Talk:University of Ottawa/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Sounds good. David D. (Talk) 08:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why can't I interpret the lists and say the........ are world renowned?

message: 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)
replies: text: Why? Mr. Skywalker is blindly reverting any changes made to the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: 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)
thread_title:  3RR 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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 - «Talk» 22:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: "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)
replies: text:  I think that was the gist of the first revision I tried and am perfectly happy with that also. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Four options

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. howcheng  {chat} 07:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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 - «Talk» 15:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I welcome, as I said, a user conduct RFC, which you can find instructions for filing at WP:RFC. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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 - «Talk» 15:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Ann Duggan a notable alumni?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Support

message: === 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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 - «Talk» 18:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Could you rephrase the above comment, please? I don't understand. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read it again.  You should understand, it's quit clear. Anakinskywalker 18:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Proof of what? David D. (Talk) 18:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 - «Talk» 18:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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 - «Talk» 18:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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 - «Talk» 19:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: oppose

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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 - «Talk» 18:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Could you rephrase the above comment, please? I don't understand. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read it again.  You should understand, it's quit clear. Anakinskywalker 18:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Proof of what? David D. (Talk) 18:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 - «Talk» 18:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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 - «Talk» 18:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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 - «Talk» 19:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slow down 

message: "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)
thread_title: NPOV

message: 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 - «Talk» 23:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Userbox Template 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Power Plant 

message: "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)
thread_title: Weasel words

message: 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)
thread_title: Endowement?

message: Reverted, I think it's verifiable, unless you disagree with Hilary Weston
-- Samir   (the scope) धर्म  06:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not NPOV. We've already had this discussion. Read the archives.  Ardenn 06:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read them.  Couldn't find the consensus. -- Samir   (the scope) धर्म  06:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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   (the scope) धर्म  06:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Please read WP:NPOV. It's up to you to cite reliable sources, not us.  Ardenn 06:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That doesn't cut the mustard. You have to show each and every case where it applies.  Ardenn 06:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you, it verifies it, but doesn't take care of the neutrality of the article.  Ardenn 06:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Largest bilingual university in North America

message: "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)
replies: text: I can't -- Samir   (the scope) धर्म  06:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can you verify...

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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   (the scope) धर्म  02:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: 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)
thread_title: GA failure

message: 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)
thread_title:  What about Tom? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Peter Jennings?

message: 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)
thread_title: Reputation section biased?

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Strange contribution 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Looking at it, the whole Reputation section needs to be revamped.  Horribly done --68.145.246.117 05:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  This article needs work 

message: :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 Wikipedia: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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:University of Ottawa Logo.gif

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  THES 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Student Code of Conduct 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Academics and Research sections 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Gourman report 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Translation into French 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Undid two anonymous edits 

message: 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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Ottawageegees.jpg

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Housing

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: U of Zero