Jump to content

Talk:Michael W. Higgins

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

Non-Neutral point of view

[edit]

Please report and reference the entire story in the appropriate article. This added incident was not the decision/fault of one man.

Markhenick (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please suggest a neutral version of the incident. And if it meets with agreement on this page I will happily add it to the article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thorough and Factual

[edit]

The President of a university is responsible for the official policies and actions of his administration. It is a matter of public record that Higgins authorized the lockout and publicly defended it. It is also a fact that the lockout was the first of its kind in Canadian university history. Any consideration of Higgins' career that did not include a discussion of his role in the lockout would be incomplete. Additions or changes to the discussion of Higgins' involvement in the lockout should be factual and based on citations of publicly accessible sources. Les Battersby (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but currently this one incident takes up more than half of the article. This may be giving it undue weight. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


FoxNews Effect

[edit]

Stop trying so hard to make up a precedent. CAUT itself said that Bishop's was the first preemptive lockout. None of the sources provided prove anything. They merely repeat the unfounded claim that the faculty union put forward that this was the first lockout in Canada to preempt a strike. I have provided evidence to the contrary. When one party says something, and lots of people repeat it, and then the original party points to all these others as though they were proof of their original claim... That my friend is the epitome of logical fallacy and the telltale mark of a vastly inferior academic. That, my friend, is the FoxNews Effect.

If a fact is in dispute, it is called 'controversial'.

Markhenick (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unprecedented

[edit]

The Bishop's University lockout and the CAUT article cited by Markhenick occurred before the St. Thomas University lockout. At the time, the Bishop's University lockout was unprecedented in Canadian universities' history. It was the first lockout of all bargaining units when one bargaining unit of the faculty union was already on strike. When the faculty union was locked out at St. Thomas University, neither of its bargaining units were on strike and neither had taken a strike vote. That is what is different from the Bishop's University situation and that is what makes the St. Thomas University lockout unprecedented in Canadian universities' history. The key difference is there was no striking bargaining unit of the faculty union at St. Thomas University. Those are the facts.

I also suggest a compromise of "controversial and unprecedented." That way, both preferred words are there. I also suggest one citation - the one from the Telegraph Journal which is a reputable newspaper in the province of New Brunswick. This is where St. Thomas University is located. I think this is a fair compromise and avoids constant deletion and substitution of one's preferred descriptor. Are you prepared to be reasonable and end the edit war? Sonja B Rosca (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)SonjaBRosca[reply]

Context needed, but getting closer

[edit]

Although part of the union was on strike at Bishops, the faculty unit was not. For accurate comparison with the STU faculty union, that is what is relevant here. The citation of CAUT calling Bishops the first preemptive, employer initiated strike in history is undeniable and on the record. The STU situation was a variation of that precedent, with the difference being that it was preemptive of an actual faculty strike vote - although one was scheduled to be held within days of students' return to campus from Christmas break. The problem with calling it 'unprecedented' in the way that you have overtly implies that it was a bad thing, without entertaining the opposing view. In fact there is the opposing argument, as many reporters and STU faculty alike have made, that the lockout was a good strategic move for protecting students from being used as leverage at the negotiating table (by not starting and then interrupting their semester, and letting them stay home with their families).

Aside from all these background issues, I would be amenable to a footnote on the lockout and strike reading something to the effect that, although Bishops was the first preemptive lockout (as cited by CAUT), STU indeed became the first to go a step further and do so before an official strike vote was held by faculty. This is indeed a fact, but it needs context to be interpreted fairly. Whatever side the author of an article is on shouldn't matter, and the reader should be given all of the tools to make up their own mind.

Markhenick (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I offer a solution

[edit]

Although I think unprecedented is a more neutral term, I have used controversial. I have removed the lockout/strike discussion from the initial paragraph. I think it should be part of the history, which comes later. I also explain why it was controversial. Sal Map (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Sally[reply]


--> I think that this is a fair solution. Markhenick (talk) 04:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--> Fine with me and thank you. Sonja B Rosca (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Sonja[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Michael W. Higgins. 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) 14:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_W._Higgins&oldid=1207511220"