Talk:Dawson College/Archive 1

Archive 1

Here we go again...

Alright, I'm back and once again, I feel that someone out there seem to enjoy putting all the BS that was going for the past few years. It's over and done with. Wikipedia is suppose to be a source of information, not to flame persons directly using their names. I have completely edited out all that is not proven, without any cititation and added a more positive information about the DSU and the activities. Is that fine? (TuxedoInferno 16:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC))

Here's a radical question...

Does this whole section about campus disputes even belong in the article? Encyclopedias aren't for reporting on current events, after all. Presumably these disputes, minor in the big scheme of things, will be resolved and at best will be a footnote in the collete's history. It seems we could eliminate the entire POV issue by simply eliminating this section, which really doesn't seem appropriate in the first place. Just MHO. --BRossow 03:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

That what I was thinking. Before, I completely removed all those kind of "dispute" issues (and those problematic statements) and just put information about Dawson College (I got premission to copy off the Dawson College website for those information and OhnoitsJamie removed and edited it to sound more like a information then a sales pitch). However, the other party keep on removing and reverting and pretty much what started all the problem. When OhnoitsJamie decided to merge both article together into one (which is what we have), that's that. There is a few other issues with valid links being removed and the current misunderstanding that I and BRossow had, that's about it. (TuxedoInferno 03:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC))

Dawson College issue...

First of all, it was me who file a complaint first (actually, two complaints) to Wikipedia after days of non stop edits done by the other party (which added comments against the Dawson Adminstration) about all the edits that have been done (forcefully removal of links, added NPOV statements, offensive and unproven statements, such as coups and saying that the Dawson Adminstration and Dawson College as a whole. I have try to remain and fellow the Wikipedia policy of having neutral article and unbias statements.

Accusing me of doing edits after edits is falsely unfonded, as I have been defending Dawson College from days of slandering and unproven statements as stated above. Dawson College is my college, I go to it, I worked with student politics and I know what is going on. Please, check the discussion section of that article and OhnoitsJamie even helped correct the English and even requested to added links to both sides to fair the playing field (which was removed over and over by the other party)..

Also, the article saying "general fund as part of an ongoing battle over student union accreditation" is actually false. First of all, that statement is untrue and there is no reference that stated that. However, I have minutes from the a Board of Governors meeting that all the money has been sit in a trust fund that either side can't be touch until the courts say who have control of it (still looking for it). It's not a battle about accreditation, it's about who is in control of the dues. I have fixed that misleading information.

I hope this clears things up. I do apolgized on the situation, but an encyclopedia is a reference source containing information on a variety of topics. If you check the history, the old article was even worst off before I take the time to fix this issue. (TuxedoInferno 00:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC))

Frankly, Tux, I don't care what previous versions of the article look like. Prior to my MANY edits today for grammar, structure, punctuation, etc. it was still horrendous. And with all due respect, given your many errors in the above entry, I honestly don't think you're the one most qualified to determine what constitutes a quality article. Because of your repeated reversion of this article despite attempts by others to improve it, I am requesting that this page be temporarily locked. You're not helping here and your interference with the improvement of this article is unacceptable and unappreciated. And finally, I'd add a note that if you're going to reply to something on a Talk page such as this, Wikipedia custom is that the reply be placed under the material to which you're replying, not added as a new section. --BRossow 01:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment Look, I won't revert it as you stated and I will fellow Wikipedia policy. However, I have corrected the "general fund as part of an ongoing battle over student union accreditation" error in the previous edit (and only that, I didn't even change anything else) and added a valid change to correct information and you change it. (TuxedoInferno 01:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC))

For the record, I was in the process of re-adding the latest link you added when apparently you were adding it back yourself and I got the "someone has made changes" error. No maliciousness on my part, I assure you. And for the record, I am holding off on requesting the page be locked based on your apparent willingness to leave the current structure in place. --BRossow 01:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment That's better now and thanks for correcting that error as well. Thanks and once again, I'm sorry for the trouble. I will fellow the policy, but I hope that the other party will do the same. By the way, are you the one who received the e-mail I sent. (TuxedoInferno 01:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC))

---

With all due respect to everyone who has contributed to this article stub, it needs to be said that TuxedoInferno is clearly too personally invested in the issues surrounding this article to make objective judgments about additions, corrections, and other changes to the article. This article is tagged as a stub, which means that it needs to be expanded upon by the Wikipedia community at large. With TuxedoInferno's rabid reversion of changes to the article to meet his/her own rigid idea of what's acceptable, it is impossible to make meaningful improvements to the article. This goes directly against the spirit (not to mention codified policies) of Wikipedia.

For example, I invested a fair amount of my personal time this afternoon to correct grammatical errors, punctuation problems, poor choices of words, and other issues with the article. Given my journalism background, I also added content and meaning to the section about the ongoing disputes without adding any POV information. In fact, I believe that my edits added to the NPOV and in no way added to the obvious problem that has been brewing in the recent past with regard to this article. TuxedoInferno took it upon himself/herself to throw out my work in order, apparently, to adhere to a previous error-ridden version instead. This is not acceptable.

I am suggesting in the most polite and calm manner I can muster that TuxedoInferno needs to curb his/her behavior. Further reversions without substantive basis for doing so will result in my requesting "real" administrator intervention, including possible locking of the article and even a possible ban from editing for TuxedoInferno if it seems the only way to stop his/her irresponsible behavior.

Finally, I'd note that Ohnoitsjamie is not an administrator and has no authority to "approve" content on Wikipedia. I am aware of his application for administrative status here, but that has not happened and, frankly, his chances of becoming an admin appear to be questionable based on current voting. (This is not a slam on you, Jamie, but a gentle reminder for those who have suggested that your "approval" of changes to the article actually carries any weight.) I would also note that Ohnoitsjamie, if serious about becoming an admin, should have recognized this behavior as blatantly unacceptable and said something to stop it many, many edits ago. That this did not seem to happen further weakens any resistance I might have had against making changes of which Jamie did not approve.

In a nutshell, then, what I'm saying is that I will continue to monitor and improve this article. Further reversions by TuxedoInferno for anything but blatant vandalism will result in a formal complaint being lodged. I sincerely hope that some careful thought on his/her part will prevent this from becoming necessary.

--BRossow 00:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment Just a note that I'm not the only one who continuous do edits prior that I found out that an actual person in charge was assigned to this article, which was BRossow. After days trying to fix this article with constant vandalism from others (removing refences links, added a bunch of NPOV, unproven statements, and so forth by the other party) and with the help of Ohnoitsjamie try to resolve it, it finally stopped. However, when BRossow came, I though it's another vandalism from the other party all over again and put back the acticle that Ohnoitsjamie and I have worked on (merging both side and removing all problematic statements). I have misunderstood who is who, so I will check more who is actually the user before doing anything. However, special thanks for both of them to actually try to solve the issue prior to this mess. I'm not the bad guy here. Thanks. (TuxedoInferno 01:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC))

For clarification, I'm not in charge of this or any article. I was simply irritated that I made significant improvements to an article lcearly in need of help, then repeatedly had my edits thrown out for no apparent reason. Case closed as far as I'm concerned. No hard feelings, I hope! --BRossow 03:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Nope, no hard feelings. I can understand your frustration, since I went through the same thing. It's my fault for mistakening you to be the other party. I'll be more careful the next time. Thanks. (TuxedoInferno 03:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC))

Tux, if it's OK with you I suggest we just get rid of this whole ugly section. If you're OK with that, please go ahead and just delete it. Thanks! And really no need to apologize -- mistakes get made, but Wikipedia's one of the only places I know where you can easily have a "do over" with the click of a button.  :-) --BRossow 03:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you go ahead and do it. Personnally, I got myself into trouble here so I think I'll let you do it.  :) (TuxedoInferno 03:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC))

Enough is enough...

Ohnoitsjamie is so kindly enough to solve this little issue about the constant changes and made a "merge" of both article together. I'm quite please that both side are made into one and remain neutral, which is deem appropiated for an encyclopedia. However, 66.36.137.10 keep on removing neutral statements. To make matter worst, the link to the Plant, the official Dawson newspaper website was also removed. The Plant has articles written by Dawson students and have every right to have their link placed as a reference. How can links to other news report that support Dawson Student Union is allowed, when linking to non Dawson Student Union support is not?

Further more, an official press release link article was removed, which was done by the former President of the Dawson Student Union of last year. Removing it and claims that the former President was "unelected" (look history on Dawson article) is pretty much one opinion, not a fact. Also, the court case is an internal affairs as well between the Dawson Student Union and the Adminstration. It got nothing to do with Wikipedia and it's inappropiate for an encyclopedia.

I will keep an open mind and I perfer a neutral state for all article, but out of balance (which tips a favor for one side then the other) is not fair at all. I have recently added a compromised for both side, while remaining a neutral article. I have also added the links that have some importancy and let's Wikipedia users decided what do believe in the links and information in these links that are provided. As Wikipedia users, we have no rights to tell others what to believe, but just give the information and let's the users decided. (TuxedoInferno 19:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC))

Comment I think the last edit by User:216.239.74.220 is a fair one (my more recent edit made only a slight modification to an awkwardly worded sentence). I'm glad that there are links representing both sides now; let's leave those as is. If anyone feels strongly that the article needs further modification, please discuss it here first instead of going back to an edit war. Thanks, OhnoitsJamie^Talk 02:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment Thanks for fixing the typos and to Ohnoitsjamie as well. I have my objections to some of the links, but since this is the decision and policies of Wikipedia (and Ohnoitsjamie), I will bind by the decision. All I wanted is a fair and neutral article that reflect general information. After all, this is an encyclopedia. (TuxedoInferno 19:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC))

Comment I think it's started again. I have come to a compromised and decided to leave a neutral stand for both side. Is there anything that can be done now? They refused to compromised. Restored to Ohnoitsjamie approved to be fair version. (TuxedoInferno 19:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC))

Alright, this is serious now, the neutral article is been "ok" with Ohnoitsjamie and it's deem a fair compromised for both parties (featuring links representing both sides). However, for some reasons, they are reverse to it's unfair article, which non Dawson Student Union support links are forcefully removed over and over again and neutral statements turns into bias information (such as promoting Dawson New School program) will be a violation of the neutral point-of-view (NPOV) and Wikipedia stands for being unbiased.

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. TuxedoInferno 03:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Univ?

Removed: "The only thing separating Dawson from being the Big U is the fact that there are no residencies attached to the building."

Could this be expanded/explained by someone who understands and replaced in the article? Thanks sannse 18:59 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

• It cannot be replaced, because Dawson is not accreditted as a university and therefore can never issue degrees. 132.205.94.174 02:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Corruption

To the editor who wrote about this corruption case, please reference your sources or it will be reverted. Thank you, --Janarius 19:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I should add that it should also be NPOV, thank you.--Janarius 14:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for speculation. Facts should be well established. Bububu

You have removed references and pertinent information, this is an atack on the foundation of the wikipdia. 66.36.130.23 24 December 2005

Unnamed contributor 66.36.130.23, in my opinion you are hurting the cause you wish to serve by publishing stuff like "Dawson College currently has the most corrupt administration" when such a sentence can never be proven nor disproven. Furthermore, this has no place in an encyclopedia. You obviously are not neutral towards Dawson College. Bububu 28 December 2005.

Bububu reading the articles cited as sources will clearly prove the point that contributor 66.36.130.23 made.

It should be noted that the students of Dawson College are not members of the CFS (Canadian Federation of Students), nor the Quebec branch. If Dawson Student Union claims that they are accredited, which means independent status and suppsoe to represent the student body, where are all these 3rd parties coming from? Where does Dawson students comes into play? I haven't seen any yet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.239.74.220 (talk • contribs) .

Note While the Dawson Student Union is not a member of CFS (Canadian Federation of Students) it should be included for the simple reason that Dawson students and the CFS have a long standing relationship.

Comment Wait a minute, I'm speaking about Dawson students, not the Dawson Student Union. CFS shouldn't even interfere with Dawson politics. Plus, it's the students who decides if ever to join the CFS or it's counterparts. CFS don't dictate Dawson Student Union policy, but it's the Dawson students (stated under the Accreditation act, see below). Again, where does Dawson students comes into play? How come Dawson students don't have that "long standing relationship" with the Dawson Student Union? Further more, the article you pointed out, that was 10 years ago and the situation has change. The last I remembered, last year student strike (2005), Dawson students voted "no" to strike. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.239.74.220 (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

To all users of the Wikipedia, we all know that an encyclopedia is a reference source containing information on a variety of topics. The information about Dawson College, such as it's a "corrupt" college, "Dawson College has been criticized for refusing to sign contracts with teacher" and "claimed that their support staffs are among the lowest paid unionized in Canada". All of these false and unproven statements are unacceptable and inappropriate in an encyclopedia. It's slandering and false representation of Dawson College as a whole. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.168.49.65 (talk • contribs) .

Comment I agree. First of all, words like "corrupt" are usually point-of-view. If the claim that the support staff are the lowest paid in Canada, that claim must be backed up with a verifiable source. However, it is fair to include information about any court cases or other verifiable actions. On the other hand, I did remove a few POV statements that were favorable towards Dawson for the same reason. (e.g., saying that diversity "enriches the experience" of students is not verifiable. OhnoitsJamie^Talk 18:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment Also pointed out that Dawson New School is not the only program that exist at Dawson. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.168.49.65 (talk • contribs) .

Student Union controversey

The new edits are better in terms of neutral-point-of-view and verifiability. I have one question, though; the new edit states, "They are facing a court case on January 30th 2005." Did you mean 2006, or has this already taken place? Do you have any links to court records or news stories regarding the court case? Also, do you have a source for "lowest paid support staff" claim? OhnoitsJamie^Talk 19:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment Note that the legal action was never approved by the student body, but rather by a handful of Dawson Student Union members. There are circumstancial evidences and hard copy documents that prove this case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.168.49.65 (talk • contribs) .

The main issue, beyond the court case, is the lack of faith shown in the Dawson Student Union by the general student population. An unrepresented majority of those studying at the College feel that their voices are being ignored and their positions as students being used to further the self-serving desires of a Union that appears to be placing its own agenda before the needs of the student body. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TuxedoInferno (talk • contribs) .

Wow, was I ever shocked to see this. The whole corruption business is bull crap. It's a bunch of idiotic, irrational students who want to rule the world and think they know what's best. They should be thankful that the College Administration hasn't given them all they want, and is instead trying to encourage them to get their act together. Anonnymous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.68.247.216 (talk • contribs) .

Hello Anonymous Wikipedia User you claim that there is an unrepresented majority of students, whose voices are going unheard, while attacking elected their legal representatives. Your your rhetoric sounds oddly fascistic. The Dawson Student Union is an accredited student union and as such is the legal representative of Dawson students. If you are a student at Dawson that feels unrepresented why don't you run for a position in the next election. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.36.137.10 (talk • contribs) .

Comment Dawson Student Union have a representation of barely 1.5% of the total full-time student population. No Dawson students are attacking the Union, but have every right to be part of the democratic process, request financial statements and have a say in where their money is being spent. Under the accreditation act: Chapter II; Act 4, "Every student at an educational institution has a right to belong to the students’ association of his choice. He also has a right to take part in setting up the association and to participate in its activities and administration" and Chapter III, Division V: Effects of Accreditation; Act 26, "Every student at an educational institution who is represented by an accredited students’ association is deem a member of the association". Currently, the student body have been left out with pretty much everything.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.239.74.220 (talk • contribs) .

Merge' I've merged the competing versions of the artice, removing unverifiable or POV statements from either version and adding the few external links I could find that provide information about the issue. (Note: blogs are letters-to-the-editor are questionable sources). If either of you wish to add anything, it must be sourced properly. If this becomes an edit war, I will file a request for comment notice to settle the dispute. OhnoitsJamie^Talk 21:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment After countless trying to put a positive and neutral spins about Dawson College as a whole. A complaint to Wikipedia was sent already, due that the original article (the negatives remarks) is nothing more then defacing Dawson College with slandous and false information, which compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. As stated previously, encyclopedia suppose to be reference source containing information on a variety of topics, not propegada. Further more, the edits that was done was official information about Dawson College, with no offensive remarks to boot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.239.74.220 (talk • contribs) .

Comment That information is "official" does not automatically make it suitable for Wikipedia. Quite often, "official" information will violate the neutral-point-of-view policy in that it is written in a promotional style. While some of the comments related to the student union issue have contained a negatively-slanted POV, it is completely appropriate to post verifiable, factual details about that dispute. That there was a court ruling in July and a current court case is a factual detail, and is in no way "slanderous." OhnoitsJamie^Talk 23:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment Personally, all these statements in the article are just internal conflicts. There are piles of circumstancial evidences, proofs and even hard copy documents that can be used as counter-claims for every statements made (even the linked article about the court case), but again, this is an encyclopedia and there is really no place for that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TuxedoInferno (talk • contribs) .

POV edits

• User:66.36.137.10; The statement repayment of damages resulting from members of the administration assisting in a coup of the Dawson Student Union EC needs to be toned down, especially the word "coup." As far as I can tell, there was one court ruling in July favoring the DSU, but that the matter has not been resolved yet. Please stick to verifiable facts and avoid POV language.

Comment There was never a coup to start with. No idea what they were talking about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TuxedoInferno (talk • contribs) .

• User:198.168.49.65; statements such as "...enriches the lives of all our students" and "...excellence in college education within a welcoming and stimulating environment..." are POV and read like promotional materials and violate neutral-point-of-view.

Comment It came from the official Dawson College website, which permission was given to be use in the Dawson College section in Wikipedia. Thanks for the POV note, it won't be appeared again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TuxedoInferno (talk • contribs) .

• Both Please review the three-revert-rule. OhnoitsJamie^Talk 23:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

References regarding administration's point-of-view

Does anyone know if the administration of the has released a statement regarding it's official position in the student union matter? If there was one, it would help balance the reference links. OhnoitsJamie^Talk 23:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I will try to find a statement from the administration. Additionally there have been other rulings that are peripheral to this matter, I will attempt to find information about them also. 66.36.137.10

Comment Added a link from an article from last year President of the Dawson Student Union, an official press release. Also added the official Dawson newspaper, the Plant (run by students), which have many articles about the Dawson Student Union and its questionable conducts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TuxedoInferno (talk • contribs) .

Comment The PR that was put out by the unelected "President of the Dawson Student Union" also the "official" Dawson newspaper, the Plant (run by students) is curently being directly funded by the administration instead of by the student body.

Comment Once again, most of the articles written in The Plant is written by Dawson students. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TuxedoInferno (talk • contribs) .

Comment Where is the proof do you have on that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TuxedoInferno (talk • contribs) .

Comment I will find refrences latter today.

Can we all agree that the current revision [1] is reasonable? I realize that each side would probably like to see the paragraph about the dispute worded a bit differently, but we should try to keep it as neutral (and general) as possible. Once you get into the details, it becomes much harder to keep the language neutral. The reader can refer to the resource links and make their own judgement. OhnoitsJamie^Talk 19:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment Well, I always bind by the decision Ohnoitsjamie and I try to keep a neutral stand as possible (and thanks for correcting some spelling). (TuxedoInferno 20:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC))

Comment Alright, I think the other party refused to agree and what Ohnoitsjamie have decided that deem fair for both side (neutral article). I already have accepted Ohnoitsjamie request and fellow them. I think further actions need to be taken against the other party, because they refused to bend by the rules, policies and Ohnoitsjamie, a Wikipedia mod assign to Dawson College article, decisions of the matter and repeatly vandalized the article over and over,forcefully removing references that doesn't support Dawson Student Union and added unproven statements (read below). Actions must be taken at this point. (TuxedoInferno 21:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC))

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. TuxedoInferno 21:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. TuxedoInferno 21:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

References and POV...

After a day asking for reference or citation, saying that "Dawson College teachers are boycotting most contact with the administration because due to the administrations refusal to sign contracts with teachers" is still unproven. I check out the entire DTU website and all I could find that they are only boycotting services (in October 2005), but no reason was given. As for the "Dawson Support Staff are seeking equitable wages", all I could find information that they did a strike on a particular day (in December 2005), nothing more. Also, making "only to withhold this money from student management" is a POV. (TuxedoInferno 19:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC))

NUmber of gunmen may be wrong.

There now are reports that there was only one gunman and not two. [2] [3] [4] [5]

I think the two gumnan cliam is innucarate. --64.229.72.222 21:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The gun probably wasn't an ak47...

Thanks for the comment. I deciced to remove that because it was not sourced and there is nothing in the main article identfiying the type weapon used. If anyone can provide a source please feel free to add it. --64.229.74.60 01:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the second gunman was a speculation (which could be put up there as a speculation only during the time of the shooting), which sent everyone into a panic again. Disinclination 04:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Academia

Given that Dawson College is an academic institution, why does this article contain no detail whatever about its academic programs, the DÉC, or the professional certificates offered? There is more information about Kimveer Gill (who already has an article) and sports than about academics! --Msanford (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Information regarding programs and credentials has been added. --RandomKelvin (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

School shooting

This section reads very suspiciously like a news article, almost as though it had been written by a student as an assignment for The Plant (the student paper) and then transcluded on Wikpiedia. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the editor who added it and not tagging it as plagarism (i.e., as news article lifted from a published paper and not cited). In any event, it does not read like encyclopedic content, even if the above does not apply. Furthermore, its length should be drastically reduced as it links to an article on the subject.

Don't misunderstand me, please. I do believe that this section is important and it should definitely stay; just that it needs to be reworked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msanford (talk • contribs) 06:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I reworked it somewhat, resolving a few tautologies and other strange constructions. It is now merely random and uncited. Rich Farmbrough, 19:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

Article issues

Here is a more verbose explanation of my reasons for tagging the article thusly:

It is incomplete and may require expansion and/or cleanup. (tagged since February 2008)

This is inarguably the most important article issue. This is an article about an educational institution, yet contains virtually no information about the institutions academics.

It is missing citations and/or footnotes. Please help improve this article by adding in-line citations. Tagged since February 2008.

There are virtually no citations in the text. There is a references section, but no footnotes save the one I added. In-text citations are necessary, and should be easy to obtain from public sources.

Also, it should avoid being vague where being precise is easy. Rather than "Dawson College has a very large number of clubs", check the club roster available from Student Affairs or the budgets (which are public documents, available in the minutes of the DSU's council meetings) and write "according to the council budgets, there were 30 clubs registered and receiving funds at the beginning of 2007".

It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since February 2008.

This should be self explanatory.

It may need copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone and/or spelling. Tagged since February 2008.

This article reads very clumsily; At times, conversationally. This is not fit for an encyclopedia. It needs to be reviewed by someone.

An editor has expressed concern that the article is unbalanced. Tagged since February 2008.

This is addressed elsewhere, but the template was added to draw attention.

It may have been edited by a person who has a conflict of interest.

This is addressed elsewhere, but the template was added to draw attention.

Thank you. --Msanford (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Dawson Student Union

The two sources in this section (CanLII and McGill Daily) failed verification check. Both pages are 404 errors. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Dawson Air Shot.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Dawson Air Shot.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Programs of study

I added the programs of study offered at Dawson College in the "Programs" section. --MaxAMSC (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

First Choice Science

I believe the section entitled "First Choice Science" should be reworded or completely removed. The section seems to promote the program, and advertising does not have its place in an encyclopedia. --RandomKelvin (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)