Talk:Ontario College of Art & Design

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Canada Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is part of the Education in Canada WikiProject (Discuss/Join).
	Ontario Portal This article is part of the Ontario WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

	Architecture Portal This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 NPOV 2 Victor Papenek as faculty 3 Fair use rationale for Image:OCADlogo.gif 4 Controversy section 5 History section 6 The big gap in the history section 7 Changes in the design department

[edit] NPOV

Seems like this article doesn't exactly hold a NPOV, in fact it is quite self-aggrandizing. Not even sure where to begin.

Rawpenne 02:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You could try editing the article to remove said POV. That's always fun. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The history section was full of POV. It has been cleaned up. 30/12/2007

In order to avoid (possibly) brewing edit war, I've added and NPOV tag to the article. A big clean-up is required, I believe, as some of the language approaches WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK. The tag should remain until some major edits take place. freshacconcispeaktome 16:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I stumbled across this article by chance. I am not biased in any way concerning the article's topic. But it seemed to me that the so-called clean up was itself done with a certain pov in mind. Eliminating whole paragraphs and showing no or limited intention to explain the edits in the edit summary made me suspicious. I think it would be better to first propose and discuss possible changes on this page. --Catgut (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You did not stumble across this article by chance. You are biased concerning the article's topic. Freshacconci is upfront about his/her bias, but you are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.111.129.17 (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree--that's why I left your edits in place and added the tag. I wasn't suggesting you were starting an edit war, but I did see this going back and forth for a while with the anon. IP editor reverting your edits. I'm hoping other editors will join in and improve the article. I'm alumni, so I may be too close to the subject, plus I don't have the time at the moment to work on extensive edits. Thanks for your input. freshacconcispeaktome 17:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response! --Catgut (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"The school has often found itself at the centre of Toronto's cultural and artistic nexus" - POV

"Throughout its history, the OCAD community has been home to many of Canada's premiere artists and designers, including Arthur Lismer, and Michael Snow" - is this really relevant to the history section? It looks superfluous. Better would be to have a separate section.

OCAD's link to the queen street west scene is unsupported. A subarticle might be better.

"In the nineties, OCAD saw an explosion of creative talent in its design faculty. " - POV

the possible name change section is unimportant. Are we going to post every possible change for every possible article? Better to keep things relevant.

there is a separate section called campus describing OCAD's building. I removed some content from history that should go there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.115.161 (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned-up the article somewhat: removed the POV PR language, added references, removed some of the more irrelevant trivia. As such, I removed the neutrality tag. Feel free to go through it and see if there's anything I missed and tag for citation or remove non-NPOV wording. freshacconcispeaktome 16:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Victor Papenek as faculty

I removed a reference to Victor Papenek as former faculty. I know he had given at least one lecture at OCAD, but I can find no corroboration that he actually taught there. Anyone? 76.10.148.26 11:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, he was never OCAD faculty. Freshacconci | Talk 10:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:OCADlogo.gif

Image:OCADlogo.gif 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy section

I've removed an attempt to include some info on the recent fake bomb incident. My main reason is that the article doesn't mention other controversies and I'm not convinced that this one should be focussed on exclusively (presumably because it's the most recent). I'm also not convinced we need a controversy section. Does that really add to the over-all article. As well, the activities of students offsite is really not part of the OCAD story in the long-run. Should we also list the controversies of alumni and faculty? Or because it's news, is it valid? I'm inclined to think that this is too recent. If it stands the test of time and becomes an important art historical event (which I doubt, but you never know), maybe it could be included. freshacconcispeaktome 00:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You should feel free to add other controversies that the article did not mention. This does not mean you should delete it. The controversy was part of a student's project as part of his enrollment at OCAD. OCAD faculty were involved and suspended. The president of OCAD was forced to address the issue to the general public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.88.120 (talk) 03:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History section

I removed sections in the history section about various relationships OCAD has had. It is not necessary to list every association ever made by OCAD. If wiki allowed this, some articles would stretch on forever. In addition, these associated need citations.

[edit] The big gap in the history section

There was a huge gap in between text in the history section. Taking away one of the images makes it look like the gap is gone. ~~Hammertime100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammertime100 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the changes. I saw no "gap" in the diffs of the history section. Don't forget that users have different size monitors. That's not really a relevant rationale for deleting an image. Also, please use the edit summaries to explain your edits. Large edits and deletions of text should be explained in the edit summary. The "fake" reference was really just outdated. I've found a new one. You should sign your name using four tildes: ~~~~. Thanks freshacconcispeaktome 15:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes in the design department

I have added information about changes in OCAD's design program. Three people have resigned, including Alan Kazmer, Peter Oliver, and Anthony Cahalan. The main problem is the issue of full-time versus part-time staff and credentials.

Ocadman1 (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC) ocadman1

I'm thinking the language used is too inflammatory. We need to be careful of WP:BLP when we name names. The Marketing Mag reference is an op-ed piece written by Kazmer and can't be used as a source when it's about Kazmer, especially since this is all controversial information. freshacconcispeaktome 13:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)