Talk:University of Ottawa/Archive 2

rewrite to reinsert
The folowing removals should be rewritten to enccyclopedic style and reinserted:

It is associated with Nobel, Pulitzer Prize, and Peabody Award recipients and a Prime Minister.
 * This is spun. It appears to have awarded honorary degrees to Nobel recipients and Prime Ministers. Please clarify associations and reinsert.

The University ranks 9th out of 92 Canadian universities and university-degree level colleges in student enrolment.
 * Is this 9th largest in student enrollment, or is it retention? Size is not ranking. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The University of Ottawa's faculties of medicine, science, and law are world-renowned for their distinguished professors, student achievement, and excellence in research. The faculty of management also enjoys a strong international reputation.
 * I know you are desperate for this sentance. Phrase it as follows: "someone said something." - IE - "Ralph Shneerson said that The University of Ottawa's faculties of medicine were world-renowned," or similarly. This holds true for all other "reputational" statements of opinion.

Many of them have won national and international awards for their teaching, insights, and research breakthroughs.
 * Specific names with specific awards for specific reasons

Additionally, I removed all honorary degree recipients from notable alumni. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite, you can't do that, the page is in duspute still, so don't go deleting and changing the sections in the dispute because of your bias. Respect the rules. Were in Negations with multiple parties, so don't be bias and vandalize the page. If you can't follow the rules and play fair, I'm going to ask for re-protection.

Anakinskywalker 02:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, it wasn't a good idea for Hipocrite to start these edits right away. However, I find his recent edits to be fairly unobjectionable.  Granted, some information was removed, but this was information that was not substantively interesting (e.g. the fact that there are, in fact, employees retained by the university).  Anakinskywalker, can you point to any specific changes he made that you object to?  I really hope we don't have to put this back up for protection.  In the interim, I think Hipocrite's recent edits are net positive and should stand. -Joshuapaquin 02:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I had problems with almost each one. He's deleting and editing content that is in dispute, and other information. I just want to settle this through a negotiation where all the parties agree to the edit in the dispute. Like "change this word to this…" Not to delete whole sections, and basically re-writing the whole page to one person’s view. But he is just making these decisions on his own and that's not fair to the other parties. I want some say as well to what should and shouldn't be changed, especially since these same things were voted on months ago, that’s all.

Anakinskywalker 03:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hohum. You are POV revert warring over this article. If you find a specific edit I made objectionable, bring it up here and I'll discuss it. Your strongest supporter just wrote "I think Hipocrite's recent edits are net positive and should stand." Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 04:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * PS: Do not accuse me of Bias. Why would I care about this article? You landed on WP:RFPP while I was browsing it, I determined that the protected version was utter garbage, and I'm fixing it. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 04:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

How's it going in here?
Any progress? · Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 22:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing going on. This dispute as I see it will never end, and it will be only be a continuing edit war. Hipocrite, is seriously BIASED, aggresive, and does not want to compromise on anything, and is removing parts without reasonable logic and proof for that matter. I have said even that some of the wording needs to be changed, but not to delete half the article without any detailed proof with sources.

He has deleted almost all of the rankings, and for what reason? He doesn't explain anything for his reasoning, and just deletes them because he is biased. I stand by my claims 100%. He claims that rankings are "ad-copy" and "biased" without any sort of proof/sources claiming otherwise.

Here's some of the things off the article that Hipocrite, has deleted that were in dispute, or the majority, not even part of his claim listed in the article without any proof or sources to back up his claims:

1. "In 2005, the U of O won the World Universities Debating Championship by defeating the participants Cambridge University, Oxford University, and University of Toronto in the final. The contestants representing the university were Jamie Furniss and Erik Eastaugh."


 * I deleted this because I blindly reverted your blind revert of my edit. It's also totaly not germane to the article. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't agree, because Winning the World Universities Debating Championship is a significant achievement which should be included in the article. Anakinskywalker 04:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine, put it in a section. I don't think it's significant, but I don't care. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 23:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, but they why erase it? Seems Hypocritical of you, hence, your name. Anakinskywalker 04:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I reverted you, so it dissapeared. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 04:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

2. "The Institute of Higher Education of the Shanghai Jiao Tong University recently ranked the University of Ottawa among the top universities in the world. The U of O is also one of the most cosmopolitan universities in Canada."


 * I don't care what the Shanghai Jiao Tong University thinks - it's not relevent to this article. The second sentance is POV. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well others care so don't take the biased root there. It's a comprehensive ranking and the second sentence is not POV.  The University made the list of the Top500 Universities in the world.  To give you an example of the significance, Canada has around 92 Universities and the US has over 1,000.  That's significant. Anakinskywalker 20:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't accuse me of bias again. The ranking in question is done by a non-notable entity. Find a reputable ranker (US News and World Report) and use that. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 23:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well it is notable enough to be on Other University homepages such as University of Toronto and McGill, on Wikipedia Homepages. Also to make news in the Universities itself, so it's going to stay in the article. Anakinskywalker 04:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Heading to other pages after I'm done with this one. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 04:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

3. "the Gourman Report (which placed among the top 10 universities in Canada), "


 * I replaced that sentance with " the Gourman Report (tenth among universities in Canada), and various other rankers." Tenth is more accurate than top ten Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean, but they rank in the top 10.  But if you are will to compromise on other sections, I would be more willing as well. Anakinskywalker 20:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't work like that. My better version stays. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 23:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine, but calm down and stop being so aggresive with your answers. Anakinskywalker 04:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not the one violating WP:NPA left and right, that's you. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 04:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

4. "It is associated with Nobel, Pulitzer Prize, and Peabody Award recipients and a Prime Minister. "


 * Above I told you that I believe "associated with" actually meant "awarded honorary degrees to." Associated with leads one to believe they are employed by. I do not believe that is accurate. I told you to explain the verb more accurately and reinsert. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo;


 * Your wrong, Dr. Ann Duggan is featured in the 10th Anniversary of the Doctors without boarders article, as is one of the most important people who has joined the organization. And she was part of the organization when the won the Nobel Prize, hence associated.  That's what I meant by "associated with".  There's no compromise on this. Anakinskywalker 20:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Dr. Ann Duggan did not win a nobel prize, she volunteered with an orginization that did. She is not on any leadership council or position of special notability except for being in their glossy for volunteering, and everyone other than you and your co-conspirators are going to have her article deleted. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 23:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * All I'm saying is that she was obviously a big enough part of being singled out with a few other doctors of the organization to make their list in the 10tth anniversary, so she is no small potato. These doctors who actually go to help others in these countries are the reason for the Nobel prize collectively, not just the head that accepts it.  That why is doesn't say she won it, but she was obviously part of the reason they won if she is notable enough to be singled out in the list.  I'm not compromisng on that.  She was a doctor with the team when they won it.  That's why it's "associated". Anakinskywalker 04:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * She did not win a nobel prize. She is not associated with the univeristy. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 04:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

5. "The university also maintains major partnerships with government, industry, and international organizations to enhance its teaching and research programs. The University ranks 9th out of 92 Canadian universities and university-degree level colleges in student enrolment."


 * "Major partnerships" is ad-copy and for an encyclopedia needs explanation. Above I said I didn't understand what "ranks 9th out of 92 canadian universities and university-degree level colleges in student enrollment." Does it mean "Is the 9th largest in canada?" Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * How? This is a well-known fact, seeing as it is located about 5 min walking distance from Parliament and other Gov't buildings.  They have the 3rd largest co-op program in Canada and the majority work in the Gov't.  This is listed on the U of O's profile on the Gov't website. Anakinskywalker 20:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Then WRITE FACTS. "Maintains major partnerships" is meaningless. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 23:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a fact that the University maintains “major partnerships with the Government”. Read the Government source again from the top of the page with the sources.  Nothing wrong with this statement, it’s a fact. Anakinskywalker 04:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The source for your claim that it maintains major partnerships with the government is what, exactly? I don't see it. If you sourced it, the sentance could be rewritten to "X says that ..." Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 04:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

6. "The University of Ottawa's faculties of medicine, science, and law are world-renowned for their distinguished professors, student achievement, and excellence in research. The faculty of management also enjoys a strong international reputation. "


 * Pure POV. Both of those statements require a person who said so - as I wrote "John Finkelstein said that UoO's faculities..." Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This has already been dispute and resolved before with sources above. You have to prove these are biased with proof.  Show me something saying otherwise. Anakinskywalker 20:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have to prove shit. You will have to phrase these sentances according to our NPOV policy. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 23:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You do have to show some type of proof. Again, lay off the language and calm yourself down.  You've been warned already from the Admin about your aggressiveness.  The wording can be changed, but not to demean the integrity of the faculties.


 * Ever heard of the University of Ottawa heart institute? It is known worldwide for research and very well respected.    Also, the Universities law and science programs are considered widely to be among the best in the country. Anakinskywalker 04:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * According to who? You need to read WP:NPOV. You need to do so, NOW. I have not been warned by any adminstrator, and if I was, I promise you, said adminstatrator would be in the wrong. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 04:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

7. All of the Honorary degree recipients.


 * Are not alumni. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * These are honorary Alumni, and a separate section can easily resolve that. Anakinskywalker 20:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Then do so. Do not reinsert them. - Hipocrite


 * That will be done then. Anakinskywalker 04:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm asking you Hipocrite, to PROVE EACH of the DELETIONS from 1-7, and JUSTIFY YOUR ACTIONS with sources proving your case that you say these are all biased, ad copy, etc., as you claim.

Provide detailed descriptions with sources, and prove your point. If you can't back up your claims, then you reasoning for the deletions are seriously flawed, and can eventually be changed.

You have to Negotiate Hipocrite, don't be biased and claim that your reasoning is that only right one. Your deletions violate the "NPOV", and you are in the "Warrior" here because of your actions. I have said repeatedly that I’m willing to change some of the wording, but you don't want to have it that way. PROVE YOUR CASE or it can eventually be reverted if you can not support your claims.

Anakinskywalker 01:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ignorable demands that I do things your way. That's not how it works. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, at first glance, and taking only what you've written here, I'd say some, but not all, of this stuff is sort of not especially important. In particular, I don't think the article needs a laundry list of honorary degree recipients, if that's what you meant. Similarly, I don't think an encyclopedia article about a fairly large university should mention winning a debating championship. No offense. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 04:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the honorary alumni, but most of the deletions should be included in the article. I don't agree with you on the debating part because winning the World University Debating Championship is significant enough to be in the article, as well of all the rankings, because they show the achievements the university. Every university page has the various achievements listed, so saying that winning the World University Debating Championships or the University’s Rankings are not significant enough to be included in the article would not be a sufficient enough to not be included in the article.

A few things should be re-worded, but whole sections relevant to the university and to users coming to the article should not be deleted, especially when they are the sections in dispute, and you don’t provide any descriptions, sources and proof to one’s claims. If he does not want to explain his reasoning, and provide sources proving his claims, what does that tell you about the user? Sure I have had a few problems, but I have solved them through negotiations. Where as looking from Hypocrite’s talk page, he has a long history of conflicts with other users with edit wars, bias, pushing his views on to others, and aggressiveness. You can’t do what he did when you are in a dispute about the sections while in negotiations and not provide any descriptions, sources and proof to back up what he did.

He has to show proof why something shouldn't be included, not just delete it, especially when your in negotiations about it. I want him to go through each one of the deletions, and provide descriptions with sources, and to prove his claims, or I have every right to disagree and/or change it.

Anakinskywalker 07:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I can do whatever I want. You can either work with me, or you can say that I can't do what I obviously can. Your choice. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of Hipocrites recommended deletions and comments except for number 1. Winning the World University Debating Championship does seem like an honour worth mentioning. David D. (Talk) 17:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite, you are biased, and very aggresive. You have to learn to compromise and you have to prove that that the deletions were biased, ad-copy, etc as you claim. You keep avoiding to prove your claims. So, if you can't prove your claims, it will be reverted. You have to prove your point, regardless of what you think.

Anakinskywalker 19:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Every single editor but you agrees with my actions. Perhaps you are the one biased? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 23:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What is notable about a list of Universities from Shanghai Jiao Tong University? This ball is definitely in your court.


 * You say that "The University of Ottawa's faculties of medicine, science, and law are world-renowned for their distinguished professors, student achievement, and excellence in research. The faculty of management also enjoys a strong international reputation. " What does this mean? World-renowned to whom? Again the ball is in your court.


 * Why not deal with these two to start with and then we can m ove on to the others. If you can find verifiable and notable sources for these statements then i am sure no one will have a problem. At present they are POV until proven otherwise. Sorry that is the way POV is enforced on all the wikipedia pages.  if you find other similar examples where this is not the case then we need to question those claims too. David D. (Talk) 23:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm just asking what's wrong with including a ranking that was mentioned in the University of Toronto, McGill, etc, pages? If it's wrong to include this ranking, they you should go and take it off from every other University homepage on Wikipedia. Anakinskywalker


 * This is a good point and may be they should be taken off. The rankings are subjective. What do they actually mean? Some departments could be world class while others are dogs. You say that "the University made the list of the Top500 Universities in the world.", who says that is world class?  Sure there are 1000 universities in the US but how many are regarded as world class? Actually who cares, productivity and alumni speak for themselves. David D. (Talk) 05:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion this discussion has no much sense. If a university is “premier” or “world-renowned”, you do not need to say, but you just describe the great findings done by their researchers, the large number of students educated by the university, the history of the university,… in summary the facts, which is all an encyclopaedia is about. To give you an example, check the entry for University of California, Berkeley. Do you find adjectives such as “premier” or “world-renowned” there? But they have a List of Nobel laureates associated with University of California, Berkeley, 54 in total. That is a fact, and that says something. So, I would recommend you to do the same in this article: just stick to the facts, and the facts will speak for themselves. And I work for the University of Ottawa. Miguel Andrade


 * Firstly, those statements pertain to the University's faculties, not the University it’s self. Secondly, then why do most well known University homepages on Wikipedia have similar types information and statement? It can't just be one way or the other.  Then every page that has the similar bearing should be removed, right?  I'am sticking to the facts, and if you want to compare one page, to another, then you should go to McGill or Toronto, etc., and look at their page.  I do not understand what you mean by sticking to the facts exactly, because, the way you phrased is very ambiguous.  Both parties have to back up claims, from both sides.  Can't be one way or the other.

Anakinskywalker 04:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * But it does mean he is in a good postion to observe that you might be exaggerating your case. David D. (Talk) 05:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * These are good points. Good universities don't shout about it. I would also note that superlatives in an encylopedia are bad enough, but when they are based on rankings they become meaningless as most rankings are subjective and subject to rapid change. David D. (Talk) 00:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Then why put any University rankings on wikipedia? Do you want to go through every one and change them?  How about the McGill and University of Toronto pages as well?  Rankings are indictors, and not totally meaningless. Anakinskywalker 04:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No you're right rankings are not totally meaningless but it seems clear in this article that you put way to much emphasis into the ranking resulting in POV statements like this "this university is world class". Until you prove otherwise it sounds a bit silly and stands out as POV. David D. (Talk) 05:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a general comment to Anakin: The burden of proof is on the person seeking to include information. If information is unsourced, it may be deleted. You don't need a "source" to delete unsourced information. I hope that makes sense. · Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 03:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I know, that's why I have said repeatedly that these same topics has been disputed, and solved with negotiations months ago with sources. Read from the top. Anakinskywalker 04:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe the reason you have to keep repeating your case is that everytime someone comes across this university page they think the same thing POV. Did that ever cross your mind?  Is it possible that the negotiations have involved people giving up trying to argue with your POV?  David D. (Talk) 05:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think so, especially since the same dispute was settled months ago, maybe you should get your facts straight. I have provided sources above, where we have settled this matter previously.  Everyone in life has a POV about everything.  Documented History is a POV, and very flawed, so get your facts straight.  What do you think sources are for?  Just saying I agree or he’s right isn’t good enough.  You have to PROVE your case, just claiming something without any sort of proof is a POV, but one with supporting sources is a more logical POV.  Anakinskywalker 05:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll ask again, you're right rankings are not totally meaningless but it seems clear in this article that you put way to much emphasis into the rankings resulting in POV statements like this "this university is world class". Until you prove otherwise it sounds a bit silly and stands out as POV. Who says this is a world class university. Don't you see this hyperbole is not encyclopedic?  Not to mention claiming alumni who are NOT, as well as Nobel laureates who are NOT.  David D. (Talk) 05:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you know how to read? Where does it say that the University as a whole is considered to be world class? It's the 3 faculties as a whole, and that has already been agreed to months ago that is was suitable. It's also says Honorary Alumni, not Alumni; so don't lie because you can't logically back up your claims. I'm not going to repeat myself, sources are listed above.


 * Again, Just saying I agree or he’s right isn’t good enough. You have to PROVE your case, just claiming something without any sort of proof is a POV, but one with supporting sources is a more logical POV  Anakinskywalker 05:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure I can read but which version? And this talk page is a mess so it's easy to miss a point.  However it is irrelevent to the point I made.  It's still hyperbole. I don't have to prove a case it's your hyperbole in the article. Just present the case with the facts and let others judge for themselves.  David D. (Talk) 06:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think you can if you messed that up. The difference between claiming the university as a whole or specific faculties are world-class, are 2 DIFFERNET THINGS.  Regardless of what you and Hypocrite think, you have to prove your case with documentation supporting your theory.  If it was already voted, and agreed upon (SOURCES LISTED ABOVE), and someone is claiming otherwise, they also share the burden of proving their specific claim.


 * Just like in university writing research papers, you can't claim something without backing up your claims with proper documentation that refutes the others person's position. Your claims are illogical, and flawed. One more time, the sources are listed above. Again, Just saying I agree or he’s right isn’t good enough. You have to PROVE your case, just claiming something without any sort of proof is a POV, but one with supporting sources is a more logical POV   Anakinskywalker 06:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * My only claim is that the article is written in a style that is hyperbole. You do not see that you can present facts without hyperbole? I am not challenging the facts, I am challenging the way they are presented. David D. (Talk) 06:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Claiming is one thing, proving is another. We are already trying to solve which parts need to be cleaned up, as that has already been noted, but the whole article does not need to be cleaned up. Stop criticizing and adding fuel to the fire. Regardless, I'm going to repeat myself until you can comprehend...

Just like in university writing research papers, you can't claim something without backing up your claims with proper documentation that refutes the others person's position. Your claims are illogical, and flawed. One more time, the sources are listed above. Again, Just saying I agree or he’s right isn’t good enough. You have to PROVE your case, just claiming something without any sort of proof is a POV, but one with supporting sources is a more logical POV  Anakinskywalker 06:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You claim things are world renowed using subjective lists and subject criteria. If you are going to present subjective sources then that is fine but let others decide for themsleves. Your colour commentary is not encylcopedic. Why do I need to PROVE my case that colour commentary is POV? This is the standard for any encylopedia.  If you want colour commentary you should save it for your own web page. I'm going to give this a rest for now since I am convinced your next reply will be  "You have to PROVE your case, just claiming something without any sort of proof is a POV".  By the way you just admitted that your case is POV when you said "one with supporting sources is a more logical POV", did you mean to do that?  Isn't more logical POV the same as POV? David D. (Talk) 06:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

To clarify for you, so you will get it this time around, I said, "Everyone in life has a POV about everything. Documented History is a POV". Then I said "You have to PROVE your case, just claiming something without any sort of proof is a POV, but one with supporting sources is a more logical POV”. I meant that everything is a point of view, but we go rely on the supported POV, which are more logical, like evolution.  They are related, but different.  You have to show some sort of proof, not just repeating yourself.

Anakinskywalker 07:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Please review WP:NPOV. We do not go by the proven point of view here, we go by showing all points of view, and saying who holds what POV. Thank you. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You claim your interpretations of the lists are similar to the way the theory of evolution is the most parsimonious interpretation of the data. So now you are claiming original research too? I have no opinion whether certain faculty or departments or alumini at UO are world renowned.  This article should not have that opinion either.  Just present the facts.  Or, if you have quotes from notable educational leaders, then use those.  But for you to just assert these claims is POV and is not encyclopedic. You seem to think I am questioning your data. I am not, I am questioning your spin on the data.  My case is proven with the same data you are using.  It is not justifyable to use the hyperbole you write with the data you have in hand. David D. (Talk) 17:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * REMOVED BY HIPOCRITE PERSUANT TO WP:NPA Anakinskywalker 03:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "I schooled you with the evolutionary comment". You mean the comment where you proved your points are original research? Should I laugh or cry? David D. (Talk) 03:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Probable cry. You add no original research or thought for that matter, and just criticize.  I don't know what your "expertise" is, or how old you are for that matter, but your failure is quit evident.  It's must be hard being schooled by a University Double Honours student in Science, because I know a little bit about the evolution process, and other theories as well.  Even my girlfriend understood that statement.  REMOVED BY HIPOCRITE PERSUANT TO WP:NPA  Read it again, and if you want to stay something to me, post in on my talk page, because, this is not a battleground.  Read the statements I’ve made again, and post on my user page if you want, not here.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anakinskywalker Anakinskywalker 04:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh please, an appeal to authority? And what does a double science major have to do with POV anyway? Note that hippocrite agrees with what I wrote above i.e. "if you have quotes from notable educational leaders, then use those". At present the consensus is against you. David D. (Talk) 04:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but there is nothing that says in Wikipedia Rule that say that the ONLY source for proof is "quotes from notable educational leaders". Consensus has no bearing on a trustworthy sources if supplied.  I have read through the rules.  Unless you can show me where it says that proof must and can ONLY BE the SOURCE from "notable educational leaders", that is not disputable and a consensus has no bearing. Anakinskywalker 05:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Consensus does have a bearing on how YOU interpret the trustworthy source. It will be NPOV is you can quote someone saying these departments are world renowned. If it is your own interpretation then it is original research and POV. You're right, it does not have to be "quotes from notable educational leaders" but it would be more more convincing. If there are no quotes then just present the facts in the trustworthy source without spin. I know, I know,  I'm repeating myself again. But from your replies you do not seem to understand the point I am trying to explain to you. David D. (Talk) 05:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If I were an adminstrator, and not involved in this dipuste, I would block you for 24 hours for continual and persistant violations of WP:NPA. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 04:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the comment, however, he has been attacking me as well by insulting me, so it's a double standard.

I'm asking an Admin for a block on you for the perosnal attacks you are making on me 4 times!:

"Only if it has been resolved to the effect of "Hipocrite is right." Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)"

Anakinskywalker 04:40, 09 January 2006 (UTC)

Hiprocrite, it's time to get down to business
Hiprocrite, it's time to get down to business and start to negotiate and compromise on through 1-7. I was with my girlfriend all day, and realized that I would rather spend more time with her, than on here. So I'm going to list the ones, and tell me if it sounds fair. 1. It's been resolved


 * Only if it has been resolved to the effect of "Hipocrite is right." Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 03:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Excuse me?  That's a THREAT and a PERSONAL ATTACK.  You better watch what you say, those types of comments can and will be used against you.  This case is resolved.   Anakinskywalker 04:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I give no ground on this case. Unless it has been resolved by making a section for a list of rewards, then it has not been solved. There is no personal attack. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 13:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

2. This can simply be changed to "ranked the University of Ottawa among the top universities in the world", can easily be changed to, "ranked the University of Ottawa among the Top 500 Universities in the world", and then I will list the ranking.


 * No. The ranking source you used is not a reputable or notable one. It will not go back in. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 03:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Wrong, it is obviously reputable enough to have a page on Wikipedia, to be included in multiple University pages on Wikipedia, including on McGill, and Toronto, and there is nothing POV about it. Also, it was important enough to make news in the Universities itself. This case is resolved Anakinskywalker 04:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I will fix other articles later. It does not go in this one. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 13:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

3. It's been resolved


 * Only if it has been resolved to the effect of "Hipocrite is right." Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 03:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, That's a THREAT and a PERSONAL ATTACK. You better watch what you say, those types of comments can and will be used against you. This case is resolved. Anakinskywalker 04:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, unless it's resolved to read "tenth," then it has not been resolved. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 13:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

4. We can change "It is associated with Nobel, Pulitzer Prize, and Peabody Award recipients and a Prime Minister", too, "It is associated with Pulitzer Prize, and Peabody Award recipients and a Prime Minister."


 * Only if you can point to the specific Nobel, Pulitizer Prize, Peabody and Prime Ministers who are employed by the university. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 03:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have taken off the nobel part so I don't know why your adding that in, probable for effect. They are listed in the Alumni section. This case is resolved. Anakinskywalker 04:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Alumnai are not assocated with. The sentance is not accurate. "Graduates of the university have won" works, but only if you point to specific graduates who won specific awards. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 13:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

5. Can be backed up with a source that I will add, in the coming days.


 * No. It needs to either be a quote from someone or needs to be rewritten for NPOV. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 03:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * NO it doesn't, if an article is from a trustworthy source, it is relevant enough. I have read the wikipedia rules and there is nothing to the effect that says so.  If it can be proven with a trustworthy source, then deemed acceptable. Anakinskywalker 04:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No. You need to read PW:NPOV. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 13:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

6. Could be backed up with sources or rewritten, to reflect the stature in Canada. But either way, for the Faculty of medicine and science, I can back up they are internationally respected by it's research and researchers, in the coming days.


 * No. It needs to either be a quote from someone or needs to be rewritten for NPOV. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 03:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * NO it doesn't, if an article is from a trustworthy source, it is relevant enough. I have read the wikipedia rules and there is nothing to the effect that says so.  If it can be proven with a trustworthy source, then deemed acceptable. Anakinskywalker 04:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "It needs to either be a quote from someone" that means not your own interpretation of the lists but quotes from other people (possibly leaders in education). "or needs to be rewritten for NPOV" This means if you cannot find quotes then just present the trustworthy data and let other users interpret the data for themselves without your own POV. David D. (Talk) 05:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "Sorry, but there is nothing that says in Wikipedia Rule that say that the ONLY source for proof is "quotes from notable educational leaders". Consensus has no bearing on a trustworthy sources if supplied. I have read through the rules. Unless you can show me where it says that proof must and can ONLY BE the SOURCE from "notable educational leaders", that is not disputable and a consensus has no bearing." Anakinskywalker 06:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If consensus decides your interpretation of the data is POV you need to find an independent quote (The UO web site is not independent!). It seems from your edit history that this is the only page you have made substantial edits. If you had edited more pages then you would know this. David D. (Talk) 06:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you please shut up about this finally? I have said that "there is nothing that says in Wikipedia Rule that say that the ONLY source for proof is "quotes from notable educational leaders". Consensus has no bearing on a trustworthy sources if supplied. I have read through the rules. Unless you can show me where it says that proof must and can ONLY BE the SOURCE from "notable educational leaders", that is not disputable and a consensus has no bearing."


 * Which mean I will find a trust worthy source not part of the Univesrity. Stop spinning everythingand unless you can show me on Wikipedia Rules where it says otherwise, you don't have any case. Anakinskywalker 06:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You're being a pedant, the example i gave you of "quotes from notable educational leaders" was just that, an example.  Of course that is not in the wikipedia rules. You say that "Consensus has no bearing on a trustworthy sources if supplied." RIGHT, but your source does not say "world renowned" there is nothing to quote. So all you can do is say it was listed in the top XX.  You cannot then add the qualifier and is therefore "world renowned".  I am not the only one telling you this.  When will it sink in? David D. (Talk) 07:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have not even supplied the sources and will in the coming days, so stop making illogical, baseless claims. Anakinskywalker 07:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I read this, and again read what I have said: I have said that "there is nothing that says in Wikipedia Rule that say that the ONLY source for proof is "quotes from notable educational leaders". Consensus has no bearing on a trustworthy sources if supplied. I have read through the rules. Unless you can show me where it says that proof must and can ONLY BE the SOURCE from "notable educational leaders", that is not disputable and a consensus has no bearing."


 * I told you, it was an example of something acceptable, one of many. David D. (Talk) 18:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Which mean I will find a trust worthy source not part of the Univesrity. Stop spinning everythingand unless you can show me on Wikipedia Rules where it says otherwise, you don't have any case.

It does not say anywhere where you written that Wikipedia Rule says that the ONLY source for proof is "quotes from notable educational leaders". so whatever you wrote again have no proof to youe orginial claim.

Read from the "Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style", "Books,Electronic equivalents,Journal articles,Newspaper/magazine articles (or online periodicals),Web sites and articles (not from periodicals),Press releases". I have not even supplied the sources and will in the coming days, however, read the "Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style. Does not says it has to be only one way, just has to be reliable. Anakinskywalker 07:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you are trying to "find a trust worthy source not part of the Univesrity.". That is what is required and independent, reliable source. David D. (Talk) 18:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

7. It's been resolved


 * Only if it has been resolved to the effect of "Hipocrite is right." Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 03:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Last time, again, That's a THREAT and a PERSONAL ATTACK. You better watch what you say, those types of comments can and will be used against you. This case is resolved Anakinskywalker 04:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, a "personal attack," is when you called someone an ego-hungry monster. What I'm doing is saying that unless you have agreed to my point, there is no resolution. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 13:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Anakinskywalker 04:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 03:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would rather spend more time with her, than on her." Egad. That's more than I wanted to know! :) -Joshuapaquin 03:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

HAHAHA, that was a typo. I ment I would rather spend more time with her, than on here. Anakinskywalker 07:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

All right...
A) Nobody's getting blocked. Instead of hysterically screaming and spamming my talk page, just calm the hell down for a minute.  B)  If anybody actually makes a real blockable personal attack (these have to be extremely egregious), I'll be the first one with my finger on the block button. C) Start talking about the content disputes. Talking means producing sources and gracefully accepting that there may not be a consensus for your views (Anakin). Talking means also listening with an ear toward compromise when possible (Hipocrite).

To answer Anakin's points.

1. Debating championship doesn't rise to the level of inclusion, IMO, about a major university. How about chess, bocci ball and air rifle championships? Where do you draw the line? No.


 * We have already started on the compromise; this one has been resolved as in a favour to be included. It not just some silly pie eat contest, this is the World University Debating Championship, which has it's own page on Wikipedia.  Anakinskywalker 05:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Most Pokemon cards also have Wikipedia articles; this argument does little to sway me. Personally, I don't think it's appropriate. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 06:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Pokemon cards, and the World University Debating Championship are very different. The World University Debating Championship is quit prestigious. This one has already been resolved and to be included. Anakinskywalker 06:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

2. What is the Institute of Higher Education? That might be okay to cite. Shanghai Jiao Tong University is not.


 * They are infact the same things, and as I have have said before, it is obviously reputable enough to have a page on Wikipedia, to be included in multiple University pages on Wikipedia, including on McGill, and Toronto, and there is nothing POV about it. Also, it was important enough to make news in the Universities itself, and in the Media around the world. Anakinskywalker 05:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, most Pokemon cards also have Wikipedia articles; this is a weak argument. I must disagree with its inclusion. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 06:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, read this:
 * "it is obviously reputable enough to have a page on Wikipedia, to be included in multiple University pages on Wikipedia, including on McGill, and Toronto". "Also, it was important enough to make news in the Universities itself, and in the Media around the world."  So why can it be on every other page, but not this one?
 * Anakinskywalker 06:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Good question. How is it used on the other pages? Do they use it as evidence of world renowned status? David D. (Talk) 06:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have said go look at the University of Toronto Oxford and McGill University pages, if it's on there and has not been any dispute about it, then there isn't here. You have failed to prove why it shouldn't be included in the article.


 * It was obviously reputable enough to have a page on Wikipedia, to be included in multiple University pages on Wikipedia, including on McGill, and Toronto. Also, it was important enough to make news in the Universities itself, and in the Media around the world.  Can you prove all of my statement are wrong?  Anakinskywalker 06:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well it seems that the writers of the University of Toronto wikipedia entry just stuck to the facts. "The European Union published a university guide ranking U of T as the 23rd best university in the world, placing it amongst the top 5% world-wide ". David D. (Talk) 07:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I meant the University of Oxford, University of Cambridge, McGill University,


 * And what I wrote is a fact too, not a lie. Seems The Economist even found the rankings of the Academic Ranking of World Universities objective and liked it enough to put in their articles.  http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4339960 Anakinskywalker 08:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well it seems that the writers of the University of Oxford wikipedia entry just stuck to the facts. They also added a disclaimer to acknowledge the subjectivity of these types of lists. "Although widely contested (as with most league tables) on the basis of their ranking criteria, recent international tables produced by Shanghai Jiao Tong University rated Oxford tenth in the world.". David D. (Talk) 18:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

3. Gourman Report's fine; matters not to me whether you say "top 10" or "number 10."


 * I agree as well. This one has already been resolved.  I prefer however "top 10". Anakinskywalker 06:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

4. I have no idea what "associated with Nobel, Pulitzer Prize" etc. means. Seems hopelessly vague. If you want to create a "List of notable alumni" and include Dr. Duggan along with a short explanation about why she matters, that'd be okay. That sentence the way it' stated really isn't.


 * I agree. I will make the appropriate changes to reflect the importance added by Dr.Duggan which helped in the Organizations being honored the Nobel Prize.  I also suggested we change the statement from "It is associated with Nobel, Pulitzer Prize, and Peabody Award recipients and a Prime Minister", too, "It is associated with Pulitzer Prize, and Peabody Award recipients and a Prime Minister." They are noted alumni, and can be backed up. Anakinskywalker 05:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but no. It's just not appropriate.  How is the university "associated" with these people?  That they're alumni?  If that's the case, then they can simply be listed in a list of alumni with the appropriate brief context. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 06:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, fine. That's what compromise is all about. Anakinskywalker 06:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

5. I dunno about this "major partnerships" stuff. Most large universities have partnerships with business and government. So you need to find a notable way in which this gets done to include that sort of thing. Is there some notable way you can express this idea?


 * Yeah, but the University of Ottawa has the 3rd largest co-op in Canada, not to mention it's in downtown Ottawa beside the Government buildings and Parliaments. I will find the appropriate sources and affix them here in the coming days. Anakinskywalker 05:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay then. Say it's the third largest co-op in Canada.  The rest of that vague statement can be excised. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 06:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I did already, however, I can prove the rest with sources, so I don't think it needs to be excised. Anakinskywalker 06:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

6. World-reknown is too soft. Do you have ranking information? Maybe, a ranking of international student enrollment?


 * I agree, I've said it could be backed up with sources or rewritten, to reflect the stature in Canada. But either way, for the Faculty of medicine and science, I can back up they are internationally respected by it's research and researchers, in the coming days with sources. Anakinskywalker 05:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

7. Honorary degree recipients, I'm not sure there needs to be a laundry list. (How many are there?) Maybe this could be resolved in a notable alumni section.


 * That another thing I have suggested. It's been resolved . Anakinskywalker 05:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Finally, play nice. Comment on content, not contributors. · Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 05:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Why can't I interpret the lists and say the........ are world renowned?
Anakin you say you have read the WP:NPOV yet the arguments you make on this talk page suggest you did not read the two sections below. I have cut and paste the relevent points with respect to your comment above regarding quotes. If you wish to say a department, faculty member or the university itself is world renowned you need to cite a prominent representative of the view. There is a good reason why this page has been in dispute for so long. David D. (Talk) 07:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) WP:NPOV
 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

WP:NPOV But it's not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It's often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

Yeah, I read this, and again read what I have said: I have said that "there is nothing that says in Wikipedia Rule that say that the ONLY source for proof is "quotes from notable educational leaders". Consensus has no bearing on a trustworthy sources if supplied. I have read through the rules. Unless you can show me where it says that proof must and can ONLY BE the SOURCE from "notable educational leaders", that is not disputable and a consensus has no bearing."

Which mean I will find a trust worthy source not part of the Univesrity. Stop spinning everythingand unless you can show me on Wikipedia Rules where it says otherwise, you don't have any case.

It does not say anywhere where you written that Wikipedia Rule says that the ONLY source for proof is "quotes from notable educational leaders". so whatever you wrote again have no proof to your orginial claim.

Read from the "Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style", "Books,Electronic equivalents,Journal articles,Newspaper/magazine articles (or online periodicals),Web sites and articles (not from periodicals),Press releases". I have not even supplied the sources and will in the coming days, however, read the "Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style. Does not says it has to be only one way, just has to be reliable. Anakinskywalker 07:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And can your independent sources be quoted as saying world renowned. Thats all anyone has ever ben asking you to produce. An opinion that you can quote rather than your own. With reagrd to the "quotes from notable educational leaders". You well know that was an example of something that would be acceptable. Being pedantic and redundent makes you look like you are not trying to find an independent source, compromise or find a consensus. Is this how you always try and win an argument by baiting the opponent? I assume you don't do scientific research as part of your double major? It does not work that way in science. David D. (Talk) 07:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Listen, your excessively beating this to death. I have not even provided the sources yet so calm down. I have said in the coming days I will provide sources.

This is what they Admin "Kate" said: World-reknown is too soft. Do you have ranking information? Maybe, a ranking of international student enrollment? Then I said: I agree, I've said it could be backed up with sources or rewritten, to reflect the stature in Canada. But either way, for the Faculty of medicine and science, I can back up they are internationally respected by it's research and researchers, in the coming days with sources."

She had no objections to that as it would make sense that what I’m doing is going down the right way to prove that "it could be backed up with sources or rewritten, to reflect the stature in Canada. But either way, for the Faculty of medicine and science, I can back up they are internationally respected by it's research and researchers". Anakinskywalker 07:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. David D. (Talk) 08:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected
When editing going forward, please be mindful of the compromises that have been made since the article was protected. · Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 17:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Why? Mr. Skywalker is blindly reverting any changes made to the article. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR
I have blocked both Anakinskywalker and User:Hipocrite for violating 3RR and generally being disruptive in their editing. TALK. Don't revert. Anakin started off on the right track by modifying his edits rather than blindly reverting, though in the end both users were undoing each other's changes. I'd invite other editors watching this page to look through their edits and come up with some sort of consensus on which version is more proper. · Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 21:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Four options
In hipocrites style:
 * The Institute of Higher Education of the Shanghai Jiao Tong University ranked the University of Ottawa in the 203-300 bracket of top universities in the world.

In the UToronto style:
 * A recent international table produced by Shanghai Jiao Tong University rated University of Ottawa in the 203-300 bracket of top 500 universities in the world, placing it amongst the top 60% world-wide.

In the UOxford style:
 * Although widely contested (as with most league tables) on the basis of their ranking criteria, recent international tables produced by Shanghai Jiao Tong University rated University of Ottawa in the 203-300 bracket in the world.

In the style of Anakin:
 * The Institute of Higher Education of the Shanghai Jiao Tong University recently ranked the University of Ottawa among the top500 universities in the world . The U of O is also one of the most cosmopolitan universities in Canada.

These three options are based on styles mentioned and discussed briefly above. I consider all of them to be NPOV and would be fine with any of them. What does Anakin have to offer? I am happy to see what he would prefer. David D. (Talk) 21:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I accept all of the three top versions without reservation, and would be tepidly accepting of the Anakin version (without the cosmopolitian sentence). I apologize for my participation in the reversion war, and place myself on 1rr for this article after my soft-ban on this article expires. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 22:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I just got Anakin's prefered style from the main page. The last sentence "The U of O is also one of the most cosmopolitan universities in Canada." is POV. Who says it is one of the most cosmopolitan? Also what does that mean? The previous sentence is fine and i would be happy with that compromise. What do others think? David D. (Talk) 22:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hipocrite, I wonder whether we should drop the top 60% but leave the rest since it seems redundant. We should say it is in the top 60% or in the 203-300 bracket but not both. It might even be a good idea to remove the 5% from the Toronto page for the same reason.


 * "A recent international table produced by Shanghai Jiao Tong University rated University of Ottawa in the 203-300 bracket of top 500 universities in the world ".

How about this? David D. (Talk) 16:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that was the gist of the first revision I tried and am perfectly happy with that also. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ann Duggan a notable alumni?
Hey, I'll be posting stuff by next week, super busy. Also, I think Dr.Ann Duggan was obviously distinguished enough to have an article written about her in 10th anniversary press, and also being part of the organizatoin when they won the Nobel Peace prize in 1999. She was also apart of 16 missions from 1993-2000. I think there should be a page about her. Just saying.

http://www.smu.ca/thetimes/nov00/article_honourary.html

http://www.msf.ca/10/aduggan.htm

http://www.gov.ns.ca/legislature/hansard/han58-1/h99oct18.htm

http://www.med.mun.ca/med/medATmun1/articles/05feb/002Duggan.htm

Anakinskywalker 11:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but unfortunately her page was deleted per the deletion policy. If you intend to re-create her article, please make sure you cite the references above, of which I believe only the last one was there. It still might get taken to AfD anyway, but without those references, it will more likely than not be speedily deleted.  howch e  ng   {chat} 07:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I’m just proving she is a very notable figure with very good sources and will be taking the appropriate action to re-open this case soon enough.

Anakinskywalker 05:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not the place of this encyclopedia to determine someones relative notability for the purposes of calling them notable. Present the facts, and let the reader determine if the individual in question is notable or not. If we are going by the encyclopedia's determination, then Ann Dugan, whose article was deleted as a not-notable biography, is not notable by consensus. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 15:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite, your un-willingness to negotiate, and you constantly changing you mind is making this process unbearable so I will be filling it for arbitration or to the administrators board because I find you aggressive, and hostile, and biased. I have provided sources, where are yours???

Anakinskywalker 15:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I welcome, as I said, a user conduct RFC, which you can find instructions for filing at WP:RFC. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 15:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm going to contact administrators board or go for arbitration, your impossible to deal with. you don't want to negotiate at all. Anakinskywalker 15:53, 17 January 2006


 * I highly suggest you start with a user conduct RFC. It has been my experience that ArbCom will reject all not-extreme cases brought to them that do not first go through RFC or mediation. This has gone through neither. In addition, it is mostly a content dispute, which they typically reject regardless. Additionally, you might find the results of a user-conduct RFC to be informative both on ways that I can improve my editing and on how you can improve yours. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 15:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Arbitration is inappropriate; they won't take a case based on a content dispute anyway. Look, what's the problem here?  I really can't believe that everybody can't agree on a university's page.  I understand universities inspire fierce loyalties, and it can be difficult to see someone critique things about a place that you love, but really.  Take a deep breath and back away for a bit.  Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 16:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem with the way Hipocrite referenced Dr. Duggan in his most recent edit. What is it that you object to, Anakin? Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 16:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Support
Hipocrite,

1. "In 2005, the U of O won the World Universities Debating Championship by defeating the participants Cambridge University, Oxford University, and University of Toronto in the final. The contestants representing the university were Jamie Furniss and Erik Eastaugh." You voted “Fine, put it in a section. I don't think it's significant, but I don't care. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)”. So this matter is solved and going to be swtich back to the agreed upon version.
 * This is overly wordy. You don't need the names of the winners, and the sentence should simply say: "In 2005, the U of O won the World Universities Debating Championship, defeating participants from Cambridge University, Oxford University, and University of Toronto." Obviously it was in the final, they won the whole thing after all.

2.

I provided a source from The Economist ,who were using the “Academic Ranking of World Universities”, and liked it enough to put in their articles, and found it to be objective. So it’s agreed upon in the article but the 60% tile thing doesn’t need to be in there, and has to go.

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?

""A recent international table produced by Shanghai Jiao Tong University rated University of Ottawa in the 203-300 bracket of top 500 universities in the world [7]". How about this? David D. (Talk) 16:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)"

I agree, but it should be the "Academic Ranking of World Universities ranked the University of Ottawa in the 203-300 bracket of top 500 universities in the world [7]". That's fair.

3. For the “the Gourman Report (Ranked in the top 10 universities in Canada), and other International rankings.” That’s backed up with sources, and has been agreed upon. This is already in the article. This matter is resolved.

4. For the Honorary degree recipients, we agred upon that a “separate section can easily resolve” the problem and was agreed upon. This matter is resolved.

5. Back up what you deleted about how “The University ranks 9th out of 92 Canadian universities and university-degree level colleges in student enrolment". Why did you do that?  Any particular reason?  If you cannot suffietly prove why?  Also, the University is known as one of the most multi-cultural.  Unless you can prove otherwise, It’s going back in.  Also have major partnerships with Goverments as the majority make up the 3rd largest co-operative education program in Canada that the University has, with a 95% placement rate.

-“The University of Ottawa ranks 9th out of 92 Canadian universities in student enrolment. Source: AUCC 2003 enrolment statistics” http://www.report.uottawa.ca/en/facts_figures/

-Collegium Civitas - Private University in Warsaw, Poland "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

-"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

6.

The University of Ottawa faculties of Medicine are known Internationally. The University of Ottawa heart institute is the only kind of it’s own in Canada, and known around the world. The University’s department of neurosciences is ranked 1st in Canada, and 2nd in clinical medicine, in citations per paper (highest impact) from 2000-2004 by Science Watch newsletter, published by Thomson Scientific, which uses university science indicators to examine the research of 46 Canadian universities in 21 different scientific fields. The faculty of Law also enojoys a excellent reputations.

-"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

-Heart Health - Health Unit "University of Ottawa: An internationally-renowned institution for higher learning" http://www.healthunit.org/heart/default.htm

-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." 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

-"Canadian Law School Rankings". University of Ottawa ranked 5th in Canada. http://www.top-law-schools.com/canadian-law-school-rankings.html

-Also featured in the "Most-Cited Legal Periodicals, U.S. and selected non-U.S." by Washington and Lee University. http://law.wlu.edu/library/mostcited/index.asp

7.

Dr.Ann Duggan is a very distinguised member to the orgnaztion and part of the 1999 noble winning team and a member. I have provided sources and unless otherwise the shie is not Notable, then you have no case.

http://www.smu.ca/thetimes/nov00/article_honourary.html

http://www.msf.ca/10/aduggan.htm

http://www.gov.ns.ca/legislature/hansard/han58-1/h99oct18.htm

http://www.med.mun.ca/med/medATmun1/articles/05feb/002Duggan.htm

8. University of Ottawa’s reputation is regarded as being among the leading universities in Canada. This statement will be changed back unless you can prove otherwise like I have with sources.

-The University of Ottawa ranks 7th in research-intensive universities and 8th in total research funding in the country, receiving close to $200 million.

-Highlights of Some Distinguished Ontario Universities by on the Goverment of Ontario website:

"University of Ottawa:Recognized as Canada's premier bilingual university, the University of Ottawa was established as the College of Bytown in 1848. It is located in the heart of the National Capital, at the crossroads of French and English Canada. The University of Ottawa has carved a place of distinction for itself among Canada's leading universities through its 300 programs, 10 faculties, and by enabling students the choice to study in English or French. Its campus provides a vibrant setting for the exchange of ideas and promotes the cross-pollination of knowledge and cultures for its 30,000 students."

"NOTES:These universities have been selected due to their performance in the previous rankings." http://www.2ontario.com/welcome/ooed_605.asp

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

-"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

-University of Ottawa ranked among top ten universities in Canada by the Gourmen Report. http://studywonder.com/canada_uni.htm

-“The University of Ottawa School of Management is one of the North America’s most outstanding business schools, according to The Princeton Review. The New York-based education services company profiles the school in the new 2006 edition of its “Best 237 Business Schools” http://www3.management.uottawa.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=288&Itemid=121&lang=En

-“The 2004 Financial Times global survey of EMBA programs ranked the U of O Executive MBA 65th out of 220. 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.

I could go on and on. Prove me with sources either then you wrong. Anakinskywalker 17:53, 17 January 2006

Slow down
Don't throw a laundry list of 8 things out there and expect people to be able to come to any kind of consensus. Take things one at a time, please. Here's the first point:

"In 2005, the U of O won the World Universities Debating Championship by defeating the participants Cambridge University, Oxford University, and University of Toronto in the final. The contestants representing the university were Jamie Furniss and Erik Eastaugh." You voted “Fine, put it in a section. I don't think it's significant, but I don't care. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)”. (By Anakinskywalker)


 * This is overly wordy. You don't need the names of the winners, and the sentence should simply say: "In 2005, the U of O won the World Universities Debating Championship, defeating participants from Cambridge University, Oxford University, and University of Toronto." Obviously it was in the final, they won the whole thing after all. Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 18:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think better is my revision from 18:29, 10 January 2006 (and other times, multiply reverted), a section for acomplishments, which could be expanded into a large number of accomplishments. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I had moved it to the student life section. Probably inappropriate, but this is not a major thing with regard to the university.  I had originally left the names in since Anakin seemed to want them although I agree it is better without the names since they are not relevant with respect to the big picture of the university. I notice that he has also put them in the notable alumni.  Even with a Rhodes scholarship does this make them notable enough to be in the list? The article could end up being one massive list of alumni if we're not careful. David D. (Talk) 18:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

To what we have already agreed too, I’m not going back on. I have provided proof and this has been going on for almost a month now, so prove your side of the case now. Where is your case? Anakinskywalker 18:66, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you rephrase the above comment, please? I don't understand. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Read it again. You should understand, it's quit clear. Anakinskywalker 18:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually no it is not clear. What did you prove?  That it happened?  No one denies that fact. Did you prove it was notable? How do we prove it is non notable? David D. (Talk) 18:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The discussion is not about whether they won it. The question is about whether it is notable enough to be in the encylopedia. David D. (Talk) 18:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I did my part, explanations, with sources, etc. Now can you rebuff those claims with proof?  Mine would seem more legitimate, you are one without a defense. Anakinskywalker 18:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Proof of what? David D. (Talk) 18:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Stop anwersing my question with another question. I'm asking you guys  to rebuff the claims.  I'm one person, and came up with that.  So shouldn't you guys have something? Anakinskywalker 18:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no claim to rebuff. David appears to be questioning the notability of a debating championship to a university. I could care less, but think that it's best in a list. Kate thinks listing the names and the round they won in isn't encyclopedic. How can we post proof of any of that? (PS: sign your posts with four tilde's, as ~ Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me get this straight. You want us to find an article or reference that says the WBC result is not a notable event in the big picture of the University of Ottawa? If this is not what you are asking then you need to rephrase your question.  I actually have no idea what your so called claims are?  David D. (Talk) 18:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Three different people are trying to talk to you. This is not a debate where the last person to fail to rebut the other loses. Either you are going to have a conversation with the three of us regarding the best way to adress the debating championship or you just won't get what you want. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There's nothing NPOV about it, and it's okay and you agreed upon this already, no turning back. That's finished. Anakinskywalker 18:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Not so fast. No turning back?  This is a discussion.  Are you saying that anything said on this talk page is final?  The point here is to discuss the various options. That is what we are tryiong to do and you are not making any effort to participate. What claims are you making?  Why is it notable? Is it the only thing that UO have ever won?  If so I suppose it could be notable. David D. (Talk) 18:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Anakin, you complained on my talk page that Hipocrite was being aggressive and not negotiating with you. But with comments like "No turning back, that's finished," the only person I can see right now who isn't negotiating is you.  Wikipedia functions on consensus, on give and take editing.  Nothing has been decided.  Other options have been proposed.  How do you feel about them?  It's better to try to work with us to come to a solution that's amenable to all, rather than draw a line in the sand and say "No, it's this way and no other."  Now, what's the problem with the version I proposed? Also, you must realize that the burden of proof is on the person seeking to insert information.  If you want to say "Gunga Din, an alumnus, is notable," the burden of proof is on you to show that's an indisputable fact. The burden is not on other editors to prove that it's not. Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 19:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with I want? I have provided so much sources to back up each claim, and you guys just ask more questions?  I'm asking for proof.  That's it.  I'm not the one who is reverting everything on the talk page and Hipocrtie has violated the 3RR rule and you are obviously not going to do anything about it.  He is also stalking me where ever I go. Anakinskywalker 19:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll ask again: What do you think about the other proposals?  Focus on CONTENT, not on CONTRIBUTORS.  There has been no 3RR violation on this page today. Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 19:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't reverted anything today. We're talking about the debating championships, and the best way to include them. I think they should be in a list of accomplishments (that could also include sports titles and the like). Kate likes it where it is, but wants to lose the names. David thinks it's not notable enough for inclusion. What's your position? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Lets get some perspective here. In 1995 University of New South Wales won the debating championship. Its not on their page. In 2002 New_york_university_law_school won the debating championship. Its not on their page. In 1999 and 2000 Monash_University defended their title (unprecidented). Its not on their page. I like Kates proposal but lets not get carried away here, in the big picture this is a trivial event at UO. David D. (Talk) 19:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
"The University of Ottawa is ranked as one of the top research universities in Canada. It is well ranked by the Financial Times, The Princeton Review, the Gourman Report (Ranked within the top 10 universities in Canada), and other International rankings. + Today, it is the oldest and largest bilingual university in North America. The University of Ottawa is well ranked by the Financial Times, The Princeton Review, the Gourman Report (Ranked in the top 10 universities in Canada), and other International rankings."

"The University of Ottawa ranks 7th in research-intensive universities and 8th in total research funding in the country, receiving close to $200 million. The U of O also has the 3rd largest co-operative education program in Canada, with a 95% placement rate." --Ardenn 22:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

How is this POV

"The University of Ottawa ranks 7th in research-intensive universities and 8th in total research funding in the country, receiving close to $200 million. The U of O also has the 3rd largest co-operative education program in Canada, with a 95% placement rate."

Why did you erase that for no justifiable reason? How is that is that POV? Those are all facts.

"The University of Ottawa is ranked as one of the top research universities in Canada. It is well ranked by the Financial Times, The Princeton Review, the Gourman Report (Ranked within the top 10 universities in Canada), and other International rankings. Today, it is the oldest and largest bilingual university in North America. The University of Ottawa is well ranked by the Financial Times, The Princeton Review, the Gourman Report (Ranked in the top 10 universities in Canada), and other International rankings"

How is that POV also. Obviously the University is noted for it's research and it's ranked 8th and 9th in reseach in Canada, obviously shows their status as one of the top in the Canada, and for that reason you took that out as well. The rest of the paragraph is also documented by rankings.

Economics416 23:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't back it up with links to reliable, neutral sources. You make unverifiable claims. Ardenn 23:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Here you go.......

Sorry the newer version says the University is ranked 9th in research-intensive universities and 10th in total research funding in the country, receiving close to $200 million. They are among the top research universities in the country. Not POV. Simply stating the facts. http://www.researchinfosource.com/

"The University of Ottawa has carved a place of distinction for itself among Canada's leading universities"

http://www.2ontario.com/welcome/ooed_605.asp

"The 3rd largest co-operative education program in Canada, with a 95% placement rate" http://www.media.uottawa.ca/mediaroom/resources_facts-e.php

"The Gourman Report (Ranked in the top 10 universities in Canada)"

"

All the rankings can be found above. Now it's your turn to show some proof.

Economics416 23:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed changes
It would be great if we could address your proposed changes one at a time. For conviences sake, I have reverted this article to the last stable version. Please propose one specific change at a time here on the talk page and we'll go over it. There's no rush! Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 23:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

French and English
Shouldn't the words French and English be capitalised?

Rule 13. Capitalize words derived from proper nouns. Example I must take English and math. English is capitalized because it comes from the proper noun England but math does not come from mathland. From http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/capital.asp Tidied up.

Userbox Template
I've made an userbox for University of Ottawa students, staff, faculty and alumni:

To use it, put into your User page. ----PCStuff 04:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Power Plant
The power plant is not there to provide backup power in case of failure during exams... It is a Combined Heat Power (CHP) System, which uses waste energy from the generation process to heat buildings (thus is more efficient that buying energy off the grid and is used ALL the time). I can't find a "source" for this however, so I thought I'd note it here. Logically they wouldn't spend 4.5 million dollars for a backup power system though.
 * Is there a source indicating that the power plant is used for power backup during exams? I suspect this is an assumption.  I recommend removing that part, unless a source can be found.  My personal understanding is that it is used as an electricity supplement, with the main usage being heating/cooling of buildings around campus via the water pipes (which I can't source and so would not add to the main article either). RobCA (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as i know the Ottawa U had power during the blackout a few years back as a result of the power outages at the time. However for sources I cant think of it you could check the website. I would recommend removing the part, its more of a personal commentary that exams would always continue as a a result rather than a factual policy from the school.Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I just found this article: . It implies (but is not explicit) that the power plant allowed the university to stay open during the summer exams that were going on at the time of that blackout.  I'm still not comfortable including it without a more concrete source.  I'll remove that part of the line for now, unless someone really feels it's important.  Also, I agree with Landlord77's trivia tag.  If the info in this section is really important, it should be integrated with other sections of the article. --RobCA (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Expansion needed on "fully bilingual"
I'm aware of the touchy nature of this issue to members and alumnus of this instituion, and subsequently that politics has little place in Wiki content, however I think it is necessary to be truthful to the bilingual issue. This is much more than just a passing. The institution is not bilingual it is rather two unilingual institutions. The only even remote demonstration of bilingual that I have seen is Prof. Raincourt's activism class, which operated in both French and English. Furthermore, the President has been known to favour the francophones on campus in a matter that is unfair and only furthers the frustration by saying that the university would flat out hire a French only employee versus an English only, despite the fact that the university policy for bilingual persons in customer/client care positions is pretty clear.

Clearly, I sit on the English side of this debate, which I precisely why I don't feel equipped to pen this addition or clarification, and why I'm bringing it up here.

It boils down to this: the "fully bilingual" insitituion that exists here is about as coherent as the fully bilingual Canada some might like to beleive exists. There is a pretty strong line that defines who fits into the fully bilingual category, and who is wholeheartedly against English or French in Canada (ala Quebec Separatists or Alberta oil tycoons [yes, i'm aware this is a blanket statement/gross stereotype, but i'm using it to illustrate a point]). The reason why I'm making this link is because the University of Ottawa image/identity is very similar to that of a Canadian. Fragile, at best.

On the note of the English memo trying to recruit anglophones, a bit more clarity is needed to that, perhaps say the uproar that resulted from all points of the institution, including French and English students (as separate groups) and the administrative action/comments that resulted.

Anyhow, hopefully I've stirred the pot a little bit, quite interested in what everyone has to say about this. (and, I'm not hiding, I just dont have a wiki account.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.72.57 (talk • contribs)


 * It's not expanded because the article has to remain neutral, and anything added has to be verifiable and carefully cited with sources. Ardenn 17:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources need updates. All metronews sources are voided and unavailable.


 * Talk about arrogance! This kind of attitude is exactly what ticks off francophones. The whole section on bilinguism refers and promote only the anglophone community's perspective without any source. The given statistics have no source or verification, don't mention anything about the historical majority of francophone vs the recent majority of anglophones while putting little or no emphasis on the enormous lack of classes offered in french in most departments. None of the arguments provided by the french community have been put forward while pleading for the anglophone side and treated as facts. That section is an insult to the legitimacy of the debate and the reputation of an university.


 * The 'bilingual' status is a mock and a joke especially when you look at the amount of class offered in both language. For the department of economics, only one class was offered in french while 7 classes were provided in english. Ingeenering departments offer most classes only in english while the fledging french taught classes are not sufficient.


 * There could be something added about the University's recent announcement that it will be creating a body to examine the question of bilingualism in response to some of the complaints that have been brought to their attention. Other than that, bilingualism gripes are just that . . . gripes.


 * You can read the university's regulation on bilingualism here . It clearly states that French and English are the official languages of the university and that the institution must “further bilingualism and biculturalism and preserve and develop French culture in Ontario”; therefore the wikipedia article should reflect and respect this. Trappy

Removed outdated sources, changed text to reflect a neutral point of view and provide a more fact-based and encyclopedic entry. Francois8

I completely agree with this point of view i think it reflects the university better

Weasel words
"The University of Ottawa ranks 7th in research-intensive universities and 8th in total research funding in the country, receiving close to $200 million. The U of O also has the 3rd largest co-operative education program in Canada, with a 95% placement rate." Ardenn 04:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Endowement?
In this article, it says that UOttawa has over a billion, but according to the Group of Thirteen (Canadian universities) article, Uottawa has only around 60 million.
 * Its endowment is not close to a billion. The only university in Canada receiving over a billion is UofT. This needs to be changed. This whole article is full of selective puffery - someone with illusions of grandeur wrote it. While the University of Ottawa is a high-calibre academic institution which is well known for CERTAIN programs, this article makes it seem as though it is the BEST school in Canada. However; the statistics (a variety of statistics) don't give the same perception. The article should be edited to represent a more un-bias, accurate point of view.--74.98.113.160 01:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Largest bilingual university in North America
Reverted, I think it's verifiable, unless you disagree with Hilary Weston    -- Samir     (the scope)   धर्म  06:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not NPOV. We've already had this discussion. Read the archives.  Ardenn  06:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I read them. Couldn't find the consensus. --  Samir  [[Image:Canadian maple leaf 2.jpg|20px]]   (the scope)   धर्म  06:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The consensus is that it doesn't belong in the article. I argued with a troll over this, I'm not going to argue over it again. If I have to, I'll slap an NPOV tag on the article, again.  Ardenn  06:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of the past history. I personally see no POV in saying that it is the largest bilingual university in North America, and I see enough WP:V for it, which is why I made the reversion.  But if the consensus was as you mentioned, then I won't argue with it.  --  Samir  [[Image:Canadian maple leaf 2.jpg|20px]]   (the scope)   धर्म  06:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As was mentioned somewhere before, you don't see a lot of boasting over at Harvard University so why is it needed here?  Ardenn  06:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There's also other info there that isn't verified. Don't assume I meant the first paragraph put in.  Ardenn  06:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Guys, u can check out all the info at University of Ottawa Website. All the facts are right there.Darylm 06:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NPOV. It's up to you to cite reliable sources, not us.  Ardenn  06:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I slapped an NPOV tag on the page. Ardenn 06:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I added a link http://www.media.uottawa.ca/mediaroom/resources_facts-e.php, now can u remove the tag. Darylm 06:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That doesn't cut the mustard. You have to show each and every case where it applies.  Ardenn  06:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

ok, i added a link in the first para Darylm 06:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, it verifies it, but doesn't take care of the neutrality of the article.  Ardenn  06:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, i added a few more links, check it out. Darylm 06:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you verify...
"The average entering grade for the University of Ottawa admissions this past fall semester was 84%, and increases for limited enrolment and more popular programs such as criminology, political science, law, pure sciences, health sciences, biopharmaceutical sciences, and medicine." Ardenn 06:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't -- Samir  [[Image:Canadian maple leaf 2.jpg|20px]]   (the scope)   धर्म  06:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

POV
How is it not neutral??? All the sources have been cited. Aloha1212 17:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * POV != verified. Read WP:NPOV. I have reported you at WP:AN/I for removing the POV tag.  Ardenn  17:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoa there, if we're going to be throwing around policy pages, let's try to remember WP:FAITH too. -Joshuapaquin 18:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I also don't see the point of the POV tag, and I see no consensus at all in the archives on anything. Reporting users to AN/I will not achieve consensus.  I intend to seek consensus here, else straw poll it.  Also, I'd appreciate if the Faculty of Medicine - University of Ottawa link not be reverted without discussion. --  Samir  [[Image:Canadian maple leaf 2.jpg|20px]]   (the scope)   धर्म  02:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

GA failure
This has failed Good Article status. There are lots of lists and not enough prose. The references are not cited properly and there is a citation tag. Many of the statements are unverified. Many headings are in caps for each word. It needs a fair amount of work.Rlevse 18:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

What about Tom?
Is Tom Green not notable?
 * Is he an alumnus? According to the article on Tom Green he attended Algonquin College and had a radio program on the U of O radio station. There's nothing saying he was a U of O student. Canadiana 17:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Peter Jennings?
Is there a source for Peter Jennings being a notable alumnus? The only place I can find is IMDb.com. All other sources say he briefly attended Carleton University and one source called it "Carleton University of Ottawa"... maybe he was mistakingly placed on UofO's list? Ltig3 22:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

He did actually did also attend the University of Ottawa briefly. Here's the link. http://www.halifaxlive.com/artman/publish/jennings_080805_7712.shtml

Cosmos416 18:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Hadn't seen that link. Ltig3 15:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Reputation section biased?
I think the reputation area needs to be revamped. Stating that the U of O is "well ranked" in some ranking publications is a little vague, deceiving and ambiguous. This is an encyclopedia. We're looking for facts, not opinions. That's why we use citations here. --Buffer v2 01:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

PROBLEM
The endowment is much lower than 1.87 billion Jifdjng 18:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

True That! 4fdf323 20:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Strange contribution
A recent international table produced by Shanghai Jiao Tong University rated University of Ottawa in the 200 bracket of top 50 universities in the world, placing it amongst the top 6% world-wide.

What the heck does that mean being in the 200 bracket of the top 50 Oo. ? Esurnir 22:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A bit new to wikipedia so dont know quite how to refernce my source, anyway looking into universities for grad studies i consulted Times Higher Education Supplement a UK site which ranks universities internationally, anyway the University of Ottawa is not in their top 200 where a few other canadain universities are. A subscription is necessary but you can use a free trial to view the rankings (see http://www.thes.co.uk/ ). Shanghai Jiao Tong University is just a univesity doing a ranking of other Universities.

This article needs work
The "reputation" section seems to have been copied directly from the university's promotional material. It comes across as somewhat defensive, and one-sided. It summarizes every positive review published about the U of O, but omits all negative ones. As a student of the U of O, I am somewhat biased, but the school's reputation is not that spectacular.

The section on the bilingual controversy reads like it was written by someone with multiple personality disorder. Rather than no point of view, there are two distinct, and very narrow points of view. The real issue is far too complex to be written in a single paragraph by a few people with chips on their shoulder. Being a bilingual institution creates a whole host of issues. What the article lacks is a wholistic approach to the effects of bilingualism on all aspects of the university's existence.

Currently the article focuses entirely on why the school doesn't suck, and the conflict between french and english. There's a lot more to the U of O than that, and I encourage anyone with good info to contribute.

As a side-note, I'd like to vent about my own personal chip on my shoulder. A problem that I've experienced is the large number of courses being taught in english by professors who cannot speak english. Some of these are francophone professors that are hired as "bilingual" professors despite not being able to speak english, while others cannot speak either english or french very well. Either way, they cannot speak the language of instruction well enough to convey the subject matter, make their expectations clear, or even answer simple questions. My own personal experience doesn't belong in the article, but it's an issue that is a real problem for the university.

--70.81.251.32 09:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the reputation part stating that the school continues to perform well in Maclean's rankings has been removed. Totally biased and deceiving.  It fails to mention their overall rank, and the word "well" is ambiguous.  This is an encyclopedia.  We're not looking for bias.  Factual information only.  Also, people need to watch their choice of words.  E.g. the school continues to perform "well" in Maclean's rankings, and describing the G13 as the "top" universities in Canada.  This article needs A LOT of work.  --68.145.246.117 05:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at it, the whole Reputation section needs to be revamped. Horribly done --68.145.246.117 05:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The reputation section certainly does need work - as a student at Ottawa U in arts I'm pretty disappointed to see that the reputation section only talks about Ottawa U's excellent science/medicine reputation without counterbalancing with its fairly abysmal treatment of arts. Arianna 14:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Should there even be a standalone reputation section to begin with? Again, I'm looking at other wikipedia university entries as guidance, particularly those that attained GA/FA status. I think there's room for some of the information, but probably more as a supplement to other sections of the article. --RobCA (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:University of Ottawa Logo.gif
Image:University of Ottawa Logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Last edit
There was deletion about a year 2005 debate competition. If it was deleted because it was three years ago, that's not a good reason. If it is too trivial, say so and I would agree because I don't know better. Else if there is another reason why the mention is inappropriate say so. Thanks Radio Guy (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I looked at the heading and it says trivia... is there a rule about truvia? Radio Guy (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Just it creates a biased argument about the university theres alot on this page of claims of grandeur with little source baking it up. your right it should be in there however it should also be noted that the championship was not defended. As well if this was further elaborated we could mention as trivia that the university of Toronto won the following year giving canada back to back championships perhaps thats a better thing and maybe it does belong in trivia rather than reputation, what do you think Ottawa4ever (talk) 06:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

THES
The primary reason this article has lost good article status is that people paint a biased picture oif the university when this stops this article will be able to achieve that. Its biggest weakness is the false picture of rankings it paints. I think the THES reference is necessary and gives the article two sides of the coin. especially considering both a good and quasi negative reputation is compared in the paragraph. If the sentance could be reworded id suggest we put in its actual ranking in the world which is between 200-230. In fact about 14 schools rank higher in this list. 14 is still respectful. But the plain fact is this is the most recongnized ranking system and the top 200 are published in the magazine (500 on the web) Ottawa did not make this ranking. Im open to fixing this if theres interest Sayswho (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Student Code of Conduct
Does this need its own section, or can we merge it with Student Life? I know it's a pretty big deal on campus at the moment, but it's still a proposed code that hasn't been implemented yet, so I'm not sure how significant it is to have here. I'm looking towards other university wikipedia entries as an example. If nobody objects, I'll merge it with Student Life for the time being. --RobCA (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've integrated this with the Student life section. I'm having trouble trying to present the facts while keeping it NPOV.  Any feedback would be appreciated, thanks. --RobCA (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, if somebody can find a source for the statement that the Board of Governors and Senate meeting events lead to the code, please add them. Otherwise that line should probably be removed. Thanks. --RobCA (talk) 01:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

My belief is after a year or so this will blow over and wont necissarily be relevant in a few semesters. Other schools have a student code of conduct that is continually evolving based on events that occur on campus (Queens U recently updated theirs to reflect students using racist and prejudice remarks), it just allows the school to better handle these situations. Ottawa U is about people bad mouthing the university. Theres other things in there but i dont see how (I may be wrong) that its going to be releveant to mention here down the road since many universities have simillar things going on. It may be intersting to compare the code with other schools and see if anything 'standsout' that might make it more relevant, but agian might not justify its own section, more of a student life thing. Your call. You might be able to find board minutes as well for a source they should be assessible, but might require a bit more reading Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that it probably will be forgotten in a few years time and probably doesn't belong on here in the first place. But for now, there are so many other problems with this article, I don't feel like worrying too much about defending its inclusion or not with those who feel strongly about it at the moment.  I'll leave it for now and worry more about the lack of sources and formatting issues in the rest of the article.  Thanks for the insight.  --RobCA (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Academics and Research sections
The Academics section needs to be cleaned up, it reads like a list of faculties. I'm thinking that we can probably move some of the Reputation section content to the Academics and Research sections and potentially eliminate the Reputation section altogether. My main concern is keeping it NPOV, as has been mentioned many times in the talk pages over the years. Any thoughts on this before I spend the time on it? --RobCA (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems like an eye sore on the page, especially since most of the links to the faculties are dead at the moment. Its a good idea to mix academics/ research with rep( it basically is reputation). but from what i remember theirs alot of little splices about reputation throughout the article maybe we can move them into one section all together as well? The biggest concern though is not to make the section appear biased. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's a mess and I'm having trouble deciding where to start. I can't even find sources for some of the claims which means they'll probably eventually be removed unless someone can find them.  I honestly don't even want to look at the academics section right now.  The bilingualism section could probably do with a complete overhaul too at some point (I really don't know where to start with that one).  --RobCA (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Gourman report
The Gourman report has been a heavily critized document for evaluating universities. This primarily due to its ranking of non existant deparments at universities and not disclosing the methodology for making these evaluations. I for one am willing to go side for its inclusion. But i think a few things must be considered before we include it. the first being it needs to be sourced ie what year it appeared in that ranking not simply presented as such. Secondly the fact should be included in the reputation section and not the introduction, as yes its cited by some universities but its not entirly a credible ranking service. Above all The focal point of this article which has been stressed above is that in the past it has been very biased, and greatly needs to be improved, which can easily be acheived by removing unsourced claims or accurately citing them.

As far as I can tell looking for a source of my own the last time the gourman report was published was 1996. (this is a claim from another wikipedia article on University rankings. Indeed if the ranking is 12 years old inclusion should not be made as ottawaU has significantly like other schools changed since then. There may be a newer source. take care and happy editing Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for including the source on the university of ottawa page for the gourman report. However do you think you could find a more recent source than something from 1998? Im for placing it in but rankings that old really arent that relevant and crediable as universities under go alot of change over 10 years. Thanks Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Is the Gourman report really that relevant to this article? First of all, it's about 10 years old. Second of all, according to the very limited resources I found regarding it online, it doesn't appear to be that highly regarded due to the methodology.  Thirdly, if you go to the root of the domain hosting that source, the site itself doesn't instill a lot of confidence.  Is it really that important to include a reference to something that's so out of date and is questionable in value?  Or did I miss the boat on the importance of this ranking?  Maybe include it in the reputation section but I'm not sure it belongs at the top of the article. RobCA (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ive looked pretty extensively and the newest report i could find was 1998. I think at the very least 1998 should be added to the reference. And very much in favour of including it in the reputation section not the introductory paragraphOttawa4ever (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC).

Problems with Reputation section - POV tagged
Okay I've POV tagged the reputation section. Here are some problems I see with it: 1) Selection bias - it's obvious that someone went out and searched for rankings that just put a positive spin the school. 2) Corporate Knights rankings - What exactly is it ranking? As far as I know, the methodology is ranking schools' inclusion of environmental and social concerns within their programs. Why isn't this important fact mentioned? It's not a ranking of the "best" programs.. "best" in terms of what normal rankings rank universities today. This part should be fixed asap. 3) World Universities Debating Championship - why is this mentioned? Not really important (see point 1 on selection bias) - somewhat too specific.. 4) Why isn't Ottawa's ranking on Macleans mentioned? Yes, it's fine that the boycott was mentioned (which it should be) but excluding that fact further promotes the idea that the editors on this article are biased and lacking neutrality. 5) The neurosciences, Science Watch source is somewhat outdated - 4 years old. Have they done those rankings since 2004?  If they have, why isn't it mentioned?  Seems someone odd - someone elaborate please.. And in the introduction, why is the Gourman Report..  over 10 years old mentioned??? Don't understand that, especially cause Ive never really even seen a methodology for it and would question how valid it is.  I think it should be removed.  This article is a lot better than what I saw a few months ago, but still needs to be fixed a bit.  Feel free to give your opinions.. My biggest problem is the Corporate Knights rankings - the other's I'll deal with.. --Buffer v2 (talk) 01:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Answers:

(1) Almost every university article has various rankings survey's on their page- Widely accepted!!

(2) The Corporate Knights magazine is well known- and the rankings have been around for many years and they have produced various reports. The description of the rankings is on the report itself, and on it's own Wikipedia article. Add how the rankings are compiled, the more we add to the article collectively the better!

(3) The World University Debating Championship addition has been discussed many times over, and I don't see any reason why it should not be here, since it's on other universities pages.

(4) I agree as well- I will find the current Maclean's rankings and post them here with a link... or you can beat me to it!

(5) They haven't done those rankings since the current one is for the Years 2000-2004, and they published it in late-2005. The 2005-2009 can't be out yet cause 2008 hasn't even ENDED!

(5.5) The Gourman Report debate has been exhausted- if you read through the discussion history pages

(6) And an International University- is a school that has been recognized in international rankings, have partnerships/ agreements with other institutions internationally, also international accreditation for higher programs, ETC.

Cosmos416 12:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Basically I dont entirely agree that the gourman report debate has been exhausted (or some others). Tell anyone that in the opening paragraph the wikipedia article of U of O has to reference a ten year old ranking to make it look good is laughable (Queens, Carleton, waerloo etc alumni eat this up).
 * If you check current rankings of world debating youll find the univeristy of ottawa ranks mid 70 or so. True its on other universities pages but they also mention the current world ranking in most (sydney does this i belive as well as toronto). Also other university pages are not the best for POV and reputation anyway so to say its on one page and not on another really isnt the best argument. The article is swayed to the point of view that makes it look better than the university is in fact at least in these two specific cases which are easily fixed (probably best to move the gourman reference out of the intro paragraph or remove it completely and include the current ranking for the world debating). Most other points i agree with with the exception of those

two and a more neutral point of view can be established. Share your thoughts on this if you like in the mean time ill track down a source for the debating issue. Ottawa4ever (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I find it amusing and suspicious you would say something like that... and put "Queen's, Carleton, and Waterloo Alumni" Ottawa4ever LOL. Well, the Gourman Report is well documented, and is on other Canadian and American university article pages (University of Saskatchewan, Carleton, Norte Dame, MIT, Princeton, etc) pages .  More the half of the university pages on Wikipedia have a "Reputation" section, and almost all have a "Rankings" section!


 * On Carleton University's Wiki Article, under the Reputation Section it reads: "The Gourman Report, compiled by Dr Jack Gourman of the Princeton Review, ranks Carleton University 7th out of 60 universities in Canada."- Does not list the publication year...But I don't see you and the few (others) making a hoot about that? well that's cause some might be from Carleton?? love going through edit histories from user's!! You also go around asking for assistance supporting your positions!! hmmmm....


 * I agree in moving the Gourman Report ranking, would be better in the Rankings section, but there is no manipulation in that section, every published ranking is clearly well-documented and cited. In fact almost everything is cited well in the article... and the Gourman Report is notable seeing it's on other Canadian university pages, unless you would like to go to all of the University pages and make the Same Request...


 * Mentioning each year that they didn't retain the World Universities Championship is redundant and un-encyclopedic. Adding the current position within the latest ranking would be excellent, like I said the more we add the better!! Here's the University of Toronto's addition "U of T has numerous prominent students groups. One of the most notable is the Hart House Debating Club, home to one of the top-ranked debating teams in the world, and champions at the 1981 and 2006 World Universities Debating Championships."- Could you also spark up a debate other there??? Pretty sure you won't!


 * You stated manipulation in the facts..please elaborate. Making vague assumptions won't solve anything and you know that.  Please be specific where exactly in the stated information where the wording has been tainted? Just because the information is cited from published authorities, and there are comparisons drawn on universities does not make it in violation of (NPOV) or anything.
 * Cosmos416 13:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As much as i would love to go through peoples edit histories and debate based on how they act on wikipedia I do not have the time in my life for that. In a nut shell you will find that prior to making any controversial additions to wikipedia that i see may be reverted i like to discuss them and get support before i revert or add the change and decide if there is support for my position before i make the change, which there is nothing wrong with. More users should do this it avoids edit wars, dialogue is important and should never be discouraged(for the record i never made many editions to Carleton as i am a university of ottawa alumni and want to improve this article as you would have found out through your research, and in this case i feel if someone adds a NPOV flag to this page, explanation is in order whether i agree with it or not).


 * Ive said above those are the two issues which i find to violate a neutral point of view in my opinion, you seem to concur towards the suggested changes and we can easily fix this matter. Ive also said that not every university page is a model to follow, some are better than others its important to keep this in mind when refering to the universities having a ranking shown or not, we need to work together to make this a better article through dialogue and in good faith.Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well...you haven't given me your reasoning for you pitting Carleton against Ottawa by saying: "tell anyone that in the opening paragraph the wikipedia article of U of O has to reference a ten year old ranking to make it look good is laughable (Queens, Carleton, waerloo etc alumni eat this up". Why????

And I never said you made any edits to the Carleton article, but like I said....on the Carleton University's Wiki Article, under the Reputation Section it reads: "The Gourman Report, compiled by Dr Jack Gourman of the Princeton Review, ranks Carleton University 7th out of 60 universities in Canada."- it does not list the publication year...but you and others will not even address that..because some are from Carleton as shown from their histories!!! Like I said about the Gourman Report ranking is notable seeing it's on other Canadian university pages, unless you would like to go to all of the University pages and make the Same Request...

I found it very suspicious additionally when your very first edits are trash talking the university, espsically you claiming the article is filled with "claims of grandeur with little source baking it up". And then you say "tell anyone that in the opening paragraph the wikipedia article of U of O has to reference a ten year old ranking to make it look good is laughable (Queens, Carleton, waerloo etc alumni eat this up", and you won't even address that at all...that say's alot!!! Cosmos416 23:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems this is placed twice in the article See next sub section please.Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason it was written twice is because you clearly have a problem with being neutral and assuming good faith. You haven't answered any of my main questions and concerns, you simply ignore them. Once again....


 * Ottawa4ever...You still haven't given me your reasoning for you pitting Carleton against Ottawa by saying: "tell anyone that in the opening paragraph the wikipedia article of U of O has to reference a ten year old ranking to make it look good is laughable (Queens, Carleton, waerloo etc alumni eat this up". Why????


 * And I never said you made any edits to the Carleton article, but like I said....on the Carleton University's Wiki Article, under the Reputation Section it reads: "The Gourman Report, compiled by Dr Jack Gourman of the Princeton Review, ranks Carleton University 7th out of 60 universities in Canada."- it does not list the publication year...but you and others will not even address that..because some are from Carleton as shown from their histories!!! Like I said about the Gourman Report ranking is notable seeing it's on other Canadian university pages, unless you would like to go to all of the University pages and make the Same Request...


 * I find it very suspicious when your very first edits are trash talking the university, espsically you claiming the article is filled with "claims of grandeur with little source baking it up". And then you say "tell anyone that in the opening paragraph the wikipedia article of U of O has to reference a ten year old ranking to make it look good is laughable (Queens, Carleton, waerloo etc alumni eat this up".....Address this please!!!

Cosmos416 15:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * See below :) Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Could we find some independent primary sources to improve the article?
This article is excellent in terms of references, but most references seem to come from the university of ottawa itself. Can we try to find some independent primary sources?

Collegestandard (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I find it very odd you just registered to wikipedia, claiming on only some Canadian university pages that there is no primary sources and slapping tags all around them. Very very odd....since any article on wikipedia is not obligated in anyway to only include primary sources, but must be backed sufficiently.


 * Could you please go into detail on what part(s) of the article are not sourced properly??? The article is very well sourced, and almost made up of all primary sources, but placing a Tag for a couple of things that (a) aren't cited or (b) a source you think needs a primary one, is just not how wikipedia works. You won't even give the specific sentences where you think it's need a primary source, so please do!

Cosmos416 13:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Lets not bite any new comers here, editing is to be encouraged!
 * I think a good point is rasied here about primary sources but i would say that it is very common for a university to wikipedia page to cite its website as a primary source (most information about the university is present on these sites) where conflict of views could exist such as in reputation or rankings accurate sources in the article are present, So unless i missed something i would agree with removing the tag, please mention further details if yuou think the tag should be placed back into the article Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't biting anyone, and you still haven't given me your reasoning for you pitting Carleton against Ottawa by saying: "tell anyone that in the opening paragraph the wikipedia article of U of O has to reference a ten year old ranking to make it look good is laughable (Queens, Carleton, waerloo etc alumni eat this up". Why????

I found it very suspicious additionally when your very first edits are trash talking the university, espsically you claiming the article is filled with "claims of grandeur with little source baking it up". And then you say "tell anyone that in the opening paragraph the wikipedia article of U of O has to reference a ten year old ranking to make it look good is laughable (Queens, Carleton, waerloo etc alumni eat this up", and you won't even address that at all...that say's alot!!! Cosmos416 23:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Cosmos, this section is related to primary sources about the university of ottawa page. If you have problems with edits of mine from at least a year ago, address me on my and your talk pages respectively in a civil way (instead of just deleting everything i try to communicate with you). To answer your queries, Ive addressed the gourman report as well as others have, I myself have agreed with you placing it out of the main paragraph, this has been settled. The topic at hand here is related to primary sources and wether or not a tag is warrented, not about edits which have been made, reverted or changed in the distant past. If you prefer to quote me, quote this "id like to see this article labeled as a good articel or even a featured one some day".


 * New editors need to be encouraged, first edits can be a bit off and sometimes not the best in taste, the goal is to get better and improve with time (if only my typing and spelling would improve lol), encouragement not discouragement helps in this alot. Lets keep on topic, and happy editing Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason it was written twice is because you clearly have a problem with being neutral and assuming good faith. You haven't answered any of my main questions or concerns, you just simply ignore them. So please stop that!!


 * Again....Ottawa4ever...Your stalling and your not assuming good faith here on wikipedia. Not doing anything, but your biting my head off, and you keep making unsubstantiated claims. Remember, making vague assumptions won't solve anything and you know that. Just because the information is cited from published authorities, and there are comparisons drawn on universities does not make it in violation of (NPOV) or anything.


 * Your very first edits are trash talking the university..why?? Seems odd to trash talk your own Alumni, and then praise the other Ottawa University?...That doesn't make any sense, Ottawa4ever....


 * I pointed out mistakes on your claims (Carleton does have the Gourman Report Ranking, like other Canadian Universities), and you keep saying the article is filled with "claims of grandeur with little source baking it up"....please, elaborate...and be specific.


 * You pitted Carleton against Ottawa by saying "tell anyone that in the opening paragraph the wikipedia article of U of O has to reference a ten year old ranking to make it look good is laughable (Queens, Carleton, waerloo etc alumni eat this up".....So your from Ottawa, and you know as well as anyone else in Canada that even putting Carleton along side with Queens and Waterloo is just wrong. But by not answering the questions after multiple requests and other suspicious behavior going on around here...something smells fishy.

Cosmos416 15:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont think i have trashed talked the university of ottawa at all,just the tone of the article as it was almost 8 months ago in the past and not today. The article has undergone considerable changes since then, and kudos to the people who have been doing this by fixing the article and taking the time to do so. As for good faith I stand by my early statement, I want this article to become a 'good article' and one day featured. Ill reiterate a few points of mine that ive brought up before and add a bit more detail :)
 * 1. The Gourman report is no longer mentioned in the opening paragraph. Based on the fact that the reference is ten years old and is from a questionable report at best (it ranks non existnat programs in universities) I consider this to be resolved, youve agreed in the past to move it to a different section, we are agreed this has been settled.
 * 2. If your feeling like i have not treated your edits in good faith, We can easily move this to a wikiettique session and allow others to judge for themselves, but I think you and me will both agree our intentions are the same, to make this article better, agree?
 * 3. Maybe its not the best to mention other universities as this has offended you in some manor, but please dont be not my intention. However; there are people even on this talk page which have mentioned and questioned why the gourman report is even in the article, not just from here say (which I would fully agree is no means to change the article) but thats why we use these pages to find consensus right?
 * 4. Now wether something smells fishy, finding new comers edits odd, where some editors edit from etc etc, are not going to get this article to be better, the best way is state your opinion, find consensus, and edit. The issue here is primary sources and whether a tag is needed. I agree with your position as you stated before that unless something else is added to say why there is no need for a tag. We have consensus?, so why continue this bad form between one another?

Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Translation into French
Is there anyone currently working on translating elements of this page to add to the French Wikipedia? Philmarchand (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not that i know of, translation services are difficulut to get at ottawa U from my experiences let alone volunteers, I may be wrong though about this right nowOttawa4ever (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Undid two anonymous edits
They changed the undergraduate enrollment numbers but did not provide any source. The original source still gives the same numbers (we will have to wait a bit for the U of Ottawa to post 2008 enrollment numbers... however there have been reports of undergraduate enrollment actually decreasing in Ontario in the near future). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philmarchand (talk • contribs) 23:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ottawageegees.jpg
The image Image:Ottawageegees.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --01:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added a fur for this article. Double Blue  (Talk) 02:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Housing
I was reading the MIT article and they had considerable information on housing. I remember going in residence at ottawa and not being to impressed by it. But this article mentions nothing about the residence system. I think it should. The only recent articles i found about the residence system at ottawa U were these,, , and  (They do not paint a pretty picture) but surely there must be others 69.157.58.37 (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * People may wish to read http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Kelly+Egan+After+tears+have+dried/1998290/story.html its an interesting report by the Ottawa citizen that weighs in on the pros and cons of covering stories such as the latter included in the above set. Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

U of Zero
Cite here: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2007/09/04/ot-uofzero-070904.html
 * I wouldnt say the citation establishes the saying as main stream. Beyond this one event Ive never really seen mass media or reliable sourcing refer to the university of Ottawa as U of Zero. Debatable. Id personally think that it should not be listed in the article. I think though, more input from other editors as well is needed and consensus needs to be established here especially since this is not the first time its been added/removed in the article. Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Even though I have a bias (as I go to this univ), I don't think that "U of Zero" is a common nickname at all; I've never heard it in my life, and I have heard many disparaging comments about Ottawa U. A Google search shows reliable sources reporting only on Tory's comment, two blogs using the nickname in recent pieces critical of Ottawa (re Coulter), one blog using the nickname for a different school, and a ton of math-related pages. This doesn't sound like significant coverage to me, especially since it's a pretty contentious (disparaging) nickname. -M.Nelson (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have a connection to this university (I've never even been to Ontario), but I agree that "U of Zero" appears to be just a disparaging comment by a small number of people who have had a negative experience with the university. It's a little like students at Texas A&M calling their rival, the University of Texas, "Texas University" or "t.u." -Mabeenot (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, here it is again:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-menace-of-free-speech/article1513877/

You could also have taken my advice to google it, where it comes up a number of times. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It really doesn't matter if it is a commonly used nickname (it isn't) or how many references you provide, the point is it's derogatory and doesn't belong in the intro, if anywhere in the article.  As has been pointed out to you by several people, you won't find any university articles on Wikipedia including such names in their intro.  The reason why, in my opinion, is that inclusion gives a biased representation of the university that's based on nothing.  It is therefore the definition of trivial, useless information that the article is better off without, information that is only there to sway opinion rather than inform.  TastyCakes (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)