Talk:Carleton University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Carleton University was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: February 14, 2007

Contents

[edit] Major work done recently

Hi everyone,

I've done some pretty major work to the page over the Christmas holiday and in recent weeks. I just wanted to put a note explaining some of what I've done and why.

The Academics section was expanded considerably and in doing so I tried to include a cross-section of disciplines (e.g.: arts, science, public affairs, etc.). Generally speaking, people looking at this page are going to be people with some interest in Carleton, such as prospective students. With that in mind, I thought some level of detail would be helpful. In terms of the scientific disciplines, a short list of notable labs and equipment was included as this would be of interest to people thinking of spending time in the Faculty. (I never approached it with the thought that an Arts student would be excited that we have an integrated circuits manufacturing lab..., but someone going into Electronics might be very interested in that fact)

In regard to pictures, my philosophy is that photographs are meant to be seen. If they are so small that you can't make out the detail, then we might as well just stick a thumbnail there. So, I have tried to add pictures in a way that compliments the text (where possible) and that is integrated into the page in an esthetically pleasing way (e.g.: provides a border for the text). This helps break-up the text and allows readers to actually see the picture without clicking on it for the larger version.

Notable people: The Carleton People page is awful and I don't know why we would want to use that as the main page. Readers, in my opinion, are quite happy to skim through an alphabetical list for interesting alumni. Sometimes a list is the best solution -- this is one of those cases. A block of text talking about a bunch of random notable people is more annoying than it is helpful.

Chris Kristoferb 18:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atkinson Resigns

Somebody should update the article concerning Dr. Atkinson's resignation.199.126.250.202 02:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know why Atk resigned in the first place. I wasn't sure whether it was retirement, or found a better opportunity, or his time was up, or some scandal... I heard he didn't approve of something or another and resigned as a consequence.

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.41.119 (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Peter Jennings as graduate?

In the list of Alumni, Peter Jennings is listed. Perhaps he received an honourary degree, but I thought everyone knows that he didn't graduate?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:212.25.75.66 (talk • contribs) date.

We might want to change it to "Notable Carleton people" or Notable ex-students". Dan Aykroyd didn't graduate either. Incidentally,there's an entire List of Carleton University people on a sub-page. The listings there get around this problem by specifying their relationship to Carleton. -Dhodges 14:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to graduate to be an alumni, according to the definition. Ardenn 15:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree it should go on the proper sub-page. Ardenn 17:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it should be changed from alumni to students. I don't think it should be removed, it's annoying having to go to the Carleton University people page (which is terrible as well as ambiguous) just to see a few notable students. Rizla 06:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
There's an entire List of Carleton University people. Ardenn 06:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

An anonymous user has tagged this article for cleanup. If no-one comes forward to say why it needs cleanup, I'm changing it back. --Dhodges 16:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. There's certainly plenty that can be added to this article, but I don't think its current status is deserving of the cleanup tag. -Joshuapaquin 20:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


I agree also. There's no reason that this article should be tagged for it to be cleaned up -Anakinskywalker 21:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Since it was agreed from 3 parties, I removed the tag -Anakinskywalker 21:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Just FYI, Carleton's ip block is 134.117.*.*

any user editing from an ip in that range is living in a Carleton residence or posting through the campus network.

[edit] Reputation

To the anonymous user who has been repeatedly putting p.o.v. remarks in the article:

Carleton is ranked number 8 out of 11 in the Maclean's ranking. While this is not the top, it's not the bottom either. To say that Carleton is ranked "very low" is a biased statement. You put such statements in, we'll take 'em out. -Dhodges 01:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

OK Dhodges, but there should be some reference to the fact that Carleton has been struggling for many years to overcome its reputation as "last chance U". There should be a discussion about the old "open door" admissions policy in the Faculty of Arts and Soc Science, and how this was changed in the late 1990s, as the University tried to gain more credibility and prestige. This discussion will necessarily involve referencing the Maclean's rankings and the issue of whether they are reliable indicators. You might cite objective reasons why Carleton performs poorly in the Maclean's ranking, such as unequal funding from the province and smaller alumni donor base etc.

I agree with this entirely. I wrote a section entitled "Last Chance U", which was removed. This is a fact of our history, and should be reflected in this article. We should not try to change the past by ignoring it: The facts are clear, Carleton (for many, many years) based admissions on a very open philosophy of everyone having a right to education. Saying that this is unverifiable is like labelling yourself either the laziest or most incompetent researcher possible. I will wait a week for comments, then re-instate the section. I will also do so from my user account (for some reason I cannot from this computer, just won't let me log in). I look forward to your comments and/or justification(s).


I've no objections to making reference to past problems so long as they are NPOV.

Some notes:

  • Using statistical information such as the Maclean's rankings is NPOV, editorializing on them is not. (i.e. Carleton was x out of y universities, which is very low)
  • The authority of a person making a statement is more important than the simple fact that it was said.

-Dhodges 17:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


In my opinion, the "Reputation" section of this article is heavily biased. Carleton repeatedly ranks in the bottom half of Macleans rankings of Universities. This information is completely lacking from this article. I can agree with removing editorializing comments regarding the Maclean's ranking - but why no reference of the rankigns at all? I see nothing in this section other than promotion of Carleton. As a current student, i highly disagree wiht this portrayal of Carleton's reputation. In addition, Dhodges is heavily over-represented in these postings for this article. I would suggest it might be best if you take a step back and allow others to contribute, in the interest of permitting more balance to this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.63.220 (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Custom icons

Some clarification is neccessary for this section to be of interest to a general readership. -Dhodges 15:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The section I was referring to above has been deleted. See Articles for deletion -Dhodges 23:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligence and Canadian Special Forces

True or silliness? I'm leaning towards the latter. Many universities have some association with the military, but I'm inclined to think these attempts to give Carleton a James Bond connection are a feeble attempt at humour. It is, incidentally, true enough that Jim Judd, the current director of CSIS is an alumni. -Dhodges 18:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I cannot verify anything about intelligence, however I'm a Carleton student, and also a reservist in the Canadian Forces. I was part of the Ceremonial Guard this summer- we stayed in res at Carleton, and based out of the school for our parades on parliament. I fixed this page to get rid of that ridiculous special forces remark. Some of the guys working there might be 'special' in another sense of the word, but there's certainly nothing about us that screamed 'commando'. -Brihard 16:35, 24 January 2004 (UTC)

Commando? No. But "super secrete spy" possibly. I love the stories of some of the students seeking military careers and their study of other languages such as Russian and how to comprehend Russian (say through closed doors) and learning how to write Russian quickly (say on a note pad before the guard catches you). Fact or entertaining stories of Carletons seemingly covert underbelly? I love it either way.

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.41.119 (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Concerning relevance of this song

Fuck You, Ottawa U There's a hole in the city and it's name is Ottawa U And if you're dull and boring, then it's the place for you And if you're into concrete and ugly buildings too Then welcome to Ottawa U

Two, three, four

Fuck you Ottawa U, Fuck you Ottawa U, En Francais c'est fuckez vous Ottawa U So Fuck you Ottawa U

Guys, what the hell is this? It is really funny and stuff, but I don't think it should be part of encyclopedic article.

It is a real song, I can attest to it. It was on the back of the Charlatan last week, and I have heard people shouting "fuck you Ottawa U" on various occaisons. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
It's certainly real, yes, but the point about its appropriateness in this article is a good one. -Joshuapaquin 05:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, why not? I'm not the one who added it, but I think it is of some relevance. It charactarized Carleton's rivalry with Ottawa U. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
C'mon ... this has no place in the article on Carleton University.
Surely it could be better characterized with prose. -Joshuapaquin 22:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty common to hear this sung in Olivers when there's a game between the two schools, and of course at the game itself. It seems to be the official anthem of the Carleton engineers... Like it or not, is is part of Carleton culture. Parhaps an expanded section on the rivalry is in order? I don't think the printing of the song is necessary, but it raises the issue of the rivalry, which is certianly pronounced here in Ottawa. -Brihard 20:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
There is a second part to this song that everybody missed

It Goes: If I had the wings of a raven, and I had the ass of a crow I'd fly over Lansdowne Stadium And shit on their Gigis below, Shit on, shit on, shit on their Gigis below below! Shit on, shit on, shit on their Gigis below! What da fuck's a Gigi?! What da fuck's a gigi?! (This last line can go on for however long you want)

Nobody knows what a Gigi is because it's actually a Gee Gee. Not that anyone knows what the fuck a Gee Gee is either.

[edit] Carleton's schools (was: sprott school)

Is it really necessary to go into this much detail on one branch of the faculty? The whole section reads like an advertisement - maybe it would be better off having a seperate article for it. Rizla 01:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably not, is it worth branching it off into its own article? Ardenn 02:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, its not really all that much more detail than the School of Journalism section. And it is a section of the school that is growing in stature. Antemeridian 03:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Fixed under WP:BOLD. Ardenn 03:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
This has been addressed partly, however there seem to be quite a few stubs or red-links to schools within Carleton (some of which are merely departments within faculties). Sprott is one of the Faculties in the school now. Not that I'm advocating writing about each faculty, but I think it's important to keep these things in context before creating more stubs. -- Dunro 05:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Forces

"During World War II Carleton was home to a contingent of the Canadian Officer Training Corps."

How can this be? My understanding is that Carleton rented space until 1946. Now, I do notice that the old space at 268 First Avenue was used for the Canadian Women’s Army Corps [1], but this would have been pre-Carleton. -Dhodges 00:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV dispute - Reputation

Little to no information about Carleton's actual ranking and reputation outside of the school is in this section. To provide a more accurate article some information about Maclean's ranking and the poor placement in worldwide universities should be mentioned (not just top 400, bottom of the top 400 is more accurate).

Carleton does not have the best reputation yet there is no information here warning potential students about the problems they will have if they choose Carleton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.237.162 (talk • contribs)

"problems" about choosing Carleton? Bad reputation? I don't know about this, though it ranks low in these studies they aren't exactly "reliable" measures. If you want an accurate gauge of Carleton's status as a good school - just look at how many alumni are currently in elected positions in government and in the bureaucracy. Not to mention the other alumni produced by the journalism school - I hardly think potential students need to be "warned" about the "problems" they will have choosing Carleton, unless you consider being able to find a good job a "problem". Rizla 18:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Prospective students scarcely need a "warning" about Caleton just because it places in the lower middle of the Maclean's rankings. The Shanghai study places Carleton at 351 out of 500. These studies tend to give much weight to number of publications or Nobel laureates, these are not neccessarily the best criteria. Carleton is a fully accredited public university. -Dhodges 14:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are links to the respective rankings:

BTW, please sign your posts. -Dhodges 14:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a link to the Maclean's ranking and refactored those sections a bit, there was some unneeded and unverifiable facts there. I think it balanced that section... Someone should read it over though and see if it's reasonable, then we can take the POV down. Serlin 04:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I've taken it upon myself to remove a few questionable statements from the reputation section and the npov tag. For example, I've removed the statement that Carleton is in the top 400 universities according to the Shanghai study and simply stated that it is in the study. (Since universities aren't exactly as common as Starbucks, it strikes me that saying that a university is amongst the top 400 isn't saying much.) As revised I really think the section is factual and, as such, not POV. -Dhodges 03:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Starbucks University anyone? Ardenn 03:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Reads well to me, that section was pretty flaky. It looks good now. Serlin 06:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Industrial Design

I added a note (under Academics) about Carleton's Industrial Design program, which is quite well-known within the community. It deserves a few sentences at least, considering its rarity in Canada (There are four ID programs, one at the university level, and that's at Carleton) and good reputation. I've also heard it said that it's one of the top 10 in north america, but I'm still looking for that reference. Tapanageta 18:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words

"The University's Norman Paterson School of International Affairs is considered one of the best institutions of its kind in Canada" --Ardenn 04:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tunnel Art

Edited a few little things about the tunnels. I added "within reason" -- students can't just paint whatever they want, which has been the source of some controversy recently -- and took out the reference to the Tunnel Art store, which closed due to lack of income (well, the owner wasn't paying rent, but it's a murky issue anyway). Tapanageta 13:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


In the beginning of the qarticle it metnions what carleton is known for yets neglects to mention journalism, it seemed to me that carleton was one of the top journalism schools in the country, at least that's what everyone sadi while I was there, of course this isn't verifiable but I thought carleton had had some reputation for journalism so maybe it should be included in what the school is known for and possibly get rid of the international affairs.

While it may have a good reputation in journalism, there are many schools in Canada that offer a journalism degree. Carleton is the only school in Canada to offer a masters and Ph.D. in international affairs, and a business degree in international affairs. Reputation isn't relevent in a wikipedia article. At least it shouldn't be. Rizla 22:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logo instead of Coat of Arms

I believe it will be more appropriate if Carlton University's logo is used instead of the current Coat of Arms.

[edit] Failed GA

Needs references before you can seek renomination. DoomsDay349 04:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Fail

I'm failing the GA review. Correct the following things before you renominate the article for GA status; place {{done}} after ones you have completed. If it helps, place a {{todo}} list at the top of this article.

  • There are no references.
  • Your lead is too long; move half of it into the article per WP:LEAD.
  • There should be a History section.
  • There should be a Campus section.
  • Split the large sections (ex: Academics) into logical subsections.
  • Too many long, boring lists; too much long, boring text without wiki-links. (especially #Academics and #Divisions)
  • #Libraries should be summarized. We don't care that you can access Lexis-Nexis and Canada News Wire.
  • #Athletics subsection should be its own section
  • #Student life is woefully short.
  • Pick a uniform image size (or range thereof) and stick to it. Around 200px to 250px is somewhat popular. Tiny thumbnails are unattractive. Images that take up half the screen aren't attractive, either.
  • Pictures shouldn't perturb section headers, it looks bad.Y Done
  • Reputation is too long and needs subsections.
  • #Lineage and Establishment should be moved to a new article, Carleton University people. Have a new section similar to Duke University#Alumni (but much shorter) in its place.
  • Get rid of See also and integrate those links into the article. See also is for articles that are tightly related to the subject.
  • MORE REFERENCES. I can't emphasize that enough for an article this size.
  • Get rid of most external links. WP:EL is rather strict on that.
  • Most of all, I recommend getting a peer review. They'll give you additional suggestions that I've missed or that aren't applicable given the current state of the article.

—Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guy Carleton/Da Vinci images

I think the images of Guy Carleton and Leonardo Da Vinci are both entirely unnecessary. Both receive only a brief mention in the article, and are only eponymously connected to the university. The article is already well-stocked with images, and these two don't really help in understanding anything. If there are no objections, I'll remove them (again). -Joshuapaquin 21:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Object. They add colour to the article. It would seem the only reason you want to remove them is for the sake of removing them. Being that it's Carleton University, I see no harm in having a picture of Guy Carleton -- considering the whole area (Ottawa-Carleton) and school is named after the man. Also, Leo's is an engineering café, and Da Vinci is the most famous engineer of all time. Given the link, having a small photo of the man is perfectly acceptable. Kristoferb 03:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The picture of Guy Carleton should most definitely stay, he's the namesake of the university. I don't see why the picture of leonardo de vinci is needed it should probably be removed. Rizla 17:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advertisement: Carleton Underground (section)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, blog, or billboard. Information about opening hours, serving of beers, burgers, fries, chicken fingers, light meals, baked goods, light snacks, comfortable seats, wide screen TV, etc. are considered unencyclopedic contents. Please consider rewriting or create a separate article about it, and linked it. Thanks! I just wanted to help. Fddfred talk 03:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Macodrum Library

I notice that someone has written an article on MacOdrum Library. Not much there except some P.O.V. wingeing about library policies. I suggest merging any useful information into the Carleton article and getting rid of it. -Dhodges 21:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and then some. MacOdrum Library is not really exceptional in any way as a university library; neither its facility nor its holdings stand out from its peers. As such, I think the libraries component of this article is way over-inflated, and the article at MacOdrum Library is entirely unnecessary. -Joshuapaquin 22:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Joshuapaquin: Considering you attend York University, in Toronto - I don't see why your POV analysis of Carleton's library is of any relevance. There is nothing in the main Carleton article that suggest's the McOdrum library is in any way exceptional or superior - it simply does justice to an important part of the University. I am not sure how one can over-inflate a factual rendering of services and holdings... 72.139.50.9 07:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] admission into carleton

my name is comfort unazi am tryin to get an admission into carleton am in nigeria. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.226.230.116 (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Annoying lists with useless information

I would welcome suggestions to eliminate these and what to do after. For example #Divisions takes up a huge amount of whitespace and is really very boring and useless. Yet I think it is important to include information about specific faculties and schools e.g. sprott, Norman paterson school of international affairs, journalism, etc... converserly nobody really needs to know that the sonic design department is a subdepartment of the school of studies in arts and culture which is a subdepartment of the faculty of arts. Its just really useless. I will try to merge these things in with Academics.

Additionally, the alumni list is way, way too long. And we should keep the people with honourary degrees off it and onto the subsection list. Generally, the article needs to be pared down, there is too much useless crap. Rizla 16:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the alumni list is potentially one of the more interesting sections of this page, the big problem with it right now is that it projects a view of Carleton and the world for that matter that the only "notable" people in society are politicians. How about some (gasp) notable feminists, maybe some leaders of social movement, or even software engineers! A list of politicians many of whom have not distinguished themselves beyond raising enough cash to get elected shouldn't be 95% of this list. 74.101.194.187 04:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It is good that you are cleaning up the article. But you can't just go in quasi-randomly cutting things out. The poem excerpt, for one thing, is perhaps the most interesting part of the History section. Not only is it interesting, but the third picture doesn’t fit without it. How many lines a section has should not take precedence over interesting and informative content. Your adjudication of what is "useful" and "useless" information is also problematic. Mentioning student housing in The Glebe is useful, but student housing on Prince of Wales is useless? Moreover, I have noticed that after you cut sections out, you don't bother to re-adjust the position of pictures so they fit properly in the text. This is fine if you don't mind having an article that looks like a dog's breakfast - but I think we are aiming a bit higher. 72.139.50.9 08:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roseann Runte

The Globe and Mail has announced that Runte will be the next president of the university. Here is the source, figured I'd leave it up to you regulars when and how to update the page. Cheers, faithless (speak) 23:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Carletonravens.PNG

Image:Carletonravens.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

die nerd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.35.5 (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conrad Black

There seems to be a bit of an edit war over Conrad Black. Now, It's true enough that poor old Conrad has been convicted of fraud. However, taking every opportunity to describe his various misdeeds doesn't reflect a Neutral Point of View. -Dhodges (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the "felon" is acceptable as part of a list (businessman, historian), but "fraudster" and mentioning the citizenship issue are definitely a bit much.--Padraic 18:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)