Jump to content

Talk:McMaster University Library

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dnllnd.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

[edit]

I would prefer not to see these two pages merged as has been suggested. The Ready page will grow and expand in scope as collections are described; as such, its information would come to dominate the page for the larger organization to the point where the other divisions and buildings would be nearly invisible. There is precedent on Wikipedia for having main organizational pages separate from the special collections and archives division. dswikia —Preceding undated comment added 02:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC+9)

Staff and Labour section

[edit]

There is a clear consensus in the RfC that the "Staff and Labour" section was excessive and sourced to primary sources that do not meet Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. The section has been removed per the consensus here. Cunard (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How should the Staff and Labour section handle information regarding Jeff Trzeciak's legacy at McMaster? Users with IP addresses that have only edited this page, implying an affiliation to Trzeciak, have repeatedly edited to remove reference to negative impacts over the past week. All edits have been reverted by other established users. --Dnllnd (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this section was created to document the events of a narrow slice of time and the WP:STRIFE is squarely focused on points of view. One side or the other is editing the section to cast Trzeciak in either a positive or negative light overall when in fact these are opinions. A solution may be to present strictly facts, and then to provide attributions of differing opinions (in equitable amounts). Edit 752347791 made an attempt to present a WP:NPOV, or at least to point out the bias and attempt to mitigate it. That effort should continue and I hope to offer some suggestions soon. Also, an attempt could be made to expand the period of time covered by that section. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 03:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dnllnd: You might want to consider asking about this at WP:BLPN to get more feedback. From the edit sums that IP 47.34.73.209 is leaving, it appears that the information is being removed for WP:BLP concerns. Even if the IP is somehow connected to Trzeciak, removing BLP violations is generally something considered acceptable for COI editors to do per WP:COIADVICE and WP:BLPKIND. So, instead of reverting anymore, it would be best to determine whetherit is actually a BLP violation. This will also give IP 47.34.73.209 a forum to make their concerns known to others. You should be careful with any further reverts because, despite the 3RR warning placed on the IP 47.34.73.209's user talk page, removal BLP violations is sometimes considered an exemption of 3RR per WP:NOT3RR, but re-adding any such disputed content is almost always not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input,@TheCrazedBeast: and @Marchjuly:! I'm going to leave things as is and see how it plays out. Best, --Dnllnd (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire section is excessive detail, outdated, and presented from a POV. From what I know of the situation, and analogies with my own experience, I am very sympathetic to the POV, but that is irrelevant. WP is not an instrument of advocacy. DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section is completely unnecessary. It doesn't document anything other than an interpersonal conflict dressed up by those parties involved in the academic language of dire import and wide-ranging effects. It also does not do anything to further the understanding of the institution that a reader would need to know. Concluded academic power struggles that don't have lasting impact are not notable in themselves, and this one does not claim any significant lasting impact on the institution beyond some personnel shuffles and one departure. Axe the entire section. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sourcing seems entirely primary sources internal to the institution, if that is the case, this is a 'storm in a teacup. As said above "academic power struggles that don't have lasting impact are not notable in themselves", especially when they are not taken up by outside sources. Probably nothing worth saving, even disregarding BLP concerns. Pincrete (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eggishnorn and Pincrete have the right of this, insofar as I can tell. This extensive coverage of an episode of internal staff infighting/bureaucracy provides absolutely no value to the understanding of Mcmaster University Library as an encyclopedic topic--as evidenced by the fact that absolutely none of this content is supported by so much as a single source that qualifies as an WP:RS for our purposes here. And while I am usually the last person to invoke BLP to remove controversial content simply because it reflects badly on a party, I have to agree that it is warranted in this case (again, owing to the lack of credible sources backing up/contextualizing any of these assertions). This entire section can (and should) be removed and the article will be better for it. Snow let's rap 01:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went ahead and removed the disputed section entirely based on the above discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on McMaster University Library. 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) 17:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:McMaster_University_Library&oldid=1256447874"