Talk:University of Ottawa/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

RE: Ann Coulter Controversy section

This section needs to mention that Coulter canceled the event and that it was not shut down. The section implies in tone that it was against Coulter's wishes that the event was canceled and that the crowd forced the cancelation.

Ottawa police say they didn't shut Coulter down "there weren't thousands of protesters as has been reported by some media outlets. In fact, the best police estimate of the crowd size is 1,500 and that is everyone. Many in the crowd were there simply to hear Coulter speak and were not there to protest. Boucher refused to be drawn into estimating the exact number of protesters."[...]"there was no mob nor riot. "We had no fears that anything would occur," Boucher said. "When asked to leave, [the crowd] all left."" Source: The Digital Journal.

The section also has some glaring grammatical errors. Omniomi (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That takes the controversy out of context, and there is enough material on Youtube and the mainstream press to show it might have been a legitimate decision to pull the plug. The fact that no one seems to care that people pulled the fire alarm suggests that, in some cases, people don't mind if someone yells "fire" in a crowded theatre.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: Controversy section Ann Coulter Section blanking

I've created this thread as it seems to keep appearing and disappearing and probably needs some discussion as to why it should be removed. Please feel free to comment below why or why not this should be included; Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I see no harm in leaving it in. The event made national and perhaps international news. In a few years it will be uninteresting and can be dropped. DGERobertson (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The section meets the requirements for WP:N (it's notable), WP:V (it's verifiable), and doesn't upset WP:UNDUE (the section is small enough so that it doesn't "take over the article" in word count). According to Wikipedia policy, there is absolutely no reason why this should not be in the article. Make an arguement for its exclusion. Rapier (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

When the university muzzled and then fired tenured professor Denis Rancourt for his political views, not only did it not warrant a mention in this article, but a cadre of the very people demanding the Ann Coulter bullshit be added here tried to get the Denis Rancourt article deleted. Apparently WP:UNDUE gets applied differently depending on which side of the political spectrum you're on. SmashTheState (talk) 07:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Denis Rancourt is mentioned in the article today, the controversey surrounding him isnt though. You are welcome to seek consensus on the controversey's inclusion in a seperate thread if you want. Ottawa4ever (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If you feel something else should be included, then by all means bring it up for debate. However, I ask that you assume good faith when speaking of other editors. I, for one, was not involved in any previous debate here regarding the professor in question, so I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. Rapier (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ann Coulter controversy (AGAIN)

This section is way, way too long. I attempted to shorten it but was immediately reverted. Editors interested in this article are encouraged to summarize and shorten this section to avoid giving it undue weight. This is one brief incident in the history of an institution that is over 150 years old and it should be appropriately represented. ElKevbo (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the section should be significantly shortened. Your edit looked fine to me—the first paragraph accurately summarises the situation, and the following paragraphs elaborate into too-specific detail. For one thing, there is no need for any quotes whatsoever—what one newspaper article said about the situation is not relevant to the entire University of Ottawa. -M.Nelson (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason I expanded it was because its previous format omitted important information that has since come to light regarding this incident. Furthermore, it lacked detail regarding what actually occurred and the statements and additudes of those involved. For example, it left out the fact that students at the university deliberately tried (successfuly) using various methods to get the event cancelled (i.e. the decision by Coulter's security staff to cancel the event was not made in a vaccum.). In any event, the current version provides more context. Furthermore, all of the material I added is properly sourced from mainstream publications (and yes the National Post is right-wing, but it is mainstream). I welcome and additions and selections.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC))

While the section doesn't need to be as long as it is (a different article should be created to get into full detail), please come up with something other than the "150 year history of this institution" as a reason for not including it. If you have something to add about the "150 year history of this institution", then by all means add it. If there isn't anything there, and this controversy is the only notable thing that has ever happened there, then perhaps it should dominate the article. Rapier (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Ann Coulter

Since this section is longer then the history section shouldn't it be its own article? Also it seems pretty ridiculous to me that it has no part in the lead despite making up a substantial amount of the article. Perhaps a sentence or two about UO's free speech record. Slaja (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said in July: If this section, which isn't that long relatively, dominates the article, then perhaps more detail regarding the University should be added. If this is the most notable thing about the University, then perhaps it should dominate the word countRapier (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm very, very dubious that this is indeed the most notable thing to happen at or to this institution. It's far more likely that the current descriptions of history and notable events is woefully lacking as is the case for many of our articles.

And I disagree that this should be spun out into a separate article. Instead, it's a wonderful example of our bias towards recent events and our media's obsession with titillating-but-ultimately-meaningless-or-minor events. The correct move would be to trim this section down to a length appropriate with its importance and impact. ElKevbo (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, if an institution has a history of human rights violations (eg. restrictions on free-speech) it should be noted. However, if this truly was an anomaly it will be naturally phased out of the article slowly by the "invisible hand" of Wikipedia.

My point was as it is now, it can't be avoided that it makes up a large part of the article, and is the largest single section in terms of words. According to the manual of style (Wikipedia:LEAD) the lead should be a summary, an overview of the most important points covered in an article. As such it should either be included in the lead, or if it is felt to be too tangential a new article should be created. As it is now it is Wiki "invalid", and should be corrected.Slaja (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that the section should be heavily shortened. This isn't about "an institution having a history of human rights violations"; it's about one single event. Additionally, "human rights violations" is your own POV-- one could easily interpret the university as preventing Coulter from preaching hate speech, which is illegal in Canada. We don't need to cover every single aspect of this issue (for example, I removed the last paragraph entirely-- why is a single editorial given a paragraph in an encyclopedia??). Since it's clear that there is some issue here, I've placed an {{undue}} tag on the article. -M.Nelson (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't state that it was the most notable event to happen to or at the University, I simply stated that if it were, than it should dominate the article. The section as it stands now is a little more than 10% of the overall article. I keep seeing people mention the "institution's 100+ year history". If this is such a prestigious institution, then start adding those details. Simply doing so and leaving the Coulter section alone would do your job without deleting something you don't happen to like. Rapier (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here. First, the Coulter section is way too long and out of proportion to its importance. Second, the article is lacking many details that should be there, particularly in its history section. In a perfect world, we would fix both problems. However, the first problem is much easier to fix than the second in that it doesn't take specialist knowledge of this institution to fix it.

And please be careful with your assumptions and how your suggestions can be perceived. I don't think anyone has made claims about the prestige of this institution nor is it wise to tell other volunteers here what to do (or be perceived as doing so). I understand what you're saying but I continue to assert that it's extremely unlikely that this is indeed the most notable event in the institution's history. For example, the transfer of religious education to St. Paul when the University of Ottawa became a public institution is much more important (and interesting, IMHO). ElKevbo (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't get into the opinion business. If a subject has garnered a certain level of reliable media attention it is eligible for mention here, per WP:Notability. If in fact it is the most notable event in the institution (as its weight is currently suggests), the article should be geared towards it, per WP:Layout. This includes a summary in the lead which includes it, per WP:Lead. It's current position is once again wrong because it is the most substantial part of the article, yet is ignored everywhere else.

If the other sections of the article are improved then the situation will change, however the "Coulter section" has remained the most "important" since its introduction.

Deleting sections will not give us a better idea of its notability. According to the guidelines the paragraph deleted by User:M.Nelson was acceptable. Slaja (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I believe that due to the media attention surrounding the incident, it is notable to mention the incident in the article. However, I believe that it is given too much weight. If the article was expanded to featured status, I think that this section would deserve one or two paragraphs (and I believe that all the information worth conveying could easily be shrunk into that length, particularly by removing quotations). We don't need to—and shouldn't—offer a play-by-play of the incident and its aftermath.

Though there may be a large number of news sources, they're all from the week surrounding the incident. The incident appears to have had no lasting effect whatsoever, and its size is largely the result of WP:RECENTISM. Furthermore, four of the eight references (7 of 11 inline citations) are from the National Post; for all we know (I'm not saying whether it did or did not), the National Post gave this far more coverage than any other newspapers, meaning that the incident actually isn't as notable per WP:DIVERSE. Additionally, there are obvious neutrality issues with using one source so much.

Finally, regarding my deletion, even if the entire incident deserves this length, does one editorial deserve an entire paragraph? Regardless of how notable the entire incident is, one newspaper's opinion ("The National Post sharply criticized...") is not notable enough to deserve a paragraph. Even if it was, I don't see any other newspapers mentioned to balance it out. -M.Nelson (talk) 03:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

PS, you seriously think that the "Coulter section" is the most "important" piece of this article?! As I said above, the incident has had no lasting effect. I'd appreciate if you'd expand on that a bit. -M.Nelson (talk) 03:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

PPS, I posted a note about this at Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Requests for comment. -M.Nelson (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support removal As mentioned above in a round about way but not pointed to in this section is --> Wikipedia:Undue weight, that should be applied here "forthwith". The section is clearly way over sized for the notability of the event to the University. What should be done ( and what i would do if there was no current controversy) would be to simply add ONE sentence to the Media section. Our readers then can simply click on her name and find the section 2010 Canadian university tour. Is the subject in question not more about Ann Coulter then the University. The first thing we must ask our self's is if the event is notable for its location or the person involved. Then we must ask will the event in the future be associated with the location or more with the person? I believe its clear that the event (its notability) should be located in one place - that is at "Ann Coulter" article. After reading Ann's article i have to ask y is this info being duplicated here in the first place? Its in the right place already all be it a bit shorter. That said we must also be careful not to make this single event overwhelming in Ann's article......which is an altogether different debate that i would love to join if need be.Moxy (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
• Reduce significantly and incorporate into History section I'd say that the whole controversy ought to be reduced to about 3-4 sentences and folded into the history section. Coulter has left a trail of similar events at many colleges where she spoke. If there ever is a History of University of Ottawa article, the the Coulter controversy could be a few short paragraphs.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support removal One sentence is enough in University of Ottawa article. The notability of an event should not be measured by the press buzz at the moment the event happens, but a few years later. It does not make sense as a section of the University of Ottawa main article. --Anneyh (talk) 07:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support reduction/ creation of new article Nelson's on the ball here i think. The key is lasting effect and enduring notability which, this appears merely in the news at least to me. In 50 years are they going to continue to talk about it?., is there still coverage today even? I dont feel this has been shown in the text to justify its length. Im okay if someone tries to create an article (always support expanding), but as such they would have to ask themselves, because others will, Does it satisfy notability as a stand alone article?., Is it just in the news?. We need as editors to be careful when we claim that the university has a history of human rights violations (censureship). If the university does (which it may..I dont know) a source should appear compiling these events and making that correlation. Is there a reliable one out there? Im not saying the text is terrible or it shouldnt be said, One or two sentances is fine mentioning the event. Im just saying the way its laid out seems to as Nelson deduced has 'no lasting effect', and certaintly protrays right now as undue'd weight Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support drastic summarization and oppose spin-out to new article per WP:RECENT. Next to no one will recall this event as anything of import in 5 years, much less the 50 year perspective we should have as encyclopedists. It's a trivial footnote that was exacerbated by political provocateurs and should be drastically and neutrally summarized. The article is fundamentally imbalanced and editors who are calling into question the University's prestige or history should check their motivations at the door. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly support Keep or creation of new article

This section of the article (which certainly does not dominate it) deals with the issue of free speech. More specifically, it examines the confirmed behaviour and statements of university officials and the successful efforts to prevent Coulter from speaking on Campus. The issue of censorship of unpopular and controversial topics/people is very noteworthy and is certainly not "trivial". It may depict the university in a less than positive light but that is not a reason for it to be removed. Furthermore, this section is based on reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia. If it is felt that this section is "fundamentally imbalanced" then feel free to add content that supports the contrary opinion. However, I would support the creation of a new article for this section as a compromise.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC))

Just because something "deals with free speech", that doesn't make it notable. Going through WP:Notability (events), did this event

1. Have lasting effects? I would say no.
2. Have geographical scope? No; even though it was reported in national newspapers, the event certainly did not "have a demonstrable long term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group."
3. Have significant depth of coverage? Since this was picked up by most if not all Canadian news organisations, I'd say yes it did.
4. Have significant duration of coverage? No; the event's coverage can be explained as "a burst or spike of news reports" with little further in-depth coverage.
5. Have strong diversity of sources? Though there was diverse coverage, the section currently does not have diversity of sources (meaning that even if it is notable, the article is currently misusing sources). If you think the section merits inclusion, you need to prove that it is neutral. -M.Nelson (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Keep and expansion of visibility

Contrary to what User:Moxy said this is not about Ann Coulter. As I mentioned earlier this is evidence of a systematic restriction of human rights by a publicly funded institution. This is not to be written off considering that, once again, the "Ann Coulter section" is both the most substantial in content and the most heavily cited with proper wiki format. Like User:Hyperionsteel mentioned, critical information must be displayed and not muted on Wikipedia. Slaja (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

So this would have happened if it was Dan Aykroyd? come-on..Pls no POV pushing. The info is displayed in the right place no one is muting anything.Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs) 23:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and sign your posts. Not being willing to stand by your own words is hardly supporting your point of view. Rapier (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You'd do good to assume good faith yourself. Furthermore, that's a personal attack—don't accuse Moxy of not being willing to stand by his words; it's the content of his comment that matters. Anyway, let's get back to the discussion.... -M.Nelson (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, calling this "a systematic restriction of human rights" is POV-pushing. Coulter stated that she would file a complaint but a) I don't believe she has done so and b) it's not a human rights violation until the commission declares it so, which has not happened. -M.Nelson (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: The size of the section in question is not that large when compared to the entireity of the article (around 12%), considering the issue is the latest in a systemic issue that made international news. If the rest of the article needs more material, then add it. This section is Reliabl sourced and until an editor adds something more to the article it appears to be the most notable thing to happen there. Removal because you don't like Ann Coulter or because it frames the University in a bad light is not in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Rapier (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

  The opposing argument is not simply "this section has too much weight relative to the rest of the article"; it's that "this section has too much weight, PERIOD." Look through the pro-removal opinions above—they're not suggesting that we "tweak the section until it is neutral"; they're suggesting that we reduce the section size altogether. Even if the section was perfectly neutral, the event is given too much weight, period. -M.Nelson (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

  PS, when someone says that the section is not neutral, can you prove that the section is neutral? If not, when you say "if you have a problem, fix it yourself" is essentially saying "it's broken but I won't fix it—and I oppose its removal". -M.Nelson (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The way Wikipedia works is that if an event meets the stated requirements for WP:N and WP:RS, then it is included. This event meets these criteria. I understand that you are a student at the University and you don't like how the incident portrayed your school, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't an excuse for getting rid of something. I'm not the one staing that anything is broken, so why would I want to fix anything? Whether you like it or not, the incident occured, it was covered, and it is a part of the history of the school. So yes, it belongs. Other than that, the only argument becomes how much weight is given in this article. Rapier (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again, when someone says that the section is not neutral, can you prove that it is neutral? You've ignored a large number of valid arguments above and below (if you think my argument is a simple "IDONTLIKEIT", then I doubt you even read them); if you want to prove that the article is fine in its current state, you need to ensure that all issues brought up are dealt with. For example, Anneyh directly below says that the event didn't truly attract "international news". If you don't respond to Anneyh's concern (and all other concerns), then it's implied that you can't respond to it. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Young man, unlike many, I have a job that does not allow me to sit on articles and make timely responses to questions. With regard to Anneya, by definition any event that occurs in one country and is reported in another is "international". That isn't difficult to understand. You need to read up on what Wikipedia is and what it is not. My argument is simple and still unrefuted. According to the standards of WP:N and WP:RS this section of the article is merited. You disagree. That is understood. What we are currently doing is discussing it. Your points have already been addressed by Slaja, yesterday, when he states "Wikipedia doesn't get into the opinion business. If a subject has garnered a certain level of reliable media attention it is eligible for mention here, per WP:Notability. If in fact it is the most notable event in the institution (as its weight is currently suggests), the article should be geared towards it, per WP:Layout. This includes a summary in the lead which includes it, per WP:Lead. It's current position is once again wrong because it is the most substantial part of the article, yet is ignored everywhere else...If the other sections of the article are improved then the situation will change, however the "Coulter section" has remained the most "important" since its introduction...Deleting sections will not give us a better idea of its notability. According to the guidelines the paragraph deleted by User:M.Nelson was acceptable.". Yes, we are reading what you say. We disagree, and are requesting comment. Since you have already stated that you aren't familiar with it, please read WP:RfC for proper proceedure during this process. Thank you Rapier (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying to Anneyh; I suppose you two will agree to disagree on that one. If you're looking for some more arguments to refute (seriously, this shouldn't take prodding), a few that are unanswered are: M.nelson at 3:21, 12 October; Ottawa4ever at 09:26, 12 October; Madcoverboy at 13:27, 12 October ; Moxy at 23:05, 12 October; M.nelson at 02:01, 13 October; ElKevbo at 02:11, 13 October. If you do respond to these, please don't just give a blanket "actually it passes WP:N" response; respond instead to the specific items brought up (like, for example, lasting effect). As I said above, when you don't respond to these concerns, it's implied that you can't respond to them. If you don't, then quite frankly I'll be happy: new third parties (brought on by the RfC, of which only the formatting I am not familiar) will see this, and will judge the strength of your arguments accordingly. PS, though it's irrelevant, you seem to be misrepresenting the RfC when you say "We [...] are requesting comment"— if you look below, it is parties that support removal (including myself) that requested comment. -M.Nelson (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Can you be more specific about "international news", Ann Coulter is American and the event happened in Canada, so it's pretty normal that the news was published in both of these countries. Could you give a source outside US and Canada ? --Anneyh (talk) 06:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

  I won't be too long, because I'm not a native speaker and furthermore I also have a job. I agree that strictly speaking international starts with two nations and that's probably the reason why WP:N uses "same geographic region" and "Significant coverage" and that WP:GEOSCOPE says "internationally makes notability more likely". What I actually had in mind is that some events involving Ottawa University as well as some events involving Ann Coulter had significant coverage outside US/Canada, but as far as I could check this precise event did not. --Anneyh (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the above discussion, I have a few things to add. First, there several arguments cited that deserve a response:

• first, the claim that "one could easily interpret the university as preventing Coulter from preaching hate speech, which is illegal in Canada." Really? Did the university (or the students who prevented the speech) file any legal documents to support this claim? or ask the Canadian government to ban Coulter from entering Canada? No. They simply decided that they, and they alone, have the right to use brown shirt tactics (i.e. threats, intimidation) to decide what can and can't be said on campus.
• Second, the claim that "it's not a human rights violation until the commission declares it so..." Really? I was unaware that in Canada, the use of the term "human rights violation" regarding an incident requires the approval and/or authorization of the Canadian Human Rights Commission or its provincial counterparts. The commissions themselves have very interesting views on Human rights (e.g. CHRC investigator Dean Steacy's statement that "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value"), but we can save that debate for another time.

As I have said earlier, the issue and debate about freedom of speech is a very important topic. This issue has come to light at universities across North America regarding efforts to prevent anything generically labelled as "hate speech" from being spoken on campuses. That's why considerable detail was included in this article, and again, if you want to add material that supports the university and the protestor's behaviour, feel free to do so. Regarding the National Post, if there is any information cited from it that is inaccurate or potentially libelous, feel free to point it out and remove it.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC))

• Do you have a reliable source stating that this was a human rights violation? You claim legal documents are required to declare something hate speech, but not to declare something a human rights violation? Did a reliable source use the word "brownshirt"? (Not only does it prove Godwin's Law, but comparing uOttawa to Nazis really shows off your POV.)
• Regardless, that this issue deals with freedom of speech is 100% irrelevant. What matters is WP:N and particularly WP:EVENT. Regarding the National Post, just because something can be accurate and non-libellous doesn't mean that we need to include it, per WP:UNDUE. -M.Nelson (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Response: Allow me to clarify: First: Please read my above statement (correctly this time): I never claimed this was a human rights violation; rather you stated that it could not be considered one with the approval/authorization of Canada's human rights commissions (which is absurd). Now, I could argue denying someone the right to speak their opinion, even if that opinion is offensive to some, could be considered a human rights violation, but I won't do that since I doubt there could be rational discussion about that here - although, left-wing groups routinely claim that their human rights have been violated whenever they are not allowed to express their point of view (which can also be offensive to some). Second: I never claimed that the University or its students were nazis. Rather, I stated that, in this incident, the students used threats, intimidation, and other extra-judicial methods to silence those they disapproved of - tactics which were used by the nazis against their real and perceived enemies. You do not have to be a nazi to use nazi tactics (groups on the right and left often use these tactics to attempt to silence dissent). For the record, if a right-wing group used similar tactics against a dissenting speak, I would use the same analogy). I would think this would be clear to you, but instead you have resorted to accusations and double-talk. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC))

I personally consider the term "human rights violation" to be much like "murder" or "war crime": you may prevent someone from speaking (just as you may kill someone), but it's not considered a "human rights violation" (or "murder") until a court says so. If I prevented someone from speaking, and a newspaper reported the incident, they'd say "prevented from speaking" rather than "violated human rights", because the second is applying interpretation onto the first (which is solely facts). In the same vein, the "brownshirt" comparison is unneccesary: you can get the same point across, and did, by describing the actions directly ("threats and intimidation") rather than making a Nazi comparison. As SeanNovack said below, it's best to "avoid intentionally provocative words [...] to discribe events that are obviously controversial". -M.Nelson (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the term "human rights violation", you initially cited Canada's Human Rights Commissions as a standard for the determination of this term, which is why I questioned your reasoning (given some of the bizarre rulings and statements by the federal and provincial human rights commissions (for example, here, here, here, and here)). However, as you later pointed out, the criminal and civil courts take a much narrower (and more reasonable) approach when labeling something a human rights violations. In fact, I agree with you for the most part, but I do believe that the right to express one's opinion (even if it is offensive to some) is one of the most important elements of our society.

After thinking about if for a moment, I admit my use of the term "brown shirt tactics" was both unrealistic and improper. However, I still argue that the use of intimidation, threats, and disruptions (even if it does not result in physical injuries) is not acceptable on University campuses.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC))

History of censorship

Those who are alleging that this is merely the latest in a series of incidents indicating a history of censorship by the university need to provide sources supporting their assertion or cease making it. It's abhorrent to make such a serious accusation without supporting facts. Put up or shut up. (And note that this different from those who simply believe that this one event is notable in and of itself and deserves significant coverage. I disagree with them, too, but that position is a far cry from smearing this institution without proof.) ElKevbo (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes certainly. The most notable example I can recall is in 2004, early 2005 and again in mid 2005 Jared Taylor, a Yale educated philosopher and economist, was barred from speaking on Ottawa U's campus because of his views on multiculturalism. I have known a staff member (I won't specify for obvious reasons) at OttawaU for some time now and can say with certainty the number of speakers prevented from entering the campus to speak is in the dozens in this decade alone (however 99% of the time the speaker isn't notable enough to cause an media stir). The reason is the multicultural organizations in the university pretty much dominate the political agenda of the university. For instance the main student Muslim group has on several occasions directed the placement of university funds for their betterment, simply because of the leverage they hold. The entire governing group of the university knows that if they don't comply with their demands they will lose in the end. This is why I state the "systematic restriction of human rights". Slaja (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe you meant to say "systematic protection of human rights." HTH. SmashTheState (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources? ElKevbo (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Procedural question

Since we seem to be 90% of the way there already, should this be formalized into an RfC so we can get broad input, particularly from those outside of the subject matter who may have more objective opinions than those of us who are closer to it? ElKevbo (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure; new third opinions can't hurt. I'm not personally familiar with the formatting of an RfC, but I invite anyone who knows how to do so. -M.Nelson (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes to RfC - people that are generally involved with RfC are experienced editors and many be-able to weight in with a key Wikipedia policy and/or guideline to help us move forward.Moxy (talk) 03:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Done! RfC posted below. ElKevbo (talk) 03:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Do we need to comment again below the line? --Anneyh (talk) 06:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are free to do what you like. The section is for new comments and views (preferably by new readers of the article, but not limited to). New viewers of the debate that come to comment will see/ should read all above. So no need to repeat ourselves. However like i said if you feel you have something new to add and/or wish to elaborate and feel you have not expressed your views clearly...pls add your comments. I personally will not comment again unless a so called Vote/poll is called (as i believe that i got my views across). Moxy (talk) 06:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate length of Ann Coulter controversy section

Is the current section about the Ann Coulter controversy of appropriate length? ElKevbo (talk) 03:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The section should be drastically summarized to ideally a few sentences and no more than a paragraph and then merged with the history section. This is the very worst kind of recentism and sensationalism and fails to meet several of the criteria of WP:EVENT (lasting effects, geographical scope, duration of coverage). Madcoverboy (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed summary

Version 1 A March 2010 speech by Ann Coulter on the uOttowa campus was canceled after protests from students and emails from vice president Francois Houle warning that hate speech could lead to criminal charges. Coulter criticized the university for intimidation and subsequent emails revealed that President Allan Rock had strongly opposed her appearance. Rock was criticized by the National Post and claimed that the university would revisit its free speech policies in light of the controversy.

That just about gets to the heart of it, doesn't it now? Madcoverboy (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Version 2 In March 2010, a speech by Ann Coulter on the Ottawa campus was cancelled by her security staff due to student protests. University vice-president and provost Francois Houle had previously sent Coulter an email warning that hate speech could lead to criminal charges. Coulter criticised the university for intimidation, accusing Houle of "promoting hatred against [...] conservatives", and it was subsequently revealed that president Allan Rock had strong internal opposition to her views.

I think that this paints a slightly more accurate picture. I omitted the National Post comment because a single editorial is not notable; perhaps something like "was generally criticised by the media" would be fine, if we could find a neutral RS that states exactly that. Furthermore, I'd like to note that Rock didn't oppose her appearance; he just strongly opposed her views. -M.Nelson (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support change (with applicable references) ..Thank you for weighing in on this. What you have proposed sound more then reasonable to me.Moxy (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• I, too, support this change. The material in the article as it stands currently is grossly out of proportion to its importance and impact. Should further reliable sources be presented that place this incident in a broader context (i.e. a systematic curtailing of free speech or "conservative" viewpoints) then we should reevaluate this. Until that time, however, this incident should be given coverage proportional to its weight in the history and impact of this institution. ElKevbo (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• A few points. First, it's "Ottawa." Second, it was Coulter who did the cancelling (and there are media citations to prove it). Houle sent one email (not "emails"). The protest was comprised of more than just students. Also, be cautious about the use of "claimed," particularly when you're not using the same phrasing for both sides of a conflict (ie/ "Coulter criticized..." VS "Rock [...] claimed" implies greater factuality to Coulter than Rock). And just as an aside, for those who are not familiar with the various biases of the corporate media north-of-forty, the National Post is the most far-right national newspaper in the country. SmashTheState (talk) 05:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Feel free to suggest a revised wording below. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I am not sure any of the material about the Coulter incident belongs in the article at all. This strikes me as a case of WP:RECENTISM. There is nothing, for example, in the UWO article about Phil Rushton, or the protests against Henry Kissenger speaking at UWO and the subsequent talk given by Noam Chomsky. At the time, late 80s, these were really big news stories. I realize that perhaps these things should be in the UWO article and have been missed, but I think the fact that they are not there could be instructive. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you 100 percent...but we need to come to a compromise with the younger generation that thinks this is notable (as i am sure it is to the participants)...I would guess in a year or 2 the mention of Ann in the article will be removed as per WP:EVENT.Moxy (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment What then do you call this: Wikipedia biography controversy? One user wrote a few slightly offensive remarks of a vaguely notable person and there is an entire ARTICLE on it. Slaja (talk) 05:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • You'll note that it gets less than half a paragraph in the Wikipedia article. And the controversy was far, far larger than Ann Coulter's tantrum, while Wikipedia has a far, far shorter history than the University of Ottawa. SmashTheState (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand that politics is an emotional topic, and I see from your userpage that you are diametrically opposed to everything that Coulter espouses, but please, when editing, avoid intentionally provocative words like "tantrum" to discribe events that are obviously controversial. This is not a forum to discuss Coulter, it is a discussion to decide how notable this event is and what level coverage it deserves on the University of Ottawa page. I have already stated my opinion, but I recognise that as per Wikipedia policy it is the consensus that decides and I'm happy to abide by that decision. Thanks. Rapier (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure this is at all relevant Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.Moxy (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support version 2. Though the opposers will state that the incident meets WP:N, they haven't proven how. I've run through WP:EVENT (which trumps the general WP:N in this case) and this incident isn't all that notable, particularly failing WP:EFFECT, WP:GEOSCOPE, and WP:PERSISTENCE, in addition to the obvious WP:NPOV. Because it fails these, even though it may meet WP:RS, it is being given grossly WP:UNDUE weight. -M.Nelson (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I also support version 2 in addition to endorsing User:M.Nelson's conclusions regarding WP:EVENT. Such as it is, if both sides are unhappy, then we can call it a compromise. Merge it with the history and let's be done with it. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I say do it ..not one Pro keep can point to a policy to keep it as is.Moxy (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Support ver 2 and madcoverboy's method of execution as well. Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

G report

The Gourman report citation was removed from the University of Ottawa page over 1 year ago. It was re-added yesterday by new User:Starwars49 per [[1]]. Id hate to be a wet blanket for bringing this back up for re-discussion, but i think its worthwhile to gauge wider consensus (a previous discussion pertaining its inclusion from almost two years ago was had by me and user:Cosmos416. Cosmos had argued for inclusion on very simmilar reasoning in the past (Cosmos is now since blocked for sp though and would not be able to be involved in this discussion today). My question to other users aside from myself is does a 12 year old ranking have a place within this article? (barring the fact that otherstuff exists which initself isnt truly a sufficent keep argument). Thanks for input Ottawa4ever (talk) 07:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure here...12 years is a long time ago. Is there nothing newer to add... is this type of ranking not done every year? I could see it in the history section, but i take it the objection is that the ranking is not all valid today. Is this the highest ranking they have ever gotten and is y people want to mention it? Moxy (talk) 07:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but i believe the last report was issued in 1998 (12 years ago). My recent reversion is based on the age of the ranking and that the resource isnt necessairly viewed as a reliable indicator of the University ranking (The report ranks non-existant departments in some universities). The source was removed in the past (about a year ago) without objection, but I think its better if a decent amount of people agree that it should be present before its placed back in given its presence has been disputed before in the article by more than just myself. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

A 12 year old report is useless, and should be removed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

100 years Ago

Thought this was an interesting link on the ottawa citizen for some perspective on how much the university has changed in the last 100 years. They post some interesting statistics and such. Could with other things help the history section; [2] Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Frats /Sororities

What would be lovely, is for those which are proclaimed to be notable in thw list in the article is if we state how they have been involved in the criteria noted above. It would help merge the list into the article, providing citations and sourcing and it wouldnt have the appearance of an indiscriminate list which seems promotional. Thoughts are welcome here, but im just not seeing as a reader why those are being listed without any sourcing. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3