Talk:Concordia University/Archive 3

Student Activism: Neutrality?
"In 2000, student groups [...] were extremely active in anti-globalization organizing. These groups mobilized students and associated community members in preparation for both the protest against a G20 meeting in September, 2000, and the protests against the Quebec City Summit of the Americas in April, 2001. The lectures, trainings, and conferences that led up to these protests also served to further radicalize segments of the student body that were already left-leaning, and set the stage for the heated political situation at the school in the early millennium."

Mobilization implies readiness or action, and is generally associated with postive, heroic notions.

"Lectures, trainings, and conferences" implies a vastly organized, legitimate purpose. Strange how there are no details on lecturers or training materials.

"Segments of the student body that were already left-leaning" implies a several large, left-leaning contingents exist(ed). This may or may not be true, but a statement written assuming it is, with no citation whatsoever, has no place here.

"set the stage for the heated political situation" implies that these events led to heated debate and tension. By whose definition? Who was affected? What did it change in the life of the average student?

Four dead in Ohio: this was a real political incident with undeniably widespread ramification on a national scale... Protests and rhetoric by a small fraction of the student body are not historically significant, or particularly informative of Concordia as a school, and do not belong in this article.

The entire section (with the above being an example) is gross exaggeration of actual events and uses language that glorifies the purported actions of protesters who may or may not have actually been Concordia Students. This is very cleverly written propaganda and has absolutely no place in an article of an encyclopedic nature. I feel it should be significantly cut down, or removed entirely, unless an interested party can dig up appropriate support in the form of legitimate citations/footnotes.

Italianmaaaaan 22:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy Students Association
There is an incoming redirect "Philosophy Students Association" that I've tagged with Template:R with possibilities. Would it be possible for someone to add at least a line in this article ("Concordia University") about this association, or determine if the association is not sufficiently notable for mention? If the latter is determined, I would suggest deletion of the incoming redirect via the Redirects for deletion process. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 14:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't see how this organization is at all notable. I'd put the redirect up for deletion. Fagstein 19:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Alumni: writer, or author?
it's a small discrepancy, but i noticed that this section uses both terms, and i think the article would benefit from a clearer approach. unless this has changed again in recent years, in academia in the 1990s the term 'writer' had become preferred to 'author' (a post-structuralist initiative). to contradict that, i personally do see usefelness in using specific terms to describe specific writing specialties, where warranted -- 'poet' and 'novelist' are fine to describe writers who specialize in a particular form. is someone familiar with wikipedia style with these designations? -- Denstat 19:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Order of TOC
this article has evolved a lot. the current location of the fabrikant section no longer seems appropriate, right after programs and before student activism. would others agree with me that it belongs somewhere in the history section, maybe as a sub-section? -- Denstat 09:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

New Logo
The President of Concordia University has approved a new logo, so it looks like we'll have to ask permission for use and update the associated logos as well. Here's the link --Janarius 17:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Notable alumni
J recently tagged this section as problematic. I agree. It suffers from a common problem of lists within articles: They grow uncontrollably and tend to dominate the article. Then there is the question of how to decide who gets included... and so on&mdash;a nightmare.

Often a good way to deal with this is to create a short summary with a link to a list page. Some university articles do this by having a section headed "Notable alumni and faculty," (McGill) or "Alumni and faculty." (U of T). I like the way McGill has done this and suggest we do something like that here.

BTW, eliminating red links sometimes makes sense with lists (my pet peeve is "See also" lists with red links), however, in this case many of the links are red because we haven't gotten around to writing an article on someone (e.g., Richard Monette ) I wouldn't just eliminate them. Sunray 17:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not put the entire list into a separate List of Concordia University people? GreenJoe 04:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly. That is what McGill does, with just a short summary in the main article. Sunray 06:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think your idea to separate it out is great, but I hope we're careful to make sure that doesn't give us leeway to just allow it to expand exponentially. As to redlinks, I normally do my patented Google News Archive test: if there are any hits, I'll leave it for now.  If there aren't, I liberally use my backspace key.  :)  I'll hold off until you separate the list out, if you'd like.    justen   06:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've created the List of Concordia University people and a summary section in the main article with the heading Notable alumni and faculty. See what you think. What needs to be added or subtracted from it? Sunray 20:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to cite sources. GreenJoe 22:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of the notable alumni are fairly easy to verify&mdash;people can check the linked articles or do a google search. It seems a bit tedious to have to put a cite beside each name. Would you be able to suggest a way of dealing with this? Sunray 03:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * All the lists that are featured, have the citation in the list itself. It's required. GreenJoe 04:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Developing this into a featured list will take a great deal of effort. However, it is certainly something to shoot for. I note that the McGill list doesn't have references. The List of Dartmouth College alumni does though, and is featured. I like the idea of producing a list like that. Are enough Concordia editors interested in working on it? Sunray 07:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * For a Canadian example, see List of Athabasca University people which has been nominated to be featured. GreenJoe 14:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Frats & sororities
None of this section was cited, so until it is, it should stay out of the article. The onus is on the person putting it in to cite sources. GreenJoe 18:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not quite. Policy says attribution is required for "direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". Are you challenging the material? --NeilN 19:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would think that is obvious. GreenJoe 00:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you need to say why you are challenging it. Your only point seems to be that it is unsourced. That is not a challenge. Large amounts of text should not be deleted from the article without consensus on this page. Until you can come up with a reason for it to be removed, it should remain. I will restore it now with an "Unreferenced section" tag. If you find anything in error, or problematic in the text, please discuss that here. Sunray 00:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that *all* registered editors are reverting this removal of content. Please achieve some consensus before making your changes. --NeilN 00:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have to explain it. (I am registered too, BTW.) None of it is cited, that's all I need for the challenge. The onus is on the editor who is reverting or adding the info in to cite sources. That's policy. GreenJoe 00:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The unreferenced tag doesn't cover the issue, because it may never be cited, and policy is that it must be cited. It'll never even get to GA without being cited. GreenJoe 00:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, not quite. Lack of sources does not overrule consensus. See WP:CONEXCEPT. --NeilN 00:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It does, and I'll start an RFC over this if I must. GreenJoe 00:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please show me this policy. --NeilN 00:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * From WP:V: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. GreenJoe 01:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * From the same source: Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." GreenJoe 01:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to have the information re-added, if we set a deadline for citations to be included. GreenJoe 01:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * NeilN has spelled this out pretty well and I agree with him. The whole article is in need of citations, so there is major work to be done. I wouldn't want to put deadlines on this. The work will take the time it needs. We are volunteers, after all. Sunray 01:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're a hypocrite. You removed a list of donors from David Suzuki Foundation over the citation issue. GreenJoe 01:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Evidently you have not read my reasons for removing the section from the David Suzuki Foundation article. I clearly stated my rationale that the section contained original research. There has been no argument from an editor that questions my rationale on that. So it is a very different case. Sunray 01:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I should add that calling someone a hypocrite (or any other name) is a personal attack. Please try to "comment on content, not on the contributor," as the policy states. Sunray 01:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally GreenJoe, why did you remove the wikilink formatting from the fraternity names in this edit ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeilN (talk • contribs) 02:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that wiki-linking, if they go to valid pages, should be left in, and the names perhaps do not need to be made bold. Ariel ♥ Gold 02:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've restored the version with links. Sunray 02:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking that whole section needs a good rewrite as the present writing style is not up to standards. --NeilN 02:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Sunray 02:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added references for most of the section. There are still some additional citations needed. I've removed the "unreferenced section" tag and will place "citation needed" tags, where necessary. I've done some editing, but there is more needed. Sunray 02:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments

 * Does the fraternities & sororities section need to be cited? 01:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone is going to dispute that not only this section, but the whole article is lacking in citations (see the tag at the top of the page). The question is whether a large section of text should be blanked from the article because it is lacking in citations. If it contained erroneous or libelous information, fine, but there has been no evidence that it does. From the look of the text, I would say that some editor(s) have spent a fair amount of time writing that section. It is disrespectful to simply blank it. The text should remain in the article and citations added. So far, NeilN,  Victoriagirl and I have all stated that the text should not be removed from the article. Clearly there is no consensus for removal of the text. Sunray 01:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why I started a RFC. GreenJoe 01:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Passages needing reliable, third party sources can be specified with the fact tag, but as mentioned, unless it is outright defamatory, there is no need to remove the text. There are a great many issues with some of the non-major university articles, specifically with relation to reliable sources. Most of them use the college's website as a reference, which is not a third party source. This article has 5 out of 7 references as university related pages, which should be removed, and put into the External links instead. However, many of the smaller universities are not published by anything other than the school's paper, blogs, forums, or school-affiliated media, and thus, obtaining reliable sources is rather challenging. For an example of a featured university college article, see the Cornell University, and for a good article, see United States Naval Academy. I suggest reviewing the standards at WikiProject Universities, as it will explain the headers, sections, etc., that are used to standardize university articles. As for the question of do each fraternity/sorority need citations, they should have a homepage somewhere that lists the colleges they are associated with, including this one, and that can simply be added to the external links, if desired. Unless someone can specifically prove that a given sorority or fraternity does not exist on the campus, I personally see no real reason to have to cite that they exist. Ariel ♥ Gold 02:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary
I note the the word "Meatpuppet" has been applied to an edit summary reverting my restoration of the "Fraternities and Sororities" section. I will ask the editor in question to withdraw his comment. Failing this, I suggest that he make his accusation in the appropriate forum. Victoriagirl 22:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The relevant policy (WP:SOCK) defines "meatpuppet" in the following way:
 * Some users begin editing on Wikipedia because another user has recruited them to push a certain agenda. Though such users are distinct people, it is difficult to tell them apart from sock puppets. These users are sometimes called meatpuppets, and are a kind of single purpose account.
 * Victoriagirl has been editing Wikipedia since March, 2006 and has over 5,000 edits on a wide variety of subjects. She is nobody's "meatpuppet," and does not deserve such abuse. This seems to me to be a personal attack. I think Greenjoe should apologize. Sunray 01:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at your two's talk page, it seems like you might be chummy, so no I will not apologize. GreenJoe 03:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What has friendship, respect, support, or "chumminess," as you call it, got to do with this? If you won't apologize, will you do as Victoriagirl has asked and withdraw that statement? Sunray 16:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As editors can't withdraw comments in edit summaries, I think an apology would be in order. I came across this at WP:WQA, and based on Victoriagirl's contrib history, it's blatantly apparent that she's not a meatpuppet. Please assume good faith and don't make  personal attacks. Comment on editors' contributions, not editors themselves. (WP:NPA is a policy, not a suggestion). (Also, in case you're interested, I've had no interaction with anyone here until now). Thanks, -- B figura  (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No. J 22:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of student activism section
The "disputed" tag of the student activism section is dated March 2008. Can I ask the person who added it to state the issues here so that discussion/resolution can proceed? thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "fastfact" :