Talk:York University/Archive 1

Tha Academics Section

This seems to be redundant. This info should mostly be in the alumni section, no? COYW (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Black and White Logo

Is quite frankly ugly and disgusting, are colour logos not available?

I've just created and added a colour coat of arms, which though heraldically correct in every way, is not even close to what the sadly bland and corporate York Admin people prefer to use to represent the University. I assume it will be taken down in haste and replaced by that awful U logo, alas. My little mission is really to return to using the eminently respectable coat of arms instead of the pathetic and lame ad company logo it uses now, I wonder if I'm alone in thinking the "U" is awful and not becoming a major university?

Will Jackson

Where did you find this coat of arms you posted? Can you link to a source so we can verify that that's the actual university coat of arms? -Joshuapaquin (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Joshuapaquin,

The specific picture of the coat of arms which I posted I made myself - however it conforms to the crest, shield, and motto that the university adopted in the 1960's, I simply made the image conforming to heraldic norms in order to spruce up the article. You can find a picture of the original version of the arms at the following link:

http://pi.library.yorku.ca/dspace/handle/10315/1113

But before you point out that my picture and the one on the link are different, please remember that while that may be true - both follow heraldic rules and conform to the same 'blazon' to use the Norman-French technical term.

Thanks,

Will Jackson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.2.96 (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

What concerns me here is that you've added an image as the symbol of the university which is not and has never been used by anyone to represent the university. I think that is detrimental to the quality of the article.

Look, you won't find anyone who agrees with you more strongly that the U-in-a-square logo is utterly ridiculous, and it's the first thing I would change if I were the university's President. But I would rather have that logo (or, preferably, the crest) on the Wikipedia article than what you added, because that's what is actually used. I think we need to be descriptivist rather tha prescriptivist here. -Joshuapaquin (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh fair enough, if anyone wants to find a better official version of the arms, I would fully understand, I just think the black and white one that was there before was unpopular and, well, lame, ideally it should be in colour. I should mention however that the articles on both the University of York (in the UK), the U of Toronto, and some of the Oxford and Cambridge colleges, for example, have smiler "user made" versions of their Coats of Arms, so at least there is precedent for my contribution on wikipedia.

W.J.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.2.96 (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think the funky "coat of arms" should be there. It may contain some resemblance to the official York coat of arms, but the helmet and other extras are really not doing it justice. Whose idea was that anyways? Someone please revert it back to our previous official logo. Afamberry (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Transit

I don't see the point in listing the buses that stop at York, especially since right now it's woefully incomplete. York University's web page has a list of buses that serve the Keele campus, so perhaps one should just give an external link to that and make no attempt to copy all the info in the article?

• I agree. If no objections are posted here soon, I will remove that section. Peachy1 06:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

?

How big is York's faculty of Arts? someone from U of T's Arts and Science faculty wants to know... ;) Krupo 04:02, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

(I removed the comment I've written here because of its exaggeration). Wikipedia can check the IP and see that it was me. I'm sorry. What I expressed here was merely an opinion, not a fact.

I agree with the above comment. This page was obviously made by a staff at York trying to solicit new students. Someone needs to add in the various scandals at York such as the land deal, the Argo's stadium, the protestor police clashes, etc.

^ definitely! Not to mention its prominent aberration from standard campus cleanliness and verdure.

External Links

Changes have been made to the external links. Lets just leave the link for Yorku.ca only please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yorkuniversity (talk • contribs)

Well said. Ardenn 17:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Changes

I have made some changes that take into account some of the concerns. The article I think is still positive, but the most boastful text was edited or removed. A short section mentions the controversies, while trying to maintain neutrality. I think it could still use some work. Spmarshall42

• Does anyone have any good suggestions for more categories to include this article under? It seems it requires more then what is currently included in the article. Vipor_Smooth

From York PR...

York University is the leading interdisciplinary research and teaching university in Canada. York offers a modern, academic experience at the undergraduate and graduate level in Toronto, Canada’s most international city. The third largest university in the country, York is host to a dynamic academic community of 50,000 students and 7,000 faculty and staff, as well as 180,000 alumni worldwide. York’s 10 faculties and 21 research centres conduct ambitious, groundbreaking research that is interdisciplinary, cutting across traditional academic boundaries. This distinctive and collaborative approach is preparing students for the future and bringing fresh insights and solutions to real-world challenges. York University is an autonomous, not-for-profit corporation. JTBurman

autonomous ...yes non-for-profit....??!!!!!!!!!!for god's sake be realistic JTBurman.

Remove POV check

I believe that the article could still use some style clean-up but it is not POV. I suggest removing the tag. Any objections? DoubleBlue (Talk) 5 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

• I have no objections. Spmarshall42 02:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Constant Declining Reputation

I removed the statement "Despite all this, York suffers from a constant declining reputation in the sciences amongst other known Universities. ". York's reputation in the Sciences has only been increasing in recent years, and they have excellent research and faculty. Peachy1 03:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

However, it is true. York University is made fun of all the time. Among university students, York is known for giving out easy marks. Whether if it is true or not, it doesn't matter much. That's how other university students view York. Science program in York is quite laughable. Even Nippissing guys make fun of the science program in York. Engineering program? I don't even want to start on that. stampit

Despite the common belief that york is the easy way to go, I have been proved wrong. As a former mechanical engineering student of UofT and current Space Engineering student of York,I can tell you that the engineering program at york is taken very seriously, as they are determined to compete with the other well established univerisities in the field. In fact in some cases in order to prove this quality, they have raised the standards so high that I almost wished I had switched to Aerospace engineering at UofT and stayed there (despite loosing a year).

Weasel words

"The Faculty of Fine Arts also enjoys an excellent reputation, offering programmes such as ethnomusicology and a degree in cultural criticism referred to as "cultural studies"; York's joint Bachelor of Design programme with Sheridan College is the first and largest such joint programme in the province of Ontario. York's Faculty of Education (also known as the "Toronto School of Liberal Education") is distinguished by the unusual amount of teaching experience that students acquire. The prestigious Osgoode Hall Law School is Canada's largest and among its oldest, having moved from a downtown location to the York campus in 1969 following the requirement that every law school affiliate with a university." Ardenn 04:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• And? If you have that big a problem, remove the "excellent reputation" part of it, otherwise it seems fine... certainly no reason to tag the article. pm_shef 04:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

External links

I have a question. How come related links such as Schulich and Osgoode Law school are always removed? Does the person who watches this page not go to York? I do, and let me tell you, they are vital parts of the school, so I think they should be put back. Anyone else agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.18.226 (talk • contribs)

They already have their own articles, why do they also need links? Ardenn 21:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of people use wikipedia, for quick info, and what do they do most often? The scroll down to related links. Most people are in a rush to get info and don't really bother reading the whole article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.18.226 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Ardenn 21:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I will not edit war with you, I'll simply dispute it. One link != links. Ardenn 20:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Ardenn, I've seen you turn "link" to "links" on many articles without interfering before, but enough is enough. If the person who first put the section up used links, then links should stand. There is no consensus, so what makes you think your preference should prevail? You're far too free with these factual accuracy warnings. Not only is it a minor issue, but there are actually not any facts in dispute (it's just a preference we're talking about here). Also, since there is likely not going to be a ruling on an official Wikipedia preference here, the ugly warning would stay up indefinitely were it not for someone, like me, taking it down. -- OsgoodeLawyer 20:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Er, obviously I meant you turn "links" to "link". -- OsgoodeLawyer 20:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, and it should be correct factually/spelling/gramatically. Ardenn 20:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Some might argue that not only is always using "links" consistent (another worthy goal of an encyclopedia), but it is actually perfectly gramatically correct, as it is referring to the name of a section where links may be placed. Whether there are one or more is irrelevant. -- OsgoodeLawyer 21:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• So let's add a second link and we can change it back to "links." does that work? pm_shef 20:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • A relevant second link would work. Ardenn 20:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • But that would be the wimpy way out. Clearly, if there is no policy on one use over the other, and there is obviously a good split between those who are on one side versus those on the other, then someone has to stand down, and it should be those who want the use other than the one that was originally there. -- OsgoodeLawyer 21:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I simply see it as a compromise so we don't have to argue over it forever. I think it's a reasonable compromise, or are you not willing to work with your fellow editors? Ardenn 21:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Of course I'm willing to work with my fellow editors. The problem, however, is that there really are no facts in dispute (so the warning is itself incorrect), and without a solution to the issue in sight it would stay on the page forever. If such a warning goes up here, should it not go up on every page where one person wants "-ise" while another wants "-ize"? -- OsgoodeLawyer 21:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
          • So, no, it's not a reasonable compromise, if it is to be a fixture. It's a blight on the article that should only go up if there is a reasonable expectation of the factual accuracy dispute being resolved. -- OsgoodeLawyer 21:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
            • That's not the point of the template. WP:POINT. Ardenn 21:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Now that I'm doing rolling my eyes at the complete absurdity of this argument. I've added a second link and removed the dispute template. I'm 100% on Osgoodelawyers side on this dispute, Ardenn, you seem to be blowing a totally unimportant issue way out of proportion. Furthermore, the title "External Links" refers to the section, a section for links to pages outside of Wiki, it does not actively describe the contents, but rather describes the intent of the section. Either way, problem solved. pm_shef 21:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

FYI — policy on the "link" vs. "links" dispute is here. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 21:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, seriously

The passage Mike refers to is Some editors use the header External link if there is only one link, but others use External links in all cases. There is currently no consensus on the preferred style.

Please read it in conjunction with this general policy on disputes over style issues from Wikipedia:Manual of Style: In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article uses colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles, although editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk.

(rolling my eyes) Bishonen | talk 23:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC).

• Seriously folks, who cares? Is it really an issue, at all? - pm_shef 01:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Noted Students

I removed the "noted students" section, which formerly contained exactly one name, that of Daniel Freeman-Maloy. The reasons for the removal are: (1) there was only one student in the section. Thus, it was not a useful way of listing noted students. (2) Daniel Freeman-Maloy is relevant in that he has raised controversy about York. Thus, he is mentioned in the "controversy" section. He is not notable in other ways: he has not had a brilliant career, he has not made a great discovery, etc. He is not really "notable" as a student in the way that, say, students who were well-known actors or who had won Rhodes scholarships or anything else would be.

Alumni Not sure exactly where to post this, but I noticed that k-os was listed under the almuni and removed him as he is not technically an "alumni" seeing as how he left the university in his first year and did not return. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.18.193.6 (talk) 15:05, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Academics

I'm not bold enough to make the changes myself (I'm kind of biased), however... "The Schulich School of Business, which figures in a number of MBA rankings, offers an International Business Administration program 'which is the first of its kind in Canada'" (emphasis mine). I have an issue with this statement, but as the York website also makes this claim, it is difficult to refute. A York student even reminded me recently that their program was modeled after the Bachelor of International Business program at Carleton (which I am currently taking, hence I'm biased), which is approximately 11 years old. -- Dunro 05:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. AnotherBDA 02:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Third Largest

I noticed someone had changed "second largest" to "third largest". Which school has more students than York, other than U of T? Chartreuse green 00:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Université de Montréal

Thanks! I had no idea U de M was that big. Chartreuse green 03:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think in the past I may have mentioned it was the "second largest," but I may have been refering to the land area owned; not population. (This is of course counting the residential land South of campus, which I think the university still owns.)--Hippolite (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

York is third largest in Canada according to population, however it doesn't have over 60 thousand students, rather around 50 thousand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.168.176 (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Alumni includes Osgoode?

I wonder if it is really fair to include pre-affiliation (and even pre founding of York) graduates of Osgoode Law School as alumni of York. I have made a small change to reflect my concerns. Feel free to solve the problem in your own way. (At the moment, it is mostly a problem of dates - people who would have been very old men at the time of York's foundation, as mentioned in the introduction, are listed as alumni; it may be acceptable to include pre-affiliation Osgoode, but I think you need to make it clear.) Nitangae

I agree that this should be made clear. I moved this comment to a line after the title rather than in the title itself. It would be nice if someone noted to which graduates this applies; I don't know which ones they are. Chartreuse green 04:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"Yeowomen" is not a real word

"Popular sentiment ran against the name scheme however, as many students noted that a "yeowoman" was fictitious, neither a real word nor possessed of any historical merit. After extensive internal study a polling a name change was proposed which came to fruition in 2003. York's "Yeomen" and "Yeowomen" were no more, and in their place the "Lions" emerged."

Amazingly, I used to hear a lot of UofT students say to me and to one another that "Yeoman" is not a word (e.g. "duh! What's a Yeoman?"). In one such conversation, I also had an argument with them about the existence of the word "matriculation". I argued that it existed; they argued that it did not. "Matriculation" is obviouly something that was made up by dumb York students. The name 'Lions' did not "emerge". This "extensive internal study" was done by a PR agency, as part of a larger rebranding effort. This discussion should reflect this

If you know enough about the topic to improve the discussion, then be bold and go for it! Chartreuse green 03:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Pond Road

Nowhere does the article mention the different residences, just colleges. Should Pond Road Residence not be somewhere there? It's the biggest rez on campus, and the most popular/difficult to get into (or so they say). Chewbacca1010 04:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Pov

There are many instances of promotion in the article. Please cite. Orane (talk • cont.) 00:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This entire article is written in the style of York's promotional propaganda. I'm quite sure it was assembled by York students--parts of it are even cut and pasted. It's pretty easy to tell, since the box that's been pasted is in York's website's signature red. The article is clearly biased, but, it's a source of a lot of information, so take your pick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.0.106 (talk) 10:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Size of campus

This article claims that York has the largest campus of any Canadian university, which I don't believe is true. According to Wikipedia itself, York has a campus of 263 hectares, while UBC has a campus of 402 hectares. Can someone explain this discrepancy?

As I understood it, York was the third largest in all of Canada, second to UBC and U of T. Chewbacca1010 02:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Number of Students

Last year I heard there were about 75,000 students at York. This year I heard, from a professor, that there are about 67,000. Does anyone have an accurate, up to date count?

York Commons

Says "A roadway circulating the park and the buildings serves soley for use by TTC and GO buses." This is not entirely true, as the signs say (I'm not 100% sure of each word, but I am of the meaning) 'service vehicles only'. Mostly it's used by TTC and GO, but I see taxies, armoured cars, security, and a few other service vehicles around there.

Jealousy

There should be more in this article about the jealousy that York students have towards U of T, their intellectual superior. Also how it's full of people who couldn't get into U of T in the first place... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.72.157 (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

York has world renowned Law and MBA schools. Does U of T even begin to compare in that department? What jealousy is there? unsigned - Dec 30, 07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.222.219 (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

York is a landfill replete with empty headed cavities masquerading as a university. It is a thoroughly mediocre university, and its staff and organization are renowned for their bureaucratic engine. It is land that should be razed to the ground and instead replaced with golf courses or something more useful. I'm a York graduate and I should have applied to U of T. Have you ever stopped and talked to an undergrad at York? Monkeys on heroine withdrawal are more coherent. Oh and the faculty of education there is a retard-factory. Save the embarassment and go to U of T. York's diploma is worth probably around the same as the toilet paper in one of U of T's bathroom stalls.

I'm a Humber graduate and I say exactly the same thing about Humber. But, uh, come on, jealousy? As an article? Might be a bit of a stretch. Also, I'd rather be surrounded by mouth-breathers and incoherent primates than a lot U of T graduates (as many have a habit of considering themselves 'intelligent' because they got into U of T, whether it's because they're actually smart or because they studied until 3 a.m. every night to 'earn' that sense of smug superiority)

Actually, most of the students that got into York and not U of T is because Yorkies are too good for U of T. Hahaha... ok no but seriously. York students jealous of U of T? Please, spare me. ;-) xero-7 (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? I thought it was because they were too lazy in high school to get U of T-level marks.  :)

FREEMASONRY?

My friend that goes to York tells me of a York Rite Freemasonic Lodge on Campus...is it really true? Could someone please confirm this, and add this to the list of secret societies/fraternities that operate on York Campus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by --99.230.153.253 (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)User:Xinyu

I have no idea but it could be someone is confusing York University with York Rite, different Yorks. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Underground Exploration

I have added this link to external ref's in accordance with Urban exploration and Ninjalicious. It may be controversial but it seems notable - and somewhat cool, hope it stays! Franamax (talk) 09:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Throwing in that link is a good idea, I was actually thinking of adding a section dealing with the underground network and throwing up some of my own pictures. Not that it is particularly important or anything but it does make the article just a little more comprehensive if anything. Theonlysilentbob (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Keele Campus Expansion

The article dealing with the buildings located at the Keele campus needs to be further expanded, about half the buildings or more are missing, the history behind many of the buildings is also not comprehensive. Please help to expand it and visit the commons for images etc. Theonlysilentbob (talk) 07:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Journals section?

Several eminent journals are edited by York faculty, including Isis and The Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences. I believe a prominent economics journal is about to move to York as well and there are bound to be others. Is there interest in developing a sub-section listing these? It would be useful information for graduate students who wish to get work experience at a journal in their field.... -JTBurman (talk) 10:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

More controversy

I'm surprised there is zero mention regarding the ongoing security issues York is facing, such as sexual assaults that take place on campus and the resulting complains brought by many student groups over poorly lit areas.

If anything, someone needs to add the recent racist graffiti that was scrawled at York, the resulting student reactions and the notable length of time it took for the administration to respond. 192.206.151.130 (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is a major issue for the school. I've added information about the biggest incidents, ie. the three rape incidents over the past few years. I don't think the other security issues warrant inclusion except in a more general sense. What I mean by this, is how does security overall compare to other schools? There must be an article somewhere comparing the number of robberies, non-rape sex assaults, etc. across campuses. If York has a very poor ranking, perhaps it should be mentioned in the article. -Frazzydee|✍ 00:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hm?

Do not get me wrong, I'm a York student and I LOVE my university, but I'm curious, is it me, or does this article look like an ad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.71.108 (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It's probably you, using your York U critical thinking skills. Inspector Clouseau, this article is an ad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.138.239 (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Although that illusion will break if anyone sees the final paragraph in the history page, if only for a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.149.240 (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Alumni and Faculty

Both these sections are full of red-link and un-linked names. Presumably these are non-notable people and should be removed? There has been a template asking for sources since Sep 2007. Is it time now to clean up all these names (i.e. take them out)? Franamax (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and cleared out these un-linked names. For anyone wishing to review, check whether they have achieved notability in future, etc., here is a permalink to the article version just before I made the removals. Franamax (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Alumni including Osgoode Hall redux

(see also brief discussion above)

This subject needs to be revisited. Should alumni of Osgoode Hall Law School be included as York alumni when they graduated before the two schools became affiliated in 1969? For example, including Edward Wentworth Beatty as a York alumnus seems clearly inappropriate, since his entire life predates the founding of York.

I would propose removing Osgoode alumni who graduated before 1969 from the York alumni list. I also throw up a suggestion that post-1969 Osgoode graduates in this list have a notation at their entry to that effect, since they would almost certainly identify themselves as Osgoode graduates, not York, and Osgoode is arguably the more notable institution. Franamax (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

York rankings

I'm going to revert most of the recent changes to the "Ranking" section since I cleaned it up. There is no need to list every single ranking that has been made in the world, the one or two most authoritative globally and in Canada will be sufficient. Please discuss your preferences here and provide references.

Osgoode Hall and Schulich are independent schools deserving of a single notable reference here, the rest can be put in their own articles and dealt with there. Please place your comments here and lets all get consensus before adding to the page. Franamax (talk) 05:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

1. And I disagree completely. Oh, yes, completely. If pages are to evolve by branching out, then they must take their data with them. Osgoode and Schulich deserve the data you want to add.... only add them on the appropriate pages. After all, what purpose do the links serve beween all the pages? You are creating a redundancy, don't you think so? On another note, how about YOU providing references as to why "one or two" rankings suffice. Who, pray tell, is the arbiter of what is 'authoritative' or 'deserving'? You? It is incumbent on you to convince others of the merits of changing the SQ. COYW (talk) 06:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, let's wait for others to comment and figure it out. We can always ask for a third opinion from a neutral source. My rationale here is that I've added a single referenced ranking for the two subsidiary schools, since they are part of York as a whole. One single reference, that's all, anything else should be in their own article, as you say. As far as Schulich and Osgoode Hall, this article is the "overview", so they get mentioned briefly.

I'm certainly not the final arbiter on all things wiki, we can ask at the university project, the Candian noticeboard, 3rd opinions, whatever you think. It's best of we just work it out right here on the talk page though, and not war over the article itself. Let's keep talking here. Franamax (talk) 06:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You can argue the merits of redundancy all night long. A simple link to more rankings on the appropriate page is the common way to go idea. Anyhow, yours is the new idea, so you justify it or get third opinions... or whatever you like. I will certainly listen to anyone who comes along. First, admit that a link such as "Also see" is a good idea. Then argue for 'global excellence' or whatever other (kind of biased) rationale rings your bell. Sorry. COYW (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well what is the point of the York U article? It is to describe the notable features of York U. One of the notable features is that Schulich and Osgoode rank very high globally and nationally (respectively, law is not compared globally). Both schools are mentioned in the lede, their notability can equally be mentioned in the rankings section, as long as it is not given undue weight, thus my single mention. "See Also" will not work where an inline cite is preferred. Global and/or national excellence is certainly not biased when it is supported by reliable independent sources. Also, the point of restricting the York rankings to just a few is to give a representative sample rather than an exhaustive list, none of those are showing any particular bias up or down, the point here is to create a readable article. Franamax (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Not all rankings are favourable and undue weight pertains to, properly, the balance of all views and not the repetition, even a brief one, of X's information on Y's page. Granted many people would probably disagree with me,... but they haven't voiced that disagreement on the talkpage. Only you have. There is no consensus for your viewpoint that you can show to me. And this is much, much more than a mere undue weight disagreement. Shall I fetch the link about promotional materials on Wikipedia to enlighten you? THAT is the important issue that cannot be spun away.

The York U. Geography department has no separate Wikipage, but a few other parts of York University do. Why? It is no coincidence that Schulich and Osgoode already have their own page and the less famous parts do not. "Famous", why? Because they rank well. Let me put that more precisely: They rank relatively well. And other parts of the university rank "relatively" poorly compared with other York departments or other universities. We don't write about them. In an analogous way, some graduate and undergraduate specialties rank relatively poorly than others within Schulich and Osgoode. We don't write about them. What people do bang on about is good news, because it is normally people with vested interests in a school who edit pages on Wikipedia. That's not good and it is hard to maintain the assumption of good faith editing, but I do. Anyhow, the main point is, once a page splits into two, the rankings, "notable" alumni and all manner of info must also be split. I get your point that if, say, Sir John A Freakin' MacDonald graduated from Osgoode, it would likely be added to the York page as well as the Osgoode page. After all, Osgoode is 100% York. And so? You still don't have any consensus for your proposed changes. Any ranking data is not important important enough be written about on more than one page. Seriously, let's put raw info on a page and people will rank schools by themselves. Rankings are usually commercial efforts.

What is it you are actually writing, FRANAMAX?:

• "See Also" will not work where an inline cite is preferred." [Preferred by whom? You?!]
• "Global and/or national excellence is certainly not biased when it is supported by reliable independent sources." [You know, I am not sure when talking about a part overwhelms talking about the whole.... but when the part has its very own page, I tend to see the diference fast. I cannot see writing about excellence as anything other than a commercial effort which should hardly be on one page let alone two!.]
• "Also, the point of restricting the York rankings to just a few is..." [I am the editor who added the whole section in the first place. You are telling me what now. ...?!!... Pardon?!!]
• "I realize that York rankings were kicked off the Schulich page, but taking the Schulich ranking off the York page is the wrong approach." [What you pass off as an explanation above was nowhere to be seen regarding York info on the Schulich page. Didn't suit you then, eh!]
• "[L]et's wait for others to comment and figure it out." [But you did not wait. You seem both rash and biased to me. Am I wrong?]COYW (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the rankings to make them clear and unbiased. Leave them as they are coyw. I welcome 3rd party mediation. Cyril2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyril2006 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I am fine with the version Cyril has established. I think the Gourman ranking is unnecessary, but it does show as 10 years out-of-date, so no problem.

Returning to this page, I'm glad to see that COYW no longer remembers edits I didn't ever make. I would still like to have my bias explained to me, although I did drive by the university once, maybe that's the problem? Franamax (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

FRANAMAX is "fine with the version Cyril has established". Why? Who knows! In the meantime, yet another editor has reverted what Cyril has done. Cyril has to explain why his edit is better HERE as he was asked to do. Cyril has yet to respond. I cannot "prove" Cyril is biased because Cyril has not stated anything quotable to that end. Yet, his work speaks for itself. Many editors revert what Cyril does. What is the procedure for "telling on him"? COYW (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

GOURMAN REPORT-- I don't especially like the ten-year-old Gourman information. Let's give it a month or two more before doing away with it. Rankings are meant to be timely and useful. They are part of the advertising efforts of many schools (since schools display them so prominently on their Web sites). Can anyone offer an explanation why rankings are not promotional material? I could, but nobody can deny that they can be used as advertising. Wikipedia should not be about advertising. Showing facts is OK, but rankings are a slippery slope. Consult the following pages for further information:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (Talk | History)
• Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism (Talk | History)
• Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms (Talk | History)::
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (Talk | History::)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities (Talk | History)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities/Article guidelines (Talk | History)

COYW (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK with Cyril's version, I'm OK with the current version, I think the fighting should end mostly. The information is factual and sourced. I agree with waiting a month or two then looking at the Gourman report again.

As far as rankings being promotional, yes they can be used that way, but they are also a useful piece of information if presented in a neutral fashion, as laid out in the article guidelines. Showing just the highest-score or just the lowest-score ranking introduces bias one way or the other. That is why I suggested using a limited number of representative global and country rankings. We don't necessarily want to list every single ranking that gets done, just a few of the most notable ones. Franamax (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I started the whole section. My second choice was presenting all the recent rankings-- as I have outlined on the dedicated Schulich page. I am shaping the section to that end. My first choice is, in fact, doing away with rankings because they are better left on promotional Web pages. I am working on that, too. It may seem incongruous for me to write that and have started the section in the first place. Yet, I love giving some editors the opportunity to put their footin it. What about you pointing fingers over 3RR?! Get a grip. The rankings cannot be presented in a neutral fashion. How could they be? Explain. Go get those third party opinions you wrote about. Follow through, please. COYW (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Quick note here: majority doesn't rule, consensus and strength of argument does. Consensus may be shaky, since there seems to be only three of us involved here. But Cyril, including a ranking almost ten years old - what's your point? If you wish, I can dig up the sources questioning the legitimacy of the Gourman report itself - but really, it's not current at all. Why is the inclusion of any compelling interest?

Let's find something else fun to fight over :) How about removing the Osgoode Hall alumni from before 1969? They have no connection whatsoever to York U - I'd really like to get that one resolved. Franamax (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Another quicker note: Hair-splitting aside, I will leave all the Cyril2006-editing work on here to FRANAMAX. I will complain about yril2006 elsewhere and let others handle that, too. Any advice on where and how to have a cheerleader's account frozen, FRANAMAX? COYW (talk) 03:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability (WP:V)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies.

Could we try to find reliable sources to back up unreferenced material in this article?

Collegestandard (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not think you even need to write this here. Just do it. The more referenced materials, the better. COYW (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Notable Faculty & Alumni section

OK, this entire section got moved to a subsidiary article List of York University people [1] which is fine. A {{sectstub}} template was added at the same time, requesting that the section be expanded. Editors have since been dutifully adding entries to the section, the latest ones having multiple typos and formatting errors.

I'm totally confused here. I can easily expand this section by just pasting back in the contents of the daughter article, right? The point here is, what are the exact criteria for listing notable faculty/alumni in this parent article? Federal politicians? Supreme court judges (note also the merger of York and Osgoode Hall in 1969, judges who graduated before then IMO don't count)? Businesspeople - by what criteria? Foreign students who have achieved prominence in their home countries? Who exactly gets listed on this "main" page?

We need to develop some consensus criteria for inclusion here, else this section will become an ongoing mess. Related concerns as to verifiability will be posted to the talk page of the "people" article. Franamax (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the most important thing is to make sure that the page doesn't become one big list. It might be helpful to just have the most successful scholars who worked or graduated from there, maybe arranged in paragraph format if possible. The problem is in making a judgment call on who is notable and who isn't, which will probably produce all kinds of controversy. But it helps to look to the other Wikis, say Harvard, for guidance. { Ben S. Nelson } 20:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

1 to the power of 50 (june 4 2009)

What happened to that addition? Maybe it didn't belong on the history page, but it's an interesting side-note. Is it that the York students who keep this article nothing short of masturbatory didn't like someone pointing out that one of their promotions held a simple mathematical error that a grade-school student could have caught? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.165.181 (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Colleges

Fixed it up a bit, and added two colleges that were missing in the table. Glendon is a college, campus and faculty of the university. New College was created in 2009 by the merger of the Faculties of Arts and Atkinson. (Since Arts and Atkinson merged, Atkinson effectively 'lost' its status as a college. The creation of New College corrected this.) Torontois (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"Violation of Academic Freedom" section

An IP added the following text repeatedly yesterday:

"In the aftermath of an academic conference that took place in 2009, titled "Israel/Palestine: Mapping Models of Statehood and Paths to Peace" , which explored the possible models of statehood for Israel/Palestine, including the one state model, concerns were raised about the way the York Administration has handled the political pressure. Some of the organizers accused the York administration, mainly the then Dean of the Osgoode Hall Law School and the Associate Vice President for Research and Innovation of putting undue pressure on the organizers in order to force them to change the content of the conference, invite or disinvite some speakers. The accusations were supported by documents and emails that were obtained through the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act.
The York Administration appointed former Supreme Court of Canada Judge to review the issue, but the Iacobucci Review was problematic, and the terms of reference for the review were seen as an attack on academic freedom. The whole issue is being investigated by the Canadian Association of University Teachers.
In response to the allegations made, a University spokesperson said that the Univeristy should be judged the fact that event took place despite the pressure not to hold it, and that there is always internal discussion as part of the planning of all events. He added that "In the end, this conference did go on and we do not feel that academic freedom was breached." Vice President and Provost, Patrick Monahan, said, about these allegation that "Justice Iacobucci has looked at that and he doesn’t see any purpose in conducting further inquiries. Obviously there are a lot of different views about it.” "

It appears to only reflect one perspective, and needs better sourcing. I'm placing it here for review by page regulars. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

sourcing is fine, it's all verifiable, although it really needs a rewrite before before being put back in. Outback the koala (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There are several sections that delve into way too much detail. This page is a "B"-class one for reasons, people. Here, I agree with Outback the Koala but would go a little further and ask for editors to trim the fat-- verifiable or not. COYW (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a "flash in the pan" that is insignificant in the broad history of this institution, regardless of the level of media coverage it recently received. This is an encyclopedia article, not a news article. --ElKevbo (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, and would argue for inclusion. However, I just want to float the idea, to see what would people think of purhaps some kind of separate scandal/controversy page? It's widely known York doesn't have the cleanest history, so to speak; this would separate it out from the main article, while leaving a brief synopsis here. Looks like there's plenty for a stand alone article. I'm not very active on this page - but I've seen it work well else where. Outback the koala (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I reckon all this stuff *could* be included something like this: "York University had a problem with the plumbing in 1999 (reference), its unions in 2000 (reference) and the choir singing out of tune on April 1st, 2001 (reference.)". Is that too short for some editors? Well, for certain, if it is verifiable and objective then stuff cannot be excluded out of hand. What should be included has to be balanced and edited cooperatively... like a real encyclopedia is. We are one! Yet, most facts about any subject are excluded from encyclopedias. Agree? For example, I am sure Neil Armstrong has a johnson. I don't wanna read how big NASA measured it to be! Notability extends to these verifiable facts, factoids and side stories. It's that simple, editors. The pity is that several sections here are not compressed into just a few paragraphs. Max. I would not call the academic freedom stuff trivial or a "flash in the pan" but, at the same time, I would strongly argue against having so much depth to it. No, it does not belong on a seperate page. No, it does not deserve so many lines. COYW (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If I may add my voice here: academic freedom and independence of the university are the single most important principles governing a university. Take out academic freedom, and a university is not a university, hence the importance of this section. The very fact that the University appointed a judge to investigate it shows how significant it is, so I think there should be something about this issue.

Awful writing

You would think a university's wiki page would be better written (seeing as how students of said university would be updating it often as not). This article needs a massive clean-up. It sounds like a fourteen-year-old wrote the entire thing on their cell phone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.83.104 (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to pitch in. I've often wondered why this article gets so little scrutiny, when I've made suggestions here on the talk page, unless they deal with quality rankings there is just a distant echo. If you have specific ideas, go ahead and try them out. WP:BOLD and all... Franamax (talk) 04:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)