. I have provided even a GOVERNMENT website and one from a European University. If you do not provide reliable, substantial, and relevant proof (sources) to disclaim the evidence given, then the page will remain the way it is.


Oppose

I oppose the use of these two words as biased views. Though it is possible that these may be verifiable, currently, they are not. Though Anakinskywalker has provided "sources", one comes from a Canadian directory and the other from a school directory, neither of which link to a source of any sort. I stated that a possible source for "premier" would be the inclusion of a list or comparison of North American universities that ranks the University of Ottawa as the top, bilingual university. I also believe that "world-renowned" could be supported by listing an article by a foreign media or a study or reference from a credible source. Even then, "world-renowned" may not be the right wording. I would prefer the use of "internationally recognized" or something similar if a source is found. I am not against the use of these words, but I feel that without proper listing of a credible source, they are therefore biased and are inappropriate for this article.

-Nameneko 08:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I have not edited your comments on my talk page in any way. If you view the page history, you can see that you are the only person who has edited the page since October 20th. I must ask you to refrain from making baseless accusations and to keep this discussion as civil as possible.
Regarding the proof: There is no way to argue against this with proof. I am not asking for the degration of the University of Ottawa's description; I am merely asking for it to be in a neutral point of view. References from school directories are worded as such to place schools in as favourable of a light as possible. I have already given my opinion on what should qualify as a credible source.
-Nameneko 08:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid I must ask, once more, to refrain from making personal attacks. I am not about bias or sabotage, like you claim, but simply want a neutral point of view regarding this article. I have no proof for my opinion but feel that the current proof is severely insufficient. I am perfectly willing to change my opinion on the subject given solid proof for the inclusion of these words. -Nameneko 08:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
The reason I oppose these sites as credible sources is because they are written in order to cast the subject in a favourable light. They give no further evidence in possible research or activities that have gained international notice or any comparison with other universities in terms of being the "premier bilingual university". Also, please stop moving comments I have made, as they only make sense in context. -Nameneko 08:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Negotiations

I am going to oppose because the material added violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. While links themselves don't have to be neutral, Wikipedia isn't a links repository. U of O may be a great school for all those things mentioned, but we're not a propaganda machine, we're an encyclopedia. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy No ads on Wikipedia. 16:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Spinboy, I have not violated anything, secondly, these links are meant as sources for proof of information to verify the accuracy, as asked. The facts are given, while the links are sourced, if you have ever been you to university and written essays, you need to back up everything. This is in the TALK page, not the actual article, which is in dispute. I have seen you before also sabotage this page when I added the research institutions etc, and you just wiped it all out for no good reason, and has seen your history of reverting and deleting people’s hard work because “you don’t agree with it”. Please comply with all wikipedia rules, as they are meant for everyone and not just to benefit one’s personal biases. Their was no material added, only removed, which means that I'm not the one that violated Wikipedia's NPOV policy. The information provided should be factual and not opinionated, as it was before the dispute. Your right about one thing Wikipedia is a encyclopedia and not a propaganda machine, so only leave in that facts that can be proved, which has been provided with Gov't, .ORG, .EDU, and the University itself sources with a from a FACTUAL point of view, which encyclopedias are.

Anakinskywalker

Just because it was there before doesn't mean it doesn't violate NPOV, it simply means that it got under the radar. Just because you have links to back up your claim doesn't mean it belongs there. Consider if it's encyclopedic, and if anyone from a place besides U of O would actually care to know about that one little point. The stuff that was removed is really inconsquental to the article itself. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy No ads on Wikipedia. 17:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. It has been there for a while now and people have made minor changes only. It was accepted. Then Nameneko and you decide to outright strip content with gives the article more value and factual information on some of the accomplishments and position of the University of Ottawa in Canada. Go to McGill, Toronto, Queens, etc., and see their pages. In comparison of the structure and the information, they all have a relative theme. This page is to add and change for improvements, not to strip the qualities and recognition a university has earned. I believe the information does belong in the article because is it has relevance and shows some of the universities strong points, rather than to delete it or be kept out for "inconsequential" reasoning.
Anakinskywalker
Consensus changes. This isn't the Anakinskywalker encyclopedia. Just because it once was accepted doesn't mean it always will be. Please sign your posts with four (~~~~) tildes, so it produces your name and the date. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy No ads on Wikipedia. 18:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

True, but 2 biased views and sabotage to a page is not a Consensus change. This isn't the Spinboy and Nameneko page either, so please refrain from Personal Attacks. I'm adding quality and facts to the page supported with wide views in the non-bias and neutral information in the sources provided, as it is widely accepted.

Secondly, the "dispute between Anakinskywalker and Nameneko over the use of "premier" and "world-renowned" to describe the university" are in question, so please stick to the subject at hand. I have provided enough proof and reliable information to support my stance.

Please explain in detail why the information above does not relate to the dispute. Don't just simply say I oppose with irrelevant issues. Please explain and show proof with factual sources that support your claim for why the use of "premier" and "world-renowned" to describe the university" doesn't not apply to the University of Ottawa.

Remember the term "world-renowned" refers to the Faculties itself and their research, NOT the institution as a whole, as noted by Nameneko. Check the article for reference.

You have to show reasoning with thought to prove something; don't just write anything that just "pops up" in your head.

-Anakinskywalker 14:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Spinboy, do not force personal attacks by bias and by vandalizing the article while it is in dispute. This shows in fact that you are bias and are vandalizing this page. This is childish and proves your ignorance.

Please explain and show proof with factual sources that support your claim for why the use of "premier" to describe the university and "world-renowned" to the Faculties of Medicine, Science, law itself and their research, professors, and not the institution as a whole, doesn't apply.

Please explain and do not vandalize the page further. You are contradicting your own statements buy force, which is against Wikipedia rules. Please consult the handbook.

-Anakinskywalker 14:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I already pointed you to the policy at NPOV. And please revert again after I revert your edits so I can report you for violating 3RR. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy No ads on Wikipedia. 19:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Spinboy Negations are in progress, vandalism is not tolerated. Please refrain from spreading Biased views. If you look at the history section, you have violated 3RR yourself. We are presently in Negations, you can take part if you are mature enough, and have valid, unbiased views, but if you continue to vandalism the page, your say will not count for anything.

-Anakinskywalker 16:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay I agree for the "world renowed". How about for the "premier" we put " one of the premier" in north america or Canada's "premier" instead, -Anakinskywalker 19:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Spinboy, do not vandalize the Talk section and delete out comments. Please stop this at once and be productive here. I'm going to report you the next time. You can report me if you want for the reverts, you have been vandalizing the Article while it is in dispute and also the Talk page as well. Therefore, according with the rules of Wikipedia, this is an exception.

-Anakinskywalker 17:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

STOP ATTACKING ME! --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy No ads on Wikipedia. 21:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Spinboy, First of all, I haven't attacked you at all. You are constantly HARASSING me as shown in your behavior by VADALIZING this ARTICLE, which is in DISPUTE, and by VADALIZING the TALK PAGE in the NEGOTIATION section. You obviously do not want to help this page so please stay off it and I will be reporting you if you do not leave me alone or stop the VADALIZING. All the proof is in the history sections which they will see what your are doing. There are people here who want to settle this, and we are getting close to resolving it. Stop at once to save your integrity.

-Anakinskywalker 17:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

If "world-renowned" refers to the reasearch done, please mention what specific research has been done that has gained international notoriety. Also, as a note to both sides, do not make accusations and personal attacks. Repeatedly mentioning "vandalizing", "sabotage", and "bias" is inappropriate as it is personal opinion of actions being taken. Let's try to keep this discussion as civil as possible. Thank you. -Nameneko 21:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

-Nameneko, I have listed relevant sources. No more sources or information are needed on my part. That is over kill. Search the web yourself. I have provided enough proof, and since you and Spinboy are disputing the page, you must then show substantial proof. But neither of you are wiling to do anything but dispute without showing evidence or proving otherwise. Therefore, if you can’t be productive and show anything at all and just dispute it, then you will not be considered in the process of resolving this issue.

And yes, "vandalizing" and "sabotage" include deleting information from Talk pages and the Article itself, while its in dispute. Also using vulgar language is not acceptable at all.

I am also re-inserting the unacceptable comment you made at me for the Admins to see and review. I have every right too. The following listed below was said by Spinboy

":I didn't vandalize anything, I was enforcing wikipedia policy at WP:NPA. YOU are being an asshole, and I would appreciate it if you would stop. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy No ads on Wikipedia. 21:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)"

-Anakinskywalker 18:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I recently checked your request for mediation and noticed your mention of having a dialogue with User:Joshuapaquin. It would have been very helpful if you had mentioned that here. I am definately for the use of "largest" over "premier" and I will agree with you on that. -Nameneko 00:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


Proposed resolution

OK! Let's try to cut through the above and make this a clean fix. On my talk page, Anakinskywalker and I have discussed the wording and seem to be pretty much in accord that, while "world reknowned" is something that can be backed up with citations, the word "premier" is probably not the best for this situation. So instead Anakinskywalker has cordially suggested that UofO be described as the "largest bilingual university in North America". Sounds pretty concrete to me. Comments? -Joshuapaquin 00:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, I wholeheartedly agree with the use of "largest" in the place of "premier". I would allow the use of "world-renowned", but the thing is that I think that concrete sources are needed to use it. I suggested perhaps an article or certification of some sort that the studies/research of the university is known outside of Canada. Even then, I would prefer "internationally recognized" or something similar. Thanks for your help in this process; it was really starting to get ugly. -Nameneko 01:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't agree with it being "world renowned." I'm okay with "largest bilingual university in North Amereica," but I think we need to define that bilingualism. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy No ads on Wikipedia. 01:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
The article states earlier that it teaches in both English and French, so I don't think clarification is really necessary. Is it alright to change that portion now? -Nameneko 01:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
That's fine with me. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy No ads on Wikipedia. 01:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I've changed "premier" to "largest". Now all that needs solving is "world-renowned". -Nameneko 23:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm also with Joshuapaquin on the term "world-renowned" is justifle for the faculties of Medicine, Science, and Law.

-Anakinskywalker 23:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, then I guess that settles it. Please add the source you find best-fitting for the comment and be sure to include it in the article. Thanks to both parties for at least getting this resolved and thanks to Joshuapaquin for intervening in the debating process. I also recieved this message on my talk page today:

If you still need mediation, please file at WP:TINMC. I'm sorry to say this, but every mediator has a case (two of us have TWO). The MedCab has good people too, and I'd say you'll do fine with em. Cheers. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I, personally, don't think that mediation is necessary anymore, since the major dispute here has been solved. If you'd like the continue the process for whatever reason, the link is there. Best of luck with your studies, Anakinskywalker!
-Nameneko 02:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Student News Papers

Why isn't there a link to the fulcrum on this page, or the french newspaper?? University newspapers are a huge part of what makes each university unique, so why isn't there at least a link, if not a section on the fulcrum and the french one (i actually dont know what its called... sad because i go to the school) and their supposed rivalries. I would edit this page to add them, but there appears that there is or has been an edit war and i just don't want to waste time on something which may very well be gone the next day --Diploid 02:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

There are links to both The Fulcrum and La Rotonde (and CHUO, too) already in the article. They're under the "Student life" heading. Note, however, that the inclusion of articles on student newspapers is highly controversial on Wikipedia; it's not universally accepted that they should have articles at all. Bearcat 05:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I'm sorry, but this article is full of pov biased stuff, and there's nothing in it that says the University is bad. Plus much of the stuff isn't sourced. Ardenn 23:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide valid proof that the rankings and alumni that you are deleting are biased? Prove your accusation. Anakinskywalker 23:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide proof that they aren't? Ardenn 23:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

(NOTE: The onus is on you, as the person making the claim, to provide the supporting proof. The onus is not on the other person to provide the evidence to disprove your assertion. This is how it works — not just on Wikipedia, but anywhere in the world.) Bearcat 07:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Here you go...

"As seen in the 2004 Financial Times global survey of EMBA programs, the U of O Executive MBA program is considered to be among the finest in the world. The University also scored a "Best in Canada" distinction across three categories in "career progress achieved by graduates", "calibre of program faculty", and "international component of its curriculum (ranked among the top 10 in the world)". Also, the Corporate Knights magazine survey of business schools ranked the university’s undergraduate program 4th in Canada."

http://www.media.uottawa.ca/mediaroom/news_details-e.php?nid=399


"The University of Ottawa's department of neurosciences is ranked 1st in Canada"

http://scientific.thomson.com/press/2005/8290754/

"2nd in clinical medicine"

http://www.in-cites.com/research/2005/october_10_2005-2.html


Model/MTV VJ Quddus, and he is Alumni aswell

http://www.mtv.tv/mtv.tv/dynamo/shells/shows.jhtml?article=30095436


Now you prove this information is false.

Anakinskywalker 23:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, the information is accurate. It doesn't explain how this merits inclusion in the article. Ardenn 23:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Statistical ranking is in every wikipedia University homepage. It's showing some of its accomplishments and there is nothing against the rules about that. So do you have any proof against? If not then the dispute seems to be settled.

Anakinskywalker 23:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the related murders, or the anti-gay St. Paul University of which it's affiliated? Or what about the sexual harassment controversey? --Ardenn 23:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Never heard of them but, I'm going to take off the Tag because the issue has been settled.

Anakinskywalker 23:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The issue is not settled. Ardenn 23:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Then stick to the issue and prove your point. I have, and you have not. So prove it or I'm allowed to change it since you have no support for anything.

Anakinskywalker 23:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I went and made the necessary edits, and removed the tag. Ardenn 23:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


You guys have to prove with facts. And we have already voted 2 months ago on the same information.

Anakinskywalker 23:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I backed it up with links. Ardenn 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


No you didn't, you 2 guys keep on deleting info you said was "accurate", so stop being biased.

Anakinskywalker 23:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes I did, the links are in the article. Go and look. I didn't vote on anything 2 months ago, I just joined Wikipedia today. Ardenn 23:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

When negations have taken place with multiple parties, and when it's resolved, it means Resolved. You keep on accusing but you don't have any proof to your claims.

Anakinskywalker 24:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I gave proof. You are acting like a little child who wants to get his way. Be civil about it. --Ardenn 00:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Calm down. No you have not. Show me proof the sources I listed are false. You said they were "accurate". You are trying to force your views when there was already a negoatiated settlement.

Anakinskywalker 24:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't do anything with your sources, I left your info in, and added info I posted above to balance out the article. You keep removing it. You could calm down too. I'm new, I don't understand how this all works, and now I'm arguing with you. Ardenn 00:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, you can create a separate article for your info and link it to the site then. Anakinskywalker 24:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That's not having this article be balanced. Why don't you do that for your info then too? Ardenn 00:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


Stop playing games with this article. I have protected it for the time being. -- Curps 00:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The article isn't neutral. Ardenn 00:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I go by on how the other University Wikipedia homepages are structured. For your articles, you have to create a separate one, and link it to the page. And you don't put it in the "reputation" section again, calm down, and be respectful.

Watch your language also, that kinds of actions can get you banned from the site. Anakinskywalker 24:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Then where, besides a seperate article, should I put it? Ardenn 00:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

There isn't enough there to justify an entire article for Anti-University of Ottawa. Ardenn 00:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Do not bite the newcomers. --Ardenn 00:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

That's funny, didn't you just do a personal attack on me? And you got notified about this? Please stop this nonsense.

Anakinskywalker 24:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I haven't attacked you personally at all except for that one comment in the edit summary. Ardenn 00:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


Ardenn, Why did you write this to me "I can change my mind. Now fuck off". You’re personally attacking me. Just because you don't have a case, don't resort to this disrespectful nature. Prove your case, or let it be settled then. Please provide with relevant sources, and descriptions, on how the sources I have provided are false, but you then you said that they were “accurate”, and you removed the Tag, and then re-did it for illogical reasons.

Anakinskywalker 04:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Question

Anakin, why didn't you just put those links in there in the first place? Remember WP:V. I'm going to head over to WP:AN/I and see what to do here. karmafist 00:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Do what you want, I have proven my case, and you guys don't even have any proof to any claim.

Anakinskywalker 24:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, as I understand the dispute there are a couple of issues here. First, some of the terminology used to describe the university is flattering and could be seen as 'point of view', but is backed up by citations and was previously discussed at length before settling on this form. Second, there are some negative press stories / events (sexual harassment, murders, anti-gay allegations) which are not included in the article. Plus the usual tensions which always crop up when people disagree. That about cover it?

Anakinskywalker, previous agreement doesn't mean that wording can't be changed, but it's good to point out the reasons that the current terminology was arrived at. The links you provided justify alot of this, but wording tweaks that retain the meaning shouldn't automatically be rejected. Ardenn, I didn't see a source for the anti-gay accusation in the article or on the talk page... what does 'afiliated with' mean in this case? Are they 'sister colleges' or do their rugby teams play in the same division? Have there been anti-gay incidents at the University of Ottawa? The criticisms need to be more specific and/or sourced. Also, the sexual harassment bit in the Fulcrum piece (written today apparently) seems to be a rant about poor website design showing that the university isn't really serious about fighting sexual harassment. Is there more to it than that? Have there been noted cases of sexual harassment at the university? Again, better documentation of criticisms would help. The article on the murder (just one at the university - others were apparently unrelated crime in the city) seems well sourced, but might be an isolated incident. You might want to put in a bit about crime in Ottawa for the 'Student life' section and mention the murdered university student there. I agree that a separate article doesn't make sense. The concerns you have raised can be merged into the existing text ('Reputation' and 'Student life' being the likely best spots) or added in a section of their own. --CBD ☎ ✉ 01:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This article violates WP:NPOV. The reputation and academics rankings and statistics are cherry-picked, and exclude non-partial indicators like patent counts and nobel lauerates. Wikipedia is not ad-copy. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hipocrite, the solution to your complaint is not the removal of information from the article. It is the addition of more information to the article. If you data on patent counts and Nobel laureates, that would be a great improvement! But there's no need to clip out positive-reflecting information just because negative-reflecting information hasn't been added yet. -Joshuapaquin 05:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Some of the information in the article should be removed, specifically the ad-copy. Hipocrite - «Talk» 07:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
If you're asserting copyvio, prove it. Otherwise, nothing in the article as it currently stands reads anything like "ad copy". Granted, there are sections that read more like a pile-up of factoids than an encyclopedia article, but this isn't a POV issue, as such; it's simply a matter of quality improvement. Bearcat 08:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
No, I'm asserting that "Located in the heart of the nation's capital, it has made a unique place for itself among Canada's best universities," "As seen in the 2004 Financial Times global survey of EMBA programs, the U of O Executive MBA program is considered to be among the finest in the world," "The University of Ottawa's faculties of medicine, science, and law are world-renowned for their distinguished professors, student achievement, and excellence in research" and many other promotional nonsense like that is UE. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
It isn't inherently UE; it just needs to be cleaned up for style. Bearcat 02:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
That's my point. It's not encyclopedic style - it is promo style, which is both POV and UE. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
The inclusion of verifiable reputation rankings does not constitute POV or "promo fluff". It is information that can be listed here; it's strictly a matter of how you phrase the inclusion. Bearcat 18:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Please review WP:NPOV, with specific attention to the section titled "A simple formulation." Then review this article, noting, for example, : world leader in research, it has made a unique place for itself among Canada's best universities. The formulation is not "something is true, here's evidence from someone," it's "someone says something." Also, "Shanghai Jiao Tong University?" Talk about "Undue Weight." Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty close to the last person in the world who needs to have NPOV explained to me. I'm quite familiar with NPOV policy, and am about as astronomically far from being a POV pusher as it's possible for a human being to get. Bottom line: you're taking issue with one sentence in a section that already has verifiable citations out the wazoo to support the claim being made. Writing style and POV are two distinct issues. Bearcat 19:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Take a step back, then, edit from the enemy, and determine if you are being objective. This article fails NPOV dramatically and with distinguished, world renound flair. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, there's nothing I need to step back from. My objectivity isn't compromised in any way; I had no involvement in editing any of the material you're disputing. Bearcat 20:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
If you're not defending the ad-copy in the article from violating whatever you want to call the policy that stop Wikipedia from promoting things rather than describing them, please stop defending the ad-copy in the article from whatever you want to call the policy that stop Wikipedia from promoting things rather than describing them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm perfectly entitled to hold a different opinion than you do about whether the text in question is doing what you claim it's doing. It doesn't mean I'm somehow defending something and not defending it at the same time; I genuinely don't see it as what you see it as. If you fail to understand the distinction between that and what you think I'm doing, that's really, truly not my problem. Bearcat 23:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
You defend the sentence "Located in the heart of the nation's capital, it has made a unique place for itself among Canada's best universities, as seen in some rankings from The Financial Times, The Princeton Review, the Gourman Report (which placed among the top 10 universities in Canada), and other International University rankings."?
You defende the sentence "The University of Ottawa's faculties of medicine, science, and law are world-renowned for their distinguished professors, student achievement, and excellence in research."?
That's what I see you doing. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
PS - let's be clear here - Looking at the cite for the EMBA program, we finding that it's ranked in the TOP THIRD of EMBA programs, and this is described as "finest in the world." It's not just POV, it's a lie. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
PPS - every single fact I go to check turns out to be spun - "(which placed among the top 10 universities in Canada)" - It placed 10th! Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
There's a difference between "defending POV" and "fundamentally not seeing the matter as a POV issue in the first place". My position has been one of those two, but your responses have persistently been phrased as though my position were the one that isn't my position. I'm not defending the disputed text; I'm disagreeing with you about the nature of the problem with it. The bottom line is: I haven't defended anything, I have no vested interest in the disputed text, and until you acknowledge that you're failing to understand what I'm saying in the first place, this discussion can only go around in circles — so I guess it's EOD until you can at least offer something other than the same tired misrepresentation of my opinion that you've been repeating from the start. Bearcat 23:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you agree that the sentences I have pointed out need to be rewritten to fit either NPOV or encyclopedic style? Do you agree that "placed among the top 10" should be changed to read "placed tenth?" Do you agree that "finest in the world" should be changed to "in the top third according to," and the host of other changes that I am going to make when this article gets unprotected? If so, then I don't care if you call it a POV violation, an accuracy correction or a style change. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


I agree with Bearcat. Hipocrite, all your doing is giving us the same old routine and you've been repeating yourself without any substantial evidence. This issue had already been negotiated, and solved with multiple parties. I'm going to ask for the Admin/Mods by tomorrow to deem it resolved because you Hipocrite,and Ardenn haven't shown any real proof to something that have been already dealt with months ago.

Anakinskywalker 05:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


The only two facts I checked ("Top ten" "finest in the world") turned out to be either spin ("tenth") or lies ("66th out of 200something"). Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


It's not "Spin", it's ranked 10th, hence "ranked in the Top 10". Ever written a research paper in University before? Because any Prof would deem that not to be "Spin" as you claim. As for the "66 out of 200 something", you’re way off base. The Finanical Times ranked the University of Ottawa EMBA program 65th OUT OF THE TOP 75 EMBA PROGRAMS IN THE WORLD. It also got the Best in Canada distinction across three categories in "career progress achieved by graduates", "calibre of program faculty", and "international component of its curriculum”, which ranked among the TOP 10 IN THE WORLD.

Anakinskywalker 10:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


Can you please provide good sources to back up your claims? I have proven my case with sources and info, and you guys haven't done anything. There is nothing false about the page, this has already been voted on months ago. GO to the TOP of the PAGE and READ IT.

Anakinskywalker 04:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


My points are as follows:

  1. A murder has no inherent bearing on the university's reputation. It's one of those things that just plain happens sometimes — it's happened at most universities in the world at least once — and for that matter, there's no evidence that the university itself is in any way implicated in the matter. If she'd been murdered on campus, then this would probably belong on the university's article — but the article says she was murdered in a basement apartment in New Edinburgh. Consequently there's just no reason whatsoever to act as if it somehow had a bearing on the school's public reputation, because the murder has nothing to do with the school beyond the fact that the victim happened to have been a student there.
  2. The sole link provided to support the sexual harassment issue, a letter published in The Fulcrum, provides little to no context about what the root of the controversy is or why anyone outside the university community needs to know about it. Having read through the letter five times now, I understand that the guy is peeved off at something — but the letter assumes knowledge I don't have: namely, what the hell even happened? And is there actually a real controversy going on, or is the issue being bandied about by an army of one? I genuinely can't tell from the letter. So it's not a suitable or legitimate external source to support the claim being made.
  3. You can't simply state that St. Paul's is homophobic or that its affiliation with the U of O has significantly affected the U of O's external reputation. These are claims that require sources to back them up. Is there actually a verifiable controversy about one or more incidents of homophobia at St. Paul's that have actually garnered significant media coverage, or is this really just a case of "by definition, a Roman Catholic institution must be homophobic, and so anything that's associated with it gets tarred by the same brush"? If it's the latter, Wikipedia simply can't make an assumption like that. If it's the former, show some sources.

And, for the record, both the sexual harassment and homophobia claims require at minimum a commercial media source such as the Ottawa Citizen or the CBC. One or two letters in the campus media do not constitute a controversy that impairs the university's public reputation. The controversy has to in some way be visible or present beyond the bounds of the university campus to warrant inclusion here. Bearcat 02:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Solution

Ardenn, do you have any proof to any of your claims?

It has been a number of days now, and even another user,Bearcat, has pointed out that these conflicts have already been resolved by multiple parties months ago User_talk:Ardenn. You seem to want this conflict to go on, but I am asking you again to prove your case, with sources, descriptions, etc. If you fail to do that, I will be asking the admin/mods to remove the lock and that the issue is settled, since it was months ago.

Anakinskywalker 09:10, 02 January 2006 (UTC)


You have not addressed my concerns. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


Hipocrite, I have asked you to prove your claims? But all you have done it made claims without any proof. These things were voted on months agos by multiple parties. I agree with Joshuapaquin and Bearcat by saying that

"Hipocrite, the solution to your complaint is not the removal of information from the article. It is the addition of more information to the article. If you data on patent counts and Nobel laureates, that would be a great improvement! But there's no need to clip out positive-reflecting information just because negative-reflecting information hasn't been added yet. -Joshuapaquin 05:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)"

and

"Reviewing the matter in the edit history, my points are as follows:

1. A murder has no inherent bearing on the university's reputation. It's one of those things that just plain happens sometimes — it's happened at most universities in the world at least once — and consequently there's just no particular reason it needs to be noted in the article.

2. The sole link you've provided to support the sexual harassment issue, a letter published in The Fulcrum, provides little to no context about what the root of the controversy is or why anyone outside the university community needs to know about it. Having read through the letter five times now, I understand that the guy is peeved off at something — but the letter assumes knowledge I don't have: namely, what the hell even happened? So it's not a suitable or legitimate external source to support the claim being made.

3. You can't simply state that St. Paul University is homophobic or that its affiliation with the U of O has significantly affected the U of O's external reputation. These are claims that require sources to back them up.

4. Other than that, you're mostly taking issue with wording that's already been discussed and agreed upon on the talk page.

So, in a nutshell: frankly, you haven't made a very convincing case that there is a legitimate dispute to resolve here. If there's a real and valid dispute, then the NPOV tag is supposed to stay on the article until the matter is resolved, but NPOV does not mean "if you guys don't like the stuff I added, then screw you". The tag can be removed if the dispute lacks merit. And to be honest, I don't currently see a whole lot of merit in the dispute you're raising. Bearcat 02:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ardenn"

You haven't made any case for why "Some of the information in the article should be removed, specifically the ad-copy. Hipocrite - «Talk» 07:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)"


You should go and look at other Wikipedia University Homepages, look at their style, because I follow the same type of format. If you Hipocrite, and Ardenn, can provide PROOF then we have something to work with, like SOURCES. If you don't want to help i doing so, then I will say again, " I will be asking the admin/mods to remove the lock and that the issue is settled, since it was months ago"

Anakinskywalker 23:26, 02 January 2006 (UTC)


There are other bad pages on Wikipedia. This one needs to be in the encyclopedic style. There is no compromise, and no need for me to provide proof. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


Funny how you say "No compromise", and "no need for me to provide proof". Because you have to do both, like multiple parties have months ago on this very same issue. If you can't prove your claims, this article dispute will be over very quickly. Please prove your claims, and you do have to provide sources.

Anakinskywalker 07:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia is written in the encyclopedic style. This article is not. I will fix this, and I will not provide proof either that wikipedia is written in the encyclopedic style or that this article is not. The first is indisputable, and the second is not disputed. I will, however, provide proof that you have not provided a cite for the characterization of the EMBA program, and that the statement "in the top ten" is spin, and should be changed to read "tenth" Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


Again, tt's not "Spin", it's ranked 10th, hence "ranked in the Top 10". Ever written a research paper in University before? Because any Prof would deem that not to be "Spin" as you claim. You keep repeating yourself and changing your claims. First you claimed it was "Ad copy", and then you changed your mind and claimed it was "Spin", etc., with the article. Make up your mind! These issues have already been resolved months ago between at least 5 parties.]

Joshuapaquin, Bearcat, and Me, have tried to explain to you some of the faults around your theories, and your lack of evidence/support. All you have to say is: "There is no compromise, and no need for me to provide proof - Hipocrite". Please be civil and conduct yourself with manner.

Here are the sources I have provided:

Gourmen Report Ranking:

http://studywonder.com/canada_uni.htm

FT EMBA Ranking:

http://www.media.uottawa.ca/mediaroom/news_details-e.php?nid=399


Anakinskywalker 10:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


I reccomend you get an AMA advocate at WP:AMA. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, let's see if I can understand everything here. Please tell me what I'm missing.
Hipocrite feels that sections of the article are written in a way that seems excessively promotional.
Anakinskywalker is concerned that changing those passages would be an unwarranted removal of valid information from the article.
Here's my question: Can we simply rephrase the information, without deleting it, in a way that is NPOV acceptable to everyone? To me, that seems quite feasible given the nature of the text. If you'd like, I'd be willing to go through it and make a draft fixup myself. -Joshuapaquin 06:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Write it up Joshuapaquin!

Anakinskywalker 06:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. However, the EMBA "finest in the world" claim must be removed. Here is the source for such a claim: "The results place Ottawa’s Executive MBA program among the world’s best 75 Executive MBA programs, placing 65th in the first year of its participation in the survey. There are more than 220 Executive MBA programs and close to 3000 business schools worldwide." 65/220 is 30th percentile, which is not "finest in the world," it's "middling." I expect you will go through each of the promotional claims and remove innacurate and spun statements to a more accurate, neutral version, like "top ten" to "tenth." Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Alright. I have requested unprotection. When that's done, we'll get to work. -Joshuapaquin 17:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
This still seems to me to be quite disputed, but I'll lift the protection since there also seems to be some willingness to give editing a shot anyway. If it doesn't work out, please list at WP:RFP again. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 17:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite, the page is in duspute, so don't go deleting and changing the sections in the dispute because of your bias. Respect the rules. Were in Negations!

Anakinskywalker 00:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You need an advocate. Go to WP:AMA now. I will make whatever edits I want to return this article to NPOV. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Multiple campuses

Should mention the other campuses (Roger Guindon/Alta Vista, Lees, Executive MBA, etc) Devon (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Greek life sections

I fail to see any relevancy for this section and for keeping indiscriminate lists of frats and sororities that have no established notability indicated (secondary sourcing etc). A home page isnt an adequate citation. I support removal. Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If we list them we should list every other student club. I find it silly to list them. The recent mega addition is even worse (which I, and others, have reverted). Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I already removed the section twice. Dger (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

copyedit

Upon request, hit this. Comments:

  • Describe faculty. Tenure, lecturers, faculty student ratio, faculty/administrator ratio
  • Describe diversity. E.g., First Nations.
Cheers. Lfstevens (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Established as Collège Saint-Joseph?

The Dictionary of Canadian Biography article on Joseph-Thomas Duhamel says the College of Ottawa was originally established in 1848 as Collège Saint-Joseph, and only incorporated as College of Bytown in 1849. Library Guy (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent Events/Yoga Ban - Administrative decisions

User:ElKevbo

Edit history: 04:48, 24 November 2015‎ UnitarianUniversalist88 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (89,201 bytes) (+1,094)‎ . . (→‎Programs)

Undo history: 05:57, 24 November 2015‎ ElKevbo (talk | contribs)‎ . . (88,107 bytes) (-1,094)‎ . . (rv good-faith edit; this is an encyclopedia article, not a news article)


Content I added:

Since 2008 instructor Jennifer Scharf had offered free weekly Yoga sessions at the Center for Students with Disabilities until a controversial decision was made in September 2015 to not renew the program for the Fall Semester. According to the classes instructor, Jennifer, the administration suspended the program due to growing concerns of cultural issues and the potential to offend other students. "There were some cultural sensitivity issues and people were offended,' says instructor."


I dispute this being a "new article" style update. Historical and current events have a place on the wiki for organizations such as this. I had attempted to relay it without bias. The only thing I see that could lead it being more news-related is "controversial" which it is, as it's being disputed and accepted. Banning Yoga due to current world events, while news, is also a documentable decision made by the current administration. Stating it is controversial isn't taking a side. As it develops I had intended on updating the section with current events.

So I suppose the discussions are: 1.) is the 04:48, 24 November 2015 update acceptable as-is, 2.) is the edit acceptable pending certain changes, or 3.) the entire event should be left off of the wiki page.

UnitarianUniversalist88 (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It's unlikely that this event will be more than a very minor flash-in-the-pan event with no broad or lasting impact. In fact, it's much too soon to know if this is anything more than a minor local news story that is getting overhyped media attention because of the current cultural climate on U.S. (and Canadian, I guess) colleges and universities. It doesn't really tell readers anything important. So until we know that this has lasting importance or impact - which will take months or years - it's just trivia that should be omitted.
(Incidentally, it's Bold, Revert, Discuss, not Bold, Revert, Revert, Discuss. You've begun an edit war.)ElKevbo (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Minor tempests in minor teapots do not belong in this article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on University of Ottawa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on University of Ottawa. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Latin name

I think the Latin name in the infobox, "Universitas Ottaviensis" was borrowed from the Latin Vicipaedia: no source was cited. In this case Vicipaedia also cited no source, and I think the Latin name over there was a guess, based on one of the three Latin forms of the adjective. I have now found some sources for the Latin name of the university online, moved the article at Vicipaedia, and changed the Latin name here too, citing a source, to "Universitas Ottawensis". Andrew Dalby 16:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Ottawa/Archive_1&oldid=1175399038"