Talk:Osgoode Hall Law School

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

Discussion[edit]

Dear admins: please stop the repeated reversion of the intro to this article. My edit is cited and accurate. The constant reversion from the other editor is a violation and should result in that editor being given a warning and prevented from editing this page. Thanks. Paulydee (talk) Paulydee (talk) 04:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for making it a protected page. I was going to add Jean-Gabriel Castel as one of the notable academics who have been seated at this law school but now I cannot edit the page. To the admins: Please add this in the paragraph about scholars who have been seated there. Thanks Alcoxnow (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)Alcoxnow[reply]


Someone is repeatedly using old admissions data to reduce the stated admissions stats. I have corrected them and encourage others to prevent the ongoing vandalism. User:Steinberg2000 — Preceding undated comment added 07:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does "most diverse" student body mean in this context, and is there a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.137.105.18 (talk • contribs)

The sidebar says that Monahan is the current dean, but the text of the article says it's Jinyan Li. Which one is it?

Li has been the interim dean since Monahan was appointed Vice-President Academic and Provost of York University. -Frazzydee|✍ 05:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The article stated that it was the only accredited law school in Ontario until 1957. A curosry search shows that both uOttawa and University of Toronto were accrediting degrees before this date. Junius52 (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2014[edit]

Hello, Thanks for protecting this page. I would like to request that an admin add Jean-Gabriel Castel to the paragraph about noted scholars who have been seated at this law school. Perhaps one may add, "as well as Jean-Gabriel Castel, an internationally recognized authority on private and public international law". Thanks, Alcoxnow (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)Alcoxnow. Alcoxnow (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Alcoxnow: Please provide a reliable source that verifies the claim. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the claim is made on the Order of Canada website page about this professor to which there is a link on his wiki page. It actually says that he is a world recognized authority on private international law, so maybe you should leave out 'public'. Here is the website: http://archive.gg.ca/honours/search-recherche/honours-desc.asp?lang=e&TypeID=orc&id=270. Thanks, Alcoxnow (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)Alcoxnow[reply]

I added more links verifying the claim yet TheRedPenofDoom continues to delete it. I have re-added it and suggest that this be taken to an administrator/arbitrator if it is continually removed. Thanks. Alcoxnow (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)Alcoxnow[reply]

The edit and the reason it has been removed should be discussed here before suggesting Arbitration. Meters (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The very fact is that if every single alumni or faculty needed to be cited none of the faculty or alumni pages on any university should be allowed to exist. If that is the case then why does TheRedPenofDoom target this page rather than other pages? I have no skin in this game but something tells me TheRedPenofDoom does. Instead of deleting it, why doesn't he help work on making the page better? Captain108 (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

judges[edit]

Editing of the Judges section: Somehow a few of the judges that were added have been removed even though there is no record of it in the history...I am not sure how or why but I am going to add them again. Alcoxnow (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)Alcoxnow[reply]

@Alcoxnow: you need to start providing inline citations for each one per WP:BLPCAT. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RE: I have added reliable links for all the additions and would appreciate it if you stop removing things from the page. It clearly has nothing to do with citations but is more akin to harassment on your part. I already suggested this be dealt with by a senior administrator. Alcoxnow (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)Alcoxnow[reply]

@Alcoxnow: you added links to Wikipedia articles, but Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You will need to add actual citations to this article from sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@theredpenofdoom: that is incorrect and you know it. I had specifically added links to outside sources for all the claims. This is evidence that you are operating in bad faith and are a vandal.

there is not a single footnote in this section [1] so do NOT be making accusations of "bad faith" for my notifying you that you need to present them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and per [2] its pretty obvious that any "lack of good faith" on my part is justified. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@redpenofdoom: a) the footnotes to reliable sources including the connection to this law school are present in each of the articles and you know it full well. b) you initially claimed that jean-Gabriel castel was not properly sourced but when I went out of my way to source it you simply came up with a different and completely subjective reason to DELETE IT. c) do you go around to other pages deleting things because there are no links even though the subject pages are each properly sourced??? I really doubt it. conclusion: you have some bizarre reason for removing things on this page other than whether or not they are properly sourced. Alcoxnow (talk) 02:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)Alcoxnow.[reply]

what I know full well is that you have been told a number of times that you need to present your reliably published sources in inline citations a number of times and you have NOT provided inline citations for the names of the people in this list. Claims that citations exist elsewhere are meaningless. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@redpendofdoom: I'm not sure I understand...you want the exact same citations that are in each individual page to be re-linked every time the original page is on a list on another page or you delete it? what is your motivation?

@meter: I am not sure I understand what your problem is with the Terrence Murphy, Sidney Harris, or Lionel Perez. They all went to this law school and there are links on their pages proving it. Why are you deleting them? Alcoxnow (talk) 02:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)Alcoxnow[reply]

Because there are no links or references in this article to show that they are notable. Merely attending the school does not make them notable, and you do not even provide proof that they attended the school.
If these people are notable, write articles about them before adding them to this article. If they already have articles, then wikilink them properly. It's not up to me or anyone else to do it for you. This is the seventh time I have explained that these links are piped. Maybe you should actually try following the links you are creating before continuing to recreate them. Meters (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@meters: you 'piped' them right?...are you going to remove the entire page? As for notability that is subjective. I've suggested a neutral dispute resolution regarding this page for some time now.

"piped" means altering the display of the link from its actual target in this case politician or judge by the use of a "pipe" | so that it displays the name of a person. And because you seem to be taking no action to have the section meet the WP:BLPCAT requirement of having sources, I will soon be removing the entire list as the lack of sourcing has been flagged for a number of years and not been addressed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alumni list[edit]

Regarding Theredpenofdoom's recent mass deletion of parts of the page, the history, and revision of the introduction:

Redpenofdoom stated that they removed all of the alumni because there were no citations and because there were single purpose accounts whose goal was to turn this page into an advertisement. Here are my thoughts : a) whatever history they perceive that bothers them is irrelevant to the question of how to treat what was on that page, b) if additions to a page have a positive effect on the perception of the subject matter, that doesn't make them an advertisement, c) there was nothing inappropriate (or inaccurate) on that page, d) several parts of wikipedia guidance suggest that you should NOT delete content that is verifiable and that the proper behavior would be to improve the article by contributing rather than deleting, e) it specifically states in the wikipedia dispute resolution guide that you should NOT delete salvageable text. I have proposed to restore the page and work on citations collaboratively with redpen and/or to move the salvageable text somewhere else but redpen seems to have refused. Cheers.Paulydee (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is clear. As challenged content, any entries to an alumni list must have a reliable source provided upon their inclusion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually when applied to this situation and what you chose to do it is not clear. If anything it is clear that you violated the guidelines from Wikipedia:Editing policy "Try to fix Problems":

Try to fix problems[edit]

Policy shortcuts: WP:PRESERVE WP:HANDLE WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

Likewise, as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean No point of view), Verifiability and No original research.

Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary. If you think an article needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do so, but it is best to leave a comment about why you made the changes on the article's talk page. The editing process tends to guide articles through ever-higher levels of quality over time. Great Wikipedia articles can come from a succession of editors' efforts.

Instead of removing content from an article, consider:

Rephrasing or copy-editing to improve grammar or more accurately represent the sources Correcting inaccuracies, while keeping the rest of the content intact Moving the content to a more relevant existing article, or splitting the content to an entirely new article Adding other points of views to the existing points of view to make the article more balanced Requesting a citation by adding the [citation needed] tag, or adding any other Template:Inline tags as appropriate Doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself Adding appropriate cleanup tags to sections you cannot fix yourself Repair a dead link if a new URL for the page or an archive of the old one can be located Merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge Fixing errors in wikitext code or formatting Otherwise, if you think the content could provide the seed of a new subarticle, or if you are just unsure about removing it from the project entirely, consider copying the information to the article's talk page for further discussion. If you think the content might find a better home elsewhere, consider moving the content to a talk page of any article you think might be more relevant, so that editors there can decide how it might be properly included in our encyclopedia.

Paulydee (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep filling the talk page with reasons why you disagree with my edits or you can start editing the article based upon what the reliable sources state. The option is up to you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our standards of notability are clear and long-established; it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Lists like that must include only persons who meet those standards; and only people who can be verified by the standard inline citation to have attended (not necessarily graduated) at this institution. Similarly, lists of faculty should only include notable persons, complete with footnotes establishing that they did in fact teach at this institution. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you making a personal attack about my sincerity? And are you saying that nothing that was deleted could possibly qualify as 'notable'? I'm also not sure how the citation part addresses the issue of deletion and moreover of hiding what was deleted. In fact, since the history has disappeared I don't even know what was or was not cited. I recall that some things already had citations. I hope you are eager to apply the same standards to all pages. You don't have any positive suggestions for me about salvaging the text right? Why not? Maybe I will link a 'list of people from osgoode hall law school' page as I have seen linked to other pages with no complaints whatever. Would you like to help me? Based on your response it doesn't seem so. But the invitation is open. Or let me know if you feel that such a page should be suppressed.Paulydee (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally re Orange Mike, have you actually seen the material that was deleted and hidden or did you just ask redpen? I'm sure you're responding in good faith but I have to ask because based on the notability standards it is evident that a large number of entries that have disappeared were, unless I'm totally misunderstanding, indisputably 'notable'. Can I ask why you are you opposed to those being restored and worked on?Paulydee (talk) 02:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can see what was in the list- all edits are recorded in the page history. But you really do need to stop going on and on and on about what evil ulterior motives other editors may have and start focusing on article content and the sources that support content you wish to include..-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding them back. Can I ask why they were removed from the history? Paulydee (talk) 03:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "personal attacks" I think I already explained myself. Please do not continue saying that I am making personal attacks. Thanks.Paulydee (talk) 03:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
nothing has been "added back" to the history because nothing was ever "taken away" . wikipedia takes attribution very seriously as it is part of our copyright policy and we attribute via the page history. in the very specific cases where the history is altered under WP:OVERSIGHT or WP:REVDEL there is a log that such actions occurred. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for letting me know, I guess that's my mistake. I have seen things deleted from history in the past though that were not hate speech,etc. Regarding OrangeMike I don't quite understand though...most things were 'notable' and the deletion was not justified for lack of inline citation alone. Paulydee (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTADVERT / WP:NPOV / WP:SOCK theres lots of reasons for the deletion, take your pick. And no matter whether or not you consider the removal of unsourced content "justified" - it has been removed and policy is plain that it CANNOT be restore without appropriate sourcing. And you do realize that if you had spent the amount of time you have spent complaining actually gathering sources you probably would have half the list restored by now? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From 1889 to 1958, Osgoode Hall was the only school recognized by the Law Society of Upper Canada, which is the governing body of barristers and solicitors, so all practicing lawyers had to have attended. Most politicians and directors of major corporations were lawyers. Hence there are literally thousands of Osgoode Hall Graduates who meet notability. Presenting a partial list is a violation of weight. TFD (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
a) No one has addressed the fact that removal of content is specifically not recommended in several parts of the wikipedia guidelines. I stated that I wanted to begin building the much desired citations for the items on the list and posted it to another page ('list of osgoode hall people') so as not to irritate my friend TRPOD. On the talk page of this other page I stated my intention to begin building the citations and my interest in collaborating with others in the process. Yet this was met with immediate deletion and a redirection of the page to the substantially diminished OH page.
b) The third party opinion also didn't make sense. I assume someone providing a neutral 3rd opinion has some extra familiarity with the wikipedia guidelines but in this case the citation issue was not addressed other than to ignore the Try to Fix the Problem guidelines that I posted and tell me that citations are needed. Additionally, I was implicitly called disingenuous for not adhering to 'longstanding' standards of 'notability' yet when I examine them it seems obvious that virtually everything on the deleted list was indisputably 'notable'.
c) Another friendly member's input did provide some response about the Try to Fix the Problem guidelines, telling me that by removing the list, TRPOD is 'fixing' the page. I was initially chided for making a mistake about hidden history logs (which apparently can happen and can obviously serve to prevent the information from being easily retrieved and worked on or just reverted) and called 'unhelpful' and 'alienating' without a full address of the contention, which is also that the removal of the list is not justified in the first place. The friendly member then explained his interpretation of the Try to Fix the Problem guidelines and in doing so seemed to think that I was 'lashing out' and 'complaining' because of 'anger' due to not 'understanding the rules'. I am trying to further understand why this application of the guidelines makes sense. But the friendly member's interpretation of the Try to Fix the Problem guidelines does not seem accurate to me. He suggests that once something is tagged, removal = fixing it under the guidelines. But it seems to say that there are many other options that are preferable to removing content even after something is tagged. None of these were options employed.
d) I am not seeing where lack of citations is demonstrated to be enough of a reason to delete everything and failing that justification I am not seeing how the list could be deleted because of standards of notability, and failing that justification I am also not seeing how the recently raised issue of 'verifiable sources' would provide justification either. The whole list was deleted yet only a few items would be contentious with respect to verifiable reliable sources and even those may well pass the test.
e) With respect to verifiable reliable sources, it further states in the wikipedia guidelines that if items can be easily verified, an editor should add the citations themselves rather than delete the items. This is a third part of the guidelines (after Try to Fix the Problem and Dispute Resolution) which instructs that deletion of this list is not warranted. Each of the items on the deleted list had easily verifiable reliable sources on their individual pages, as well as online (should those pages be altered).
f) TRPOD suggests that because they 'challenged' the items on the list, the items can be deleted. However, from reading the guidelines it seems that challenging something is about placing the onus on someone who posted an item to provide citations. So apparently the onus is on me because TRPOD chose to challenge items that obviously passed the test of notability and were easily verifiable with reliable sources. This is a selected application of that rule that is in opposition to what is found elsewhere throughout the guidelines. That rule only seems to make sense as applied to situations where there is contention about the items that cannot be easily verified. I also specifically stated that I planned to build the citations for the list, which would have been meeting the onus and which does not mean that deletion in the meantime is justified otherwise tagging would seem to have little purpose. But since it is, as far as I can tell, not contentious that the vast majority of the items on the list met the standard of notability and were easily verifiable with reliable sources, the 'challenge' was misplaced and using it to remove the list and then claim the issue is now irreversibly settled is contrary what appears to be stated throughout the guidelines.
g) TRPOD has also directed me here and on my talk page to the policies about 'what wikipedia is not' and 'wikipedia:neutral point of view', which I appreciate in that it's an explanation of their position but I do not agree that the content that was deleted corresponded with a violation of either of those policies. The list was of notable alumi. They were all notable, they were all easily verifiable with reliable sources and I reposted it on another page stating that I was going to build the citations. That doesn't seem to warrant removal. If someone thinks a part of it is 'puffery' they can bring it up in the talk page or alter what they think is puffery as TRPOD has already done in the past. The fact that it might happen to 'promote' the subject of the page is, much as TRPOD has stated that they are opposed to it, in itself irrelevant. I am not sure how any of the other arguments given for the removal apply so I am wondering if an effect of incidental 'promotion' is the reason that the choice of removing the list would be justified. If so, I do not think that would be a valid reason for deletion. Based on the wikipedia guidelines and the purported goals and spirit of the wikipedia project I think the list should be put back up, tagged, and citations worked on. Bah, guidelines shmidelines! Paulydee (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
tl;dr but I do see an awful lot of words and no sources and an awful lot of other editors rather than content and sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You ignored what I said. As the only accredited law school for 60 years in a province run by lawyers, there are thousands of graduates who meet notability. Your selection of 20 or 30 will always violate weight - what criteria do you have for picking only those graduates? TFD (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first filterings will be 1) does the alumnus have an article? and 2) are there reliable sources that indicate the person did attend the school? If the list of people that meet those criteria grows to be excessive for this article then we figure out how to deal with that based upon what the content and sources are at that time. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
redpen...are you trying to pretend to that you forgot that I tried to create a separate page with a list of alumni? Don't make us have to go through a whole other 'dispute resolution process' again.Paulydee (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Paulydee[reply]
@Paulydee: have you forgotten that ALL challenged content in any article or list MUST be supported by an inline citation? The process of meeting that requirement had begun .... and then stopped. with no indication of continuation to fulfill the requirements. and so it was removed.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute resolution mentioned is: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_117#Talk:Osgoode_Hall_Law_School i Meters (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TRPOD if you cannot read, cannot be bothered to read or cannot understand what was written that is your problem and no one else's. Paulydee (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I could be wrong, but I think I spotted a misunderstanding here that might be derailing the conversation. Specifically, TRPOD said that one of the filters for notability will be does the alumnus have an article?, to which Paulydee replied are you trying to pretend to that you forgot that I tried to create a separate page with a list of alumni? That sounds to me like a criss-cross of communication. I'm not TRPOD's spokesperson, but I believe he meant that we would first filter notability by whether or not the specific person (the alumnus [singular of alumni]) has an article at Wikipedia. If that's what he meant and Pauly, if you misinterpreted that, I think it deserves clarification. In most Wikipedia lists, especially of notable so-and-sos, the first obstacle for inclusion is usually whether or not the person has an article about them, because notability is best established if an article about a subject can stand the scrutiny of Wikipedians. Otherwise, everybody who graduated from a school, or who appeared in a film, or whatever, would be adding their names to lists. "Hey, I'm notable!" For a real-world example, see List of former child actors from the United States. Not a redlink in the bunch. So if grandma comes by and tries to add her grandkid's name "Aw, my Ruthie is the best actress at AAA Elementary School!" we would cut that entry ASAP. Hope that helps, and if not, whoops! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Admissions Stats and Rankings[edit]

I expanded and cited the above sections. The links are at the bottom. I'm new to editing; not sure why the edits are being reversed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overleveraged1 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overleveraged1 If you notice edits that you submit "do not take" as you've said, please click "View history" at the top right of the article to find out why. In this case, the content was reverted by another user, TheRedPenOfDoom with the explanation "primary sourced advertorial". See WP:PRIMARY. I haven't scoured your edit, but at a first glance it seems a little promotional. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Osgoode Hall Law School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Removing Prime Minister’s[edit]

Why has PM Arthur Meighen been removed? He received his Doctor of Laws through what was then (1902) an early rendition of Osgoode Hall Law School?

Also, likewise for PM John A. MacDonald? The only reason I can see that he has been removed, is because Osgoode Hall Law School wants to dissociate itself from him for obvious political reasons? Of course, and it needs not be said, but nonetheless, Wikipedia should not be reflecting the private/political desires of educational institutions.

Please re-add both, and lock down the Prime Minister’s section from editing. Thank you. 142.114.117.147 (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Osgoode_Hall_Law_School&oldid=1209549109"