Jump to content

Talk:List of University of Toronto alumni/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

False Positives

The list of University Professors is all formatted as article links on each name. Unfortunately few of these bios have been created. Those with more common names are tending to get "false positives" - linking to pages about someone else with the same name.

I sampled the first six names that were not redlinked, and of these, three were to the correct page while the other three were false positives.

One option would be to create stubs for every bio, disambiguating every one with a name collision, but that would be a lot of typing.Birdbrainscan 04:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

University Professors

The list of University Professors is merely a list of every University Professor at the U of T ([1]). While it is no doubt an academic honour, I don't think being a University Professor makes someone inherently notable any more than being a Professor makes someone inherently notable. Perhaps this list should be checked, the non-notable profs removed, and the blurb about the notable ones (which most probably are) can be changed from the subject they teach to what makes them notable (e.g. for James Arthur, change from "Mathematics" to "Mathematician, former president of the American Mathematical Society" or something like that)? Danelo 16:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Being a "University Professor" at the University of Toronto IS a great honour. Only a few Professors make the grade, after a long vetting process. Bellagio99 (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Citations

This article has been tagged for citations. Adding citations to every person included may become cumbersome. If anyone has any ideas... Hughey (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The crosslink to the person's bio elsewhere in WP should be enough, or at least to an article where that person's work is prominently used. I'd like to remove the tag. Bellagio99 (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
That's not enough. In-line citations are required. GreenJoe 17:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
GreenJoe, A good point for regular articles. But I've seen a number of List of Notable people pages that just show crosslinks to the named persons' articles, without inline citations. If you want to know more about the person, you just click on the crosslink and you're there. Three I Watch are notable persons from The Bronx, Bronx High School of Science and Lafayette College, for example.Bellagio99 (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Every featured list of this type, uses in-line citations without exception. Check out List of Dartmouth College alumni for example. I'm not saying this one should be featured, but it should have in-line citations. If you make it a group effort, it won't take that long. GreenJoe 02:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Per GreenJoe, citations are needed. Just pust them in a table and they won't be cumbersome at all. --Padraic 16:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It depends on the source in the crosslink. Is it unreliable, or likely to be removed? Is the subject of a borderline notability that may lead to an AfD? forestPIG 22:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. I removed a ton of names where there affiliation with UofT wasn't mentioned. I didn't even care about references at that point, I just wanted there to be a mention. Thus it needs an in-line citation, in this list. None of the articles I looked at (and I looked at them all) had a reference in relation to their being an alumni of UofT. GreenJoe 22:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, there should be inline citations, as we don't know that the wikilinked article has a reliable source referencing that fact in it. Per GreenJoe, if every featured list of this type uses incline citations, this format should be followed. DigitalC (talk) 07:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there support for incorporating tables into the article, such as with List of Dartmouth College alumni?

I like the idea of tables, makes it look a bit more clean, but as long as in-line citations are incorporated, I'm fine either way. GreenJoe 13:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Having gone through this same discussion on other lists in the past, I can assure you that lists of this type are expected to contain inline citations rather than relying solely on the university happening to be mentioned in the linked person's article. The fact that some other lists haven't yet been upgraded to meet current policy expectations does not absolve this list of that responsibility — it just means the other lists need to be tagged and improved too. I would certainly recommend that this list be converted to table format at the same time, but that isn't a requirement per se — sources, however, are mandatory. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alphabetize please

Please alphabetize by last names within a section. For example, the Philosophy list is a mess. Bellagio99 (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Individuals are sorted in chronological order. It seems both of the Philosophy sections are listed in correct order. Jphillips23 (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand, it does seem a bit more effort is needed in gathering reliable sources. Jphillips23 (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have edited this list intermittently for some years. I am glad so much more effort is being put into it. But I disagree with listing by order of graduation for 3 reasons.

  • It makes it hard to find people when skimming.
  • It makes it impossible to add those prominent at UofT who did not graduate from it (graduation is not a criterion for being on the list.
  • I believe that other lists are alphabetical within section.

Bellagio99 (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetical sorting would also work, but it's just as arbituary as chronological or any other method. Alumni records are commonly organized by class year and it is usually the way university alumni identify themselves. People who don't graduate are still associated with their class year (Bill Gates famously dropped out of Harvard's Class of 1977, while Barack Obama famously transferred out of Occidental's Class of 1983.), so that's not a problem.
I don't have a strong preference one way or another, although I think chronological makes the most sense for the reasons above. Since the list is already sorted chronologically, I don't see the need to change it. But if someone really wants to go through the trouble of reordering the entire list, then that's fine. Jphillips23 (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed other universities like Harvard and Chicago have their alumni/faculty list in alphabetical orders. So, I believe we should alphabetize as well... someday. Wisdompower (talk) 11:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetizing

Bellagio99, alphabetizing would be a great idea, only if someone has the time to do it completely. Since it would make the entry look rather unorganized, if not done entirely. One person cannot possibly undertake such an immense task. I certainly can't, at the moment, because my last exam is on Thursday. We need more people to contribute. Wisdompower (talk) 10:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Documentation/Citations

ME, Your suggestion about verifiability is right in the WP mainstream. However, many (all?) of the names I contributed are self-documenting, through a cross-link to an article about that person. I believe that is sufficient for a list. Bellagio99 (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If you see above, years ago it was decided by consensus (I wasn't involved) that all links must have in-line citations. Me-123567-Me (talk) 06:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Any that cannot be cited at all should be removed. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course, citations are essential to any wikipedia article. However, adding in-line citations for every alumni is just not possible (also considering that contributers for this article are very few). We just can't do that for over 1300 notable alumni and over 300 notable faculty we have. As Bellagio99 mentioned, the directed wikipedia link speaks for themselves. Plus, we have a very few alumni without wikipedia entry. (hence, not really a serious issue) Before you ask us to take on such a rigorous task, could you have a look at other university alumni/faculty lists? (i.e. other notable global universities) They look like ours. They have citations for some, but not all. That's why we kept it this way. If there is anything that needs to be done to this list, it's alphabetizing. For examples of university alumni/faculty lists that do not have citations for every alumnus/faculty, but for some, refer to: List of University of Sydney people, List of University of Chicago alumni, List of Stanford University people, List of Princeton University people, List of University College London people, List of Georg-August University of Göttingen people, etc. --142.150.48.122 (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

None of those are featured. And the reason is because they don't have in-line citations, amongst other reasons. See also WP:WAX. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

However, this just cannot be done. It's impossible. We might add in some more in-line citations. That's possible. If you're going to add in the "ref/citation needed" sign to this list, I think you should do that to other lists where that's the issue as well. (Otherwise, it could seem misleading.) Apparently, the alumni/faculty lists where the citations are inserted for everyone are very few and rather, rare. i.e. List of University of California, Berkeley alumni I'm not really sure whether the contributers for this list are desperate to have this list featured. (I'm not.) When they're less occupied, they might think about it more. --142.151.162.141 (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not impossible. The current faculty should be sourceable to the university's own website. That's one source, cited many times. The alumni association may provide a list of all alumni for the asking, if the one doing the asking is an alumus. Such an offline source is perfectly acceptable. Abductive (reasoning) 03:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And who would be willing to actually ask 'the alumni association' to do that? I suspect no one would. Plus, not all alumni in the list are graduates. Some of them are former students, but didn't graduate. As I've said, just like what you've mentioned, adding a few more citations (providing citations for all current faculty for instance) is possible and we would do that, but otherwise, it's not rationally possible, with all the circumstances taken into consideration. If one wishes to check whether any alumnus mentioned actually studied here or not, or whether a former/current faculty actually taught or teaches here or not, then one would just go to that alumnus' wiki entry. Then, one would notice where the University of Toronto is mentioned. And to check further, one would visit the reference link that is placed near where the alumnus' affiliation with the university is mentioned. --142.151.162.141 (talk) 05:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Those very few would definitely have to be supported by citations, or else be removed. (Those changes cannot be made immediately though. It would take some time.) But over about 95% of alumni/faculty in the list are on wikipedia.--142.151.162.141 (talk) 06:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to compromise. If the person's article cites their relationship to U of T, then you don't need to cite it in the list. But those without articles do need to be cited or removed. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Abduction, I thought I made it clear that adding citations to those without wikipedia entry would take some time. Do you not have any patience? Why are you so desperate to put all our work into vain? This is not even the only university alumni/faculty list whose business section contains some alumni without any wikipedia page (because presumably, their roles in renowned firms reveal their notability, perhaps) The business section of the List of University of Pennsylvania people for example. We are certainly going to add in citations for those people without wikipedia link. I clearly told you that it's not going to be done in a day! Do you think we just sit in front of a computer all day?!! Give us some time! If you just remove them off the list before giving us any time to add in citations, what's the point? I don't want any more vandalism done to the list. We've spent our precious time working on it. --142.151.162.141 (talk) 03:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I've said it enough. We're going to put in citations for those people. So don't remove them off the list. This is very very clear. Isn't there a policy that prohibits vandalism? Fairness is extremely important as well. Why don't you do this to UPenn's list as well? Are you scared to do it to them? Concerning notability, when an organization a businessman represents as a CEO or a Chairman is notable and has a wikipedia page, then he/she is notable too. You just can't act in this arbitrary manner. And you can't force us to do such things in such a bullying manner either. When we say we're going to do it, we mean it. Leave it. simple. --Wisdompower (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for comments - in-line citations

A select few believe that in-line citations are not required in this list. Me-123567-Me (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

  • As can be seen above, this issue was discussed and the consensus for inline citations is quite strong. However, the citations don't all have to be different; I'm sure there are master lists of faculty, alumni and so forth that can be found. They don't have to be secondary, either. Then one uses the ref name = .... wikicode and append them to many of the names in one fell swoop. Abductive (reasoning) 07:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, any persons without articles must have a citation or they will be removed as non-notable. Consensus was reached on this point long ago. Abductive (reasoning) 07:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I ***DISAGREE*** Only 2 editors support Me/Abductive's position. And 3 -- counting myself -- support the case that a Wikipedia xlink is a strong case for notability position. There is NO consensus for change. And as IP author 142... has pointed out, many other lists have the same characteristics, so if anything, there is consensus on the existing xlink situation. Please do not act to change without consensus. Several people have put huge amounts of time and work into this list, and their work should be respected. Bellagio99 (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I've said before that more effort should be devoted to finding reliable sources instead of expanding a list that already covers most of the important people. But this still is a work in progress, so give it some time. There's no need to remove content solely for lack of citations. As for removing persons without articles, it is not difficult to create proper new articles for such persons if they are actually notable; otherwise those names should be removed. This list is already better than 90% of the alumni lists on Wikipedia, but it can be so much better with inline citations for each name.
I've contributed a fair bit to this list before Wisdompower came along, and some of the names that were added since then might need to be reviewed. For example, too many miscellaneous politicians were added to the Government section, which should really only contain national and provincial heads of state and government, supreme court judges and maybe historically influential federal ministers. So let's set the bar a bit higher and include only the most important individuals; but most of all, let's focus on getting proper citations. Jphillips23 (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Lists of all the renowned universities have some redlinks in them. Why can't the U of T have some? I know some people may have some bitter feelings about this university, but you just can't express them in wikipedia. This list deserves equal respect. As to citations, because Abductive requested that citations should be added for the redlinks (or else they should be removed) So I responded by saying: Yes, we will do it. But it's going to take some time. But after a few hours, the redlinks were removed. I.. just don't understand. So I reverted those edits and added in citations for those redlinks. But still, the redlinks were removed. I.... really don't comprehend you people's actions. Plus, about citations, the list already does have sufficient number of them. (at least, compared to other lists) And if one wants to check, one can visit the person's wikipedia page and go to where his/her affiliation with the university is mentioned and follow the reference link. (or if one is really skeptical, one can search as well) The redlinks should have citations. (Some of the redlinks don't at the moment. All the redlinks in business section do, but other sections need to be reviewed.) --Wisdompower (talk) 04:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Wisdompower, if a redlinked individual is indeed notable it will not difficult to create a new article. And if you see red links in those other lists, why don't you be bold and clean them up? We are trying to improve this list, not compare it with other alumni lists that are of lower quality. And by removing the red links that are not notable, you can improve this list and the other lists that you mentioned as well. Jphillips23 (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree 110%. If they aren't notable, remove them. Even if they have an article they may not belong in the list. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • And I'd like to add that it's basic common courtesy to edit while signed in rather than switching back and forth between an IP and a username when editing. It's especially poor form when you do it to evade blocks and skirt around the WP:3RR rule. freshacconci talktalk 04:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There isn't a featured list that has any red links. Please see my question below about notability. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This list doesn't have to be a featured list. It just needs to be as good as others. It needs to be similar to others. That's why alphabetizing should be implemented, but not removal of redlinks, or absolutely perfect citations for everyone.--Wisdompower (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

--Wisdompower (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)== Red links ==

How are... Elizabeth Spillius, Gary Dibb, Jean-Pierre Sabourin, Elliott Noss, Shaila Kibria, and Andrew Hughes notable? --Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The organizations they represent are famous, or their works are recognized. Read their descriptions. You see, wikipedia does not yet, have all the information there is to know, in this world. And all the universities' lists have some redlinks and that's because the redlinks pages may be created some time. If we just remove them, we would be missing them. (that is, when their pages do exist) This list doesn't have to be exceptionally good. It just needs to be as good as others. That's enough. --Wisdompower (talk) 04:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

But it's not enough. You have to prove they're notable. To list and cite isn't enough. They have to be important enough. To publish one little book isn't enough. Prove it. It's your burden to prove. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you remove the redlinks of all the universities in the world as well then? If you say you will, and if you really do so, I will be convinced. By the way, didn't you way you 'are willing to compromise'? As I've said, having it featured or making it look spectacularly good is not necessary. --Wisdompower (talk) 05:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Please read WP:WAX and WP:OWN. 2. I was willing to compromise, but they make a valid point about notability. 3. It's not my job to do every silly University list. And we should all strive to live up to the featured list standard. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Elliott Noss, for instance, is the CEO and President of Tucows, and he's mentioned in Tucows' wiki page. All the others are notable, in such a way. There are reasons why all the universities in world including Harvard and Yale keep those redlinks, and I do understand why. If all lists should live up to the 'standard' that you speak of, then why don't you remove the redlinks of other universities? You say it's not your job to do so, then why are you doing it here? This universitiy deserves equal respect. You may not have had any chance to come to this university and you might have some bitter feelings about it. But that doesn't mean you can express such feelings here. People spent time and effort into this work. If you want me to read something, be more specific. I can't devote all my time into reading all that you want me to read. You're not my boss or teacher. --Wisdompower (talk) 05:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

  • The links basically say: 1. you don't own the article. 2. You cannot compare this article to "other stuff." READ THEM. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
    • (ec) There is consensus, both here this talk page, and on the subject of lists generally, that people without articles can be listed, but they must have a citation. I am merely infoming you of this consensus. Everybody on Wikipedia is volunteering their time, and if a volunteer choses to improve one article and not another that is their choice. I have chosen to work on this list, and I am trying to operate within established consensus. You are making your own rules, in contravention of WP:OWN and all the other rules people have linked to above. Abductive (reasoning) 05:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Abductive, I've done what you requested me to do. The citations revealing notability and affiliation with the university are all complete. What now? This list just needs to look similar to other lists. If other lists have redlinks, this must too. A list that looks spectucularly clean and good is not what's expected by a standard reader. Me 1345354, I told you to be more specific. University lists are different. There does exist some uniformity, and this list just has to live up to the general standard, expected of a university list.--Wisdompower (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

THIS IS JUST ANOTHER UNIVERSITY LIST. IT SHOULD LOOK LIKE OTHERS.--Wisdompower (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Athabasca, Brighan Young. I haven't even heard of them. They're not as notable. (there are much more people here) A few might look different. But in general, it doesn't look so different. Meeting the general standard (of universities like this) is what we've been aiming for.--Wisdompower (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to have heard of them. They're the standard. They have no red links. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

How can they be the standard, when they're so different? They have much less notable alumni, to begin with, which makes their lists easier to edit. Universities like Michigan, Sydney, Chicago, UCLA etc are the standard.--Wisdompower (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

They are the standard because they meet the criteria, as agreed by the community consensus at WP:FL?. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure you've heard of List of University of Waterloo people and List of Wilfrid Laurier University people. They too meet the standard. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, notability of redlink alumni like Patrick Fung, Elliott Noss and John Cassaday is demonstrated by the fact that they're mentioned in the wiki pages of the companies that they represent. Since other renowned, big, historical universities like Harvard, Chicago, etc have some redlinks, there is no reason why U of T shouldn't. University of Waterloo lacks history (not their fault obviously) to have produced as many notable alumni. And Wilfred Laurier really isn't in the same level.--Wisdompower (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You can't compare Universities like that in this context. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? It's you who provoked it. Universities like this, as old, generally as well-known, as big, as diverse (in terms of courses), are the standard. I wasn't intending to compare universities' qualities. I was just saying, THIS LIST HAS TO RESEMBLE THE LISTS OF OTHER UNIVERSITIES LIKE THIS (AGAIN, AS OLD, AS BIG, AS RENOWNED).--Wisdompower (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Me-123567-Me, your point on red links is well taken. That said, absent of some copyright or biographical violation (or similar), there is no real urgency to remove content at once. Since there is disagreement over inclusion, the reasonable practice is to simply tag the entry and allow some time for the proper citations to be found. I do think it is overreacting with the reverts. Let's end this long argument and allow the list to be improved through the normal process by gathering references. Jphillips23 (talk) 06:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

jphillips23, I added in all the citations for the redlinks. (as Abductive desperately wanted me to do so) I really think that's enough. The redlinks were mostly there even before I began contributing. And all the universities of this kind have some redlinks in their lists. Ours is rather better than theirs in that sense, considering that our redlinks have external references at least. But it really is enough.--Wisdompower (talk) 06:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

We have 2 days to figure it out since the page was protected. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm Wisdompower. Let's just leave it like this. I've done all that Abductive wanted me to do. This list looks like other universities' lists (universities of this kind) sufficiently. We just want this to end. We don't want to waste any more of our time. (at least, I don't) It was all peaceful until you came in. The list had some redlinks long before I began contributing. (When I first saw the list, I viewed the presence of some redlinks as reasonable, because generally all the university lists were like that. Wikipedia doesn't contain information of all the notable people that exist in the world, yet. The descriptions beside the name explained why they're notable and are likely to have their wiki pages created.) Let's just leave it the way it was before. When I responded by saying "Why don't you remove all the redlinks of other university lists first?", someone replied by claiming that I should be bold and remove the redlinks whenever I see them. My response: Why should I do that, when I understand why some redlinks are kept? (and why don't YOU be bold and remove all the redlinks of other lists then?) I pay enough respect to contributers of others lists, and I believe that the apparent general uniformity among university lists is appropriate and should be maintained. --128.100.151.116 (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Changes will happen, that's the nature of Wikipedia. Someone else may come along and make major changes. Anyone can edit the list when it isn't protected. Even you. WP:OWN. Wikipedia:No vested contributors. It's fine, for now. But it could be better. I'd like to see tables, personally. Makes it neater to the eye. And we still need to confirm that the blue links without citations have them (citations for U of T) in their articles. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm wisdompower. Yes, obviously, changes can occur. However, your proposed change is unnecessary, considering that it's been like this for a very long time. There was no one complaining, because it looked like others of the kind and had problems that others of the kind also had. You might resort to claiming that that's "Other things exist". But in fact, the issue of university lists is different. Consider: Harvard, Yale, Chicago, Michigan and Toronto are all world-renowned, old, big universities with over 1000 notable alumni. (taken from their respective wikipedia alumni categories) Harvard, Yale, Chicago and Michigan have some redlinks in their lists and do not have citations for every single alumnus. Why shouldn't Toronto also have some redlinks in its list and just have some citations? By posing this argument, one is claiming equal rights and treatment to this list. Readers of this list most likely would have seen the lists of other universities (of this kind) as well. The lists of other similar universities are the standard. You can't bring in different universities like Athabasca, Brigham Young here, because they have considerably less notable alumni. (hence, they would not only have smaller number of people with wikipedia entry, but also no redlink. Redlinks tend to exist in business sections most of the time, because the reason for their inclusion is the notability of the firms that they represent. Most of the time, they're mentioned in the 'key people' section of their firms' wikipedia page as well, and this also establishes their own notability.) And about citations, just look at the article again, we already have enough citations. (the redundant citations were added for every redlink as well, due to Abductive's request.) How much further evidence do you need? Most of the time, the reader can just visit the wikipedia page of the graduate, look for where his/her affiliation with the university is mentioned, follow the reference link and check. Editing this list is much much harder than editing the list of Athabitaca for instance. Just look at the sheer number of people listed here. (It's understandable why, because this institution is older, bigger, more diverse (in terms of courses and the number of international students, perhaps) and much more renowned.) And, why do you care so much about this list in particular? You must go and urge the contributers of other university lists to make the same changes, because otherwise, it's just unfair. If you have any personal grudge against this university, keep it to yourself.--142.151.162.141 (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth BOTT Spillius

Editor Me asks about the notability of Elizabeth Spillius. She is a legendary figure in social network analysis as the "founding mother" of the field in the 1950s-1960s under her premarital name of Elizabeth Bott. (I have been active in the field for many years myself. But no need for WP:OR. This can be easily documented with the following publications: Linton Freeman and Barry Wellman. "A Note on the Ancestral Toronto Home of Social Network Analysis." Connections 18 (November, 1996): 15-19

The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science, byLinton C. Freeman. Vancouver, CA: Empirical Press, 2004. Freeman founded the original journal in the field, Social Networks. Wellman founded the major international society in the field. Bott (Spillius') famous book is Family and Social Network SHe later became a therapist, and I don't know about her notability there. But she did a huge amount for Social network analysis. Harzing's Publish or Perish, a shell of Scholar.Google, shows 3,981 citations to her name. So, if she has been removed from the list, I suggest she should be re-added. Bellagio99 (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Bellagio99 (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm wisdompower. Elizabeth Bott Spillius is kept in the list. Patrick Fung, John Cassaday, Elliott Noss, etc... They all need to be kept. They are all notable, and that's why I could find external web sources for them easily and add in their citations without any problem. (though I didn't add most of them in the first place.) There is no special need for this list to look better than those of other universities (of the kind).--142.151.162.141 (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal

So I started the process to remove those articles where their affiliation with U of T was not cited in their articles, but Wisdompower (talk · contribs) reverted again. If this continues, I will again report him for violating WP:3RR. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this is unfair to User:Wisdompower who has stated that he will shortly seek out the requested citations. I believe that User:Me-123567 is not being WP:Civil and is in fact the initiator in the edit war -- how many reversions has Me done? As this is term paper/final exam time at the University of Toronto -- and my guess is that Wisdom is a student there (I don't know who he is) -- then I suggest that all folks just relax and give Wisdom some time, in the spirit of [[WP:IAR]. It is much harder to put names on a list back in once they have been removed, than to fix up the existing ones, so let it be. PS: I've independently counselled him not to use an IP along with his login name. Spring is here. Let's be mellow. Bellagio99 (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I will definitely not try to put citations for every single alumnus. That's just impossible and wikipedia university lists rarely have such quality, but I will accept requests. Me-13245, if you want me to add in citations for some specific alumni, you should give me their names. (few at a time though) And yes, this is not the best time to have an internet discussion. I'm a student of this university and all the last assignments and term tests are coming up. Hence, Me-12324, if you want to argue with me about anything in regards to this article, let's do it after mid-April. Me-12324, you can't make such big, critical changes to an article without getting an approval from the article's major contributers. To be perfectly honest, your proposal to add in citations to every single alumnus listed and to remove the redlinks are all controversial at best. I've explained several times why that can't and shouldn't be done, because that's just unfair, considering other alumni lists of major global universities. You're wrong and mistaken, if you're thinking that just because including citations for everyone was possible for Athabitaca, it would be possible for U of T too. The sheer number of people included in the list is immense. The number of U of T alumni with wikipedia article is over 1300. And I suspect, the number of people included in this list is probably around 1000 (more or less). Do you seriously expect me to attach in line citations to such a huge number of people? Do you really want me to sit here and waste all my time adding pointless in line citations to every one? (It's utterly pointless, because if one wants to check for verification, one can just go to that person's wikipedia article and look for one. That's what I've been doing ever since I came to wikipedia. And it's very rare to find a biographical wikipedia article without any citation in it. Most of the time, the external sources will also be biographies. Those biographies will mention that person's educational background.)--Wisdompower (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I will give you the time you need to put in citations. Then I will list here who still needs citations. I like that idea. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You list those people HERE. NOT in the article. Don't remove people from the list, but list some people (about 5 for each request is manageable.) BUT PEOPLE WHOSE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES HAVE REFERENCE LINKS TO EXTERNAL BIOGRAPHIES WHICH CLEARLY STATE THEIR AFFILIATION WITH THE UNIVERSITY ARE PERFECTLY FINE. THEY DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM. AND THE CITATIONS DO NOT HAVE TO BE IN-LINE CITATIONS. So just request those people who don't have any citation of any form, which verifies their affiliations with the university, in their articles. Alright?--Wisdompower (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, for now. That satisfies me, but that may not satisfy other editors. Fair warning is all. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

So it's been almost a week. How much more time do you need? Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

ME, It's now term test, final paper, and final exam time until mid-April. So I think the WP:Civil answer is 3rd week in April. Bellagio99 (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
That's unreasonable. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

ME, seriously, you're not our boss. This article does not even have that much of a crucial problem. (In fact, none, unless one is being extremely picky.) It's you who's demanding too much from us, and being 'unreasonably' impatient. I've told you that you should make a small list here, if you desperately want citations of a few people. At the moment, students at this university including me, are having the final exams. Do you expect me to concede to your demands and waste my time, abandoning my studies? I think, that is truly 'unreasonable'. This article really does not have any noticeable problem. We've been trying to alphabetize, because that would make it look better. About the inclusion of a few citations, we're just doing you favors. But would you expect me to allocate a portion of my time for you, when exams are coming up? well, I'm not going to, until probably mid-April. Again, if you desperately want some citations done, as I've told you, make a very small list here.--Wisdompower (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

To have external cites?

Just took a look at the article, and just about everyone has a link to the person's own Wikipedia article. That should be enough for a list. Is there a Wikipedia canon that says it isn't?

I certainly don't have the time to do this, but I wonder if more energy should be put into alphabetizing within sections.

Bellagio99 (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Lists, like articles, must be cited or the challenged info can be removed. It's up to the author putting the info in to use in-line citations. The tags are necessary. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

From WP:CITE:

Wikipedia is written by contributors with a wide range of knowledge and skills. Readers need to be able to check the contributors' sources. Adding citations (references):

--Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Me, I agree with all of these points, but they are taken care of by the link to the Wikipedia article about each person. How aren't they? Bellagio99 (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Not all of the articles mention U of T in them, and thus aren't cited in that article but also the in-line citation is needed on this list because someone shouldn't have to search around to be able to verify their U of T affiliation. And there are times when U of T is mentioned but it isn't link in that article and it's far more work for me to have to go and look than to simply demand an in-line citation as the featured lists do. It's the standard. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Of course, it is WP:OR. But also common sense, as I am one of them too. But if you are immovable, then I suggest we go to Mediation after two weeks (UofT doesn't start until a week from now). I don't have time either, and I have asked User:Wisdompower in a few days.

May I propose a compromise so we can move forward. On the one hand, we don't want to throw out the laborious compiled list. OTOH, you make a good point about verification. So just as the NHL just did with Kovalev's (sp?) looong contract, let's keep the list as it is, but ask new additions to supply external links. It would be great if you put a template up asking for that. (I won't revert.) BTW, I can't speak for many of the other names, but I know (of) most of the faculty listed and then are kosher. OK? Shanah Tovah! Bellagio99 (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I hate to be a spoiled sport, but the current ones also need in-line citations. I'm willing to give time for them to be put in, (that is what the templates are for), but I don't have the time to do it myself. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Your 'say so' that some of the staff are 'ok' is original research. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Routine addition challenged

I made a routine addition to the list, and an editor made a non-policy/guideline based revert with the edit comment, "Please show UofT connection in another publication."  There is no apparent reason for this revert.  Nonetheless, I provided the source.  But the edit was again reverted, this time with the edit comment, "Please document the University of Toronto connection with 3rd party source."  There is no such requirement on Wikipedia, and there is still no apparent reason for the revert.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it is late, but I still do not see the source. I'd appreciate it if you could spell out the Univ of Toronto link here? Notability is clear. Please note that there have sometimes been spurious postings to this list. And there IS a requirement in Wikipedia to document claims. Bellagio99 (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I provided a source in the edit comment.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

William Faulkner? Aeronautics? Toronto?

Faulkner is listed as having a connection with the "School of Aeronautics" at University of Toronto. This may be a hoax, as I couldn't find any documentation. I'll delete unless someone documents within 24 hours Bellagio99 (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Faulkner attended the School of Military Aeronautics in 1918 and had a room on the second floor of Wycliffe College (two references were provided when this was added). He wrote many letters home from Toronto, and some Faulkner experts have stated that his short time at U of T influenced his later writings.Please see: [2][3][4]. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of University of Toronto people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on List of University of Toronto people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_University_of_Toronto_alumni/Archive_1&oldid=1188398387"