Talk:Queen's University/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This user attends or attended Queen's University.




Just wanted to re-add this userbox to the talk page, for any Queen's students or alumni who want to show their colours. For information on usage check out Template:User Queen's or Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Queen's. Cheers. --Greenmind 05:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


Contents

Traditions

Would anyone care to tell me how jackets, songs, Rivalry, Smokers, Homecoming and Frosh Week are relevant and encyclopedic? Ardenn 18:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The Queen's song, Oil Thigh, has been in use for over a century. According to the Queen's Encylopedia, it was written by a student, Alfred Lavell in 1898 with its Gaelic chorus - Oil thigh na Banrighinn a'Banrighinn gu brath - being the university cheer since 1891. Translated, the chorus reads "The College of the Queen forever". The song is historic in that Queen's is an elite school in Canada with a fiercly loyal and powerfull alumni all of whom are familar with the song and other Queen's traditions. Some call it a cult. These is no copyright on a 108 year-old song. You can find references to it cited in a number of locations including the Queen's Encyclopedia if that meets your standards for citations. Also note that university fight songs have their own reference within Wikipedia and significant songs merit attention in articles on other top tier universities such as Yale and Cornell. When I was accepted at Queen's, my neighbour, a retired lawyer who graduated in the 1950's came to our house singing Oil Thigh to congratulate me. He still owned his Queen's tam (another tradition worthy of Wiki-mentation).

Oil thigh na Banrighinn a'Banrighinn gu brath! Cha-Gheill! Cha-Gheill! Cha-Gheill! and lighten up a bit! LeftCoast 23:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)LEFTCOAST


They are an integral part of the schools core traditions and have been around for decades. They are definitive of the school and one of the reasons why Queen's has arguably the highest level of school pride out of any university in Canada.

JaysCyYoung 20:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

So how is that encyclopedic and why does it merit inclusion in an encyclopedia? Ardenn 20:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)



I just explained to you. They outline some of the school's major traditions and provide an excellent background section created by several people attending the school and various alummini. Universities are all about traditions and enterprising events and passing on/creating as many different accepted activities as possible. I'm surprised that this was even an issue to bring up. I don't think you realize how important these things are to Queen's specifically because you probably aren't a current student or did not attend the school, but they do merit inclusion into the article. I'm not trying to be mean or come off as holier-than-though, so please don't mistake my comments as being indicative of that, but they are (once again) very important to the school and of great relevance to the institution.

JaysCyYoung 23:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I've gone and removed many of them mainly because their not sourced. No original research. Ardenn 23:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Please revert them back until we can have a larger group discussion on this particular topic. I am a current second-year student and tour guide at the school and I can verify that we are instructed to talk about all of the aforementioned traditions that you wrongfully removed. If you do not attend the school or are affiliated with it, I see no reason for you to take down the hard work of others without further group discussion. That constitutes vandalism.

JaysCyYoung 23:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not vandalizm, it's asking you to cite sources per Wikipedia policy. Ardenn 23:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You deleted the Engineering Jackets page link that was citing the source. If you want to look at it again it can be found at http://www.queensu.ca/admission/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=113&Itemid=59 and http://appsci.queensu.ca/prospective/tradition/jackets/

Please, once again do not vandalize articles and delete them without group consensus on a matter. You deleted the section even though they were cited and that does frustrate me. As a student at the school I want to see the best possible representation of the school on Wikipedia and I do not appreciate the work of myself or others being deleted needlessly. Thank you.

JaysCyYoung 23:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The sources talk about the jackets, but that's it. They don't establish notability. Ardenn 23:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Ardenn is clearly incompetent if he's deleting sources and then saying we're not citing them. --Tykell 23:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The thing that upsets me is that a quick Google search easily verifies the information pertaining to both the Smokers and Jackets and yet (even when presented with evidence on the SCHOOL WEBSITE) this individual has taken it upon him to vandalize the work of others. Sources and citations have been provided, so this should not constitute an issue in the slightest regard!

JaysCyYoung 23:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ardenn should keep a cool head! I thought he was quitting wikipedia anyways because we're so self-rightous. --Tykell 23:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

More proof of the notability of the school's traditions and spirit. I can provide more sources, but I think three provided already with little effort is really solidifying the case for the inclusion of the schools amazing traditions! :)

http://www.queensu.ca/about/VB/VB_10-11_Legendary_Queens_Spirit.pdf

JaysCyYoung 00:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've readded the jackets section, but I'm disputing it. Ardenn 00:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You have blanked pages without having a discussion and acheiving majority consent. I believe that you have gone rogue, sir, and have no business here since your editing of this article is clearly biased. As I see, an admin has ruled against you. Good day. --Tykell 00:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I see no comments from an admin on this talk page about this article specifically. I removed unverified and copyright material. Ardenn 00:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. You see, I have no problem with you disputing information. That's what Wikipedia is for, as we all want to establish the truth and notability of information in articles. I have no issue with that, Ardenn. I just feel a group consensus and democratic discussion is the best manner with which to go about this. Now, I could make the language more neutral if others agree to have a more NPOV represented, and add links (although I'm not sure how to code citations properly yet).

JaysCyYoung 00:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"Don't talk bollocks! And stop playing games. look at your own behaviour here." --Tykell 00:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
That wasn't about this article. Ardenn 00:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes I was not talking about this article. I was talking about revert warring on a user talk page. Ardenne perhaps the matter could be resolved if you explained what material is unverified and what is copyrighted? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The songs are under copyright I believe. As for unverfied and unencyclopedic is the section on the darn jackets. I simply don't think they belong in an encyclopedia. Ardenn 00:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Why should an integral school tradition not be included on the university's page? It makes sense, especially for academic institutions like universities that rely on tradition and place a great emphasis on them. Queen's Jackets are a big deal to the students at the school and the school themselves. A quick internet search will reveal the debacle over the nearly 30,000 dollars in net loss for Arts and Science jackets last year, which was a contentious issue at the school this year. What is wrong with a section on some of the school's traditions? It is what makes it unique and is therefore noteworthy in my opinion. Any Queen's student would likely agree with me as we take great pride in our jackets.

JaysCyYoung 00:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you really believe the sond to be copyrighted? In this edit you removed the name of the songs as well as thier words. Now the names cannot possibly be copyrighted. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do. However, I should probably have left the rest and just removes the lyrics. I apologize over that. Ardenn 00:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Jackets

As a student at two competitor schools (albeit more than a decade ago), I can say that their is a clear sense of tradition in the jackets. The sourcing looks legitimate for verification (i.e. the Queen's admissions page lists jackets as part of the tradition [1]; what more verification do you need?) -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 00:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be two arguments going on at once here. one is that the info is unverified, disputed uncited. The other is that it's not encylopedic. The tags refer to the first argument. If citations are provided then the tags must go. The second argument i.e. they information is correct but trivial needs to be decided by the larger community. Try a RFC Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Whether they are encyclopedic or not is the question. But this is probably better raised another day so that cooler heads can debate. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 00:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Well two of the warring parties have been blocked for 24 hours to cool down and the page is currently protected. So yes, it's time to let things sleep for a bit. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, verification is one, and then there's the encyclopedic merit. While it is part of school pride, IMHO, it does not merit entry in an encyclopedia. I doubt you would see it in Brittanica. Ardenn 00:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not brittinica and shouldn't strive to be so. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Why shouldn't we strive to be so? Is Wikipedia not an encyclopedia? Ardenn 23:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia should strive to be considerably better than Britannica. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Outsider comment: No one is apparently disputing that these jackets exist. No one seems to be disputing that this university thinks they're important. What Wikipedia needs from a sourcing point of view is citation from an external source that says they're somehow notable and an important tradition, known even beyond the reach of the school. Do people in other Canadian cities know about these jackets? In other countries? Have prime ministers made references to them? We simply avoid including information which is interesting and relevant only to some small, closed community. Hopefully that explains things a bit. Stevage 11:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There are many more minor things included on other university pages that discuss traditions, and yes the jackets are known at other Canadian schools as it is one of the trademarks of the school's students. Therefore, it is notable. http://aics.acadiau.ca/case_studies/xavierjacket.html is a link that discusses how students at Xavier University modelled their jackets somewhat based on the one's from Queen's (also indicating that something as seemingly unimportant as a jacket was known in NEW BRUNSWICK). I'm not sure why this is such a big issue. Traditions are arguably the most important component of a university, so this is nitpicking moreso than anything.

"The leather jacket would have the university crest and the person's residence crest on each sleeve and the name of the faculty/program on the back, much like those Joe had seen at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario. Erin questioned whether there was a market for the all season design and if it would cut into sales of Xavier jackets."

JaysCyYoung 20:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

In the grand scheme of things, outside of Queen's students and alumni, who actually cares about the jackets? Why would someone from Australia or Ireland care about the jackets? Why should they be included? We strive to make this important for people outside of your own small community to read. Ardenn 23:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I think Stevage hit the nail on the head. If there is outside sourcing of the importance of the jackets, that would strengthen the argument to keep them. I've really enjoyed the new additions to the article by JaysCyYoung (particularly the pictures, which add a lot), but we must remember the importance of external verification. -- Samir धर्म 01:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, thought JaysCyYoung added the pics, but I guess I just haven't looked at the Queen's article in a while... -- Samir धर्म 01:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
"Why would someone from Australia or Ireland care about the jackets? Why should they be included?"

Who cares about the school in the first place outside of the people who go there? Your point does not detract from the component that they are an integral part of the school's student culture and create a major source of group and school identity. Once again, the tradition aspect of the jackets and the fact that they are so closely identified with the school, especially by the students themselves, is of paramount importance in this instance. For example, I am aware of a U of T student tradition in the Engineering Faculty whereby students wear Hard Hats and they are expected to protect them from Arts and Science students. I did not atend the school but am aware of it. Chances are most likely that, if you asked a U of T student about Queen's Jackets, they would know what they were and their significance to the Queen's population.

^New Edit - "The Engineering Jacket is the most common item associated with the Queen's Engineer. The gold leather and words "Queen's Applied Science" are recognized worldwide, and are synonymous with the spirit of Queen's Engineering students.

First year students can join the 95% of Queen's engineers on campus who own an Engineering Jacket (also known as Golden Party Armour or GPA for short) and wear it with pride."

http://appsci.queensu.ca/prospective/tradition/jackets/

JaysCyYoung 02:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe we're continuing this discussion. Ardenn has a history of being an edgy editor here at Wikipedia, and is completely incompetent. I've just been accused of "Meat Puppeting" randomly with no evidence whatosever. He simply can't drop this grudge. --Tykell 02:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Not that it means much, I went to U of T and we knew about Queen's jackets and Queen's jacket bars. I do agree that we need external verification of the importance -- Samir धर्म 02:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

As a Queen's alumni, I was checking out the listing in Wiki and came across this talk page. I made my first Wiki comment yesterday regarding the Oil Thigh discussion in the traditions section above. Dispite closely reading and following (I hope) instructions for newcomers, I too stand accused of a crime according to a message on my user page. My crime is apparently meat puppetry. Intelligent discussion does not include passive agressive and inappropriate acusations sent off this board. That is an attempt at intimidation.

The point I was making is that university traditions are as encylopedic as the rituals of any large organization or group - particularly when the organization is influential, as is Queen's, from a cultural, pedagogical, anthropological and sociological perspective. University traditions are also relevent to potential students in selecting a university to attend.

The precedent for inclusion of university traditions in Wikipedia exists. Please refer to Princeton's with its mention of "beer jackets", or Cambridge's discussing scarf colours. Is this debate part of a hatred of Queen's or is it a discussion on the appropriateness of university traditions being in Wikipedia at all?

If its the former, perhaps someone should leave the discussion. If its the latter, perhaps that should be taken up elsewhere within Wikipedia? Regardless, unjustified, unmerited, inappropriate, unwelcome, unprofessional, and bullying suggestions that I am a meat puppet do not belong on this page or sent to my own page. LeftCoast 17:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)LEFTCOAST

Ardenn has apparently done that to several other users as well, including myself. I'm not sure why he does act in that manner, and I've sought administrative help in the past. However, back to the discussion... the above point is what I have been trying to say all along. It's not so much the jackets that I am trying to plead the case for but the precedent being set here. IF you take away one of the major traditions of a university, which, as the above user stated, is a key factor for many prospective students in attending that institution, what is the point of mentioning any at all on Wikipedia? They are a core component of the school and play a valuable if not integral role in student culture. That is why they are relevant for discussion. JaysCyYoung 21:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Way to cut through all the clutter and shed some light on the real issues, LeftCoast, well done. The jackets should indeed stay, and I believe this unnecessarily long discussion has reached a breaking point. Can we can an unprotect on the article? --Greenmind 05:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

When the editing restriction is lifted, please add some sources and citations. If these traditions are as important and long-standing as they appear to be (based on the discussion above), then surely you'll have no problems finding appropriate sources. I would also advise against using official materials from the university as your primary source(s) as that would not help your case and be a violation of WP:V (specifically, the prohibition against citing "self-published sources in articles about themselves."). --ElKevbo 20:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


Page unlocked

As things appear to have settled down, I have unprotected the page. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

does Queen's one has anything related to University of Edinburgh's one ? It doesn't look very similar, the large structure is rather different indeed, but the large blue cross is remarkable. -- 172.176.189.246 13:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Queen's Coat of Arms was based on Edinburgh's, as per http://qnc.queensu.ca/Encyclopedia/Queen_s_Encyclopedia_C/queen_s_encyclopedia_c.html#Coatofarms --Greenmind 06:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Vanity

Considered one of Canada's most prestigious universities. It is unnecessary academic boosterism. No Canadian university or even Harvard would require the above statement, therefore I reverted it. There also has been numerous discussions regarding these words and is also POV 218.103.199.101 09:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Since everyone else seems to be content to engage in an edit war, I suggest that this be discussed here. JaysCyYoung, why do you feel that this sentence is necessary, given Wiki's policies on WP:NPOV and WP:Weasel? - pm_shef 19:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I initially had no problem with it. It's actually a little amusing to be honest since several users had reverted the page to use that phrase once it was changed for not being neutral enough. I personally preferred the alteration of that saying as "One of Canada's leading universities" to "prestigious" as it sounds much less arrogrant or egocentric (although, that is what one suspects of Queen's students if you will!). I think that phrase is appropriate considering the influence, endowment and alumini financial contribution, and its status as a G-10 school that Queen's holds. It's netural and to the point, which is precisely what wikipedia strives for. I want to know what anyone else thinks, particularly Players Club, but in the meantime I can change it to put this.

JaysCyYoung 17:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Can you provide an objective reference that backs up your claim of Queen's being "one of Canada's leading Universities"? If not, the phrase should be removed entirely. - pm_shef 17:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I think any look at the rankings or the annual issue of MacLean's magazine would certainly back the statement up as well as the financial power of the institution from an endowment and alummini contribution standpoint. The research and various academic projects which places Queen's as a leader in various fields would also support this. I honestly don't have any problem with it being removed. It was a single phrase that has pretty much been with the article since its inception on Wikipedia. A quick look at the Harvard article reveals that it does not have such a phrase so I have no problem removing it.

JaysCyYoung 17:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

  • If you have no problem removing it, then why on earth have you spent the last week edit-warring $the page everytime someone took the phrase out?! - pm_shef 18:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it is the policy on Wikipedia to discuss changes to articles and the reasoning behind such changes. This is standard procedure as I am sure you know.

JaysCyYoung 18:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I've requested the page be unprotected. I think it was very premature to protect this page as this was a very slow-moving edit war which primarily involved one editor reverting the edits of several others. On the topic of the statement(s) in question: They need to stay out. Put the facts in the article and let the reader decide if he or she should consider Queen's to be "one of the best," "the most prestigious," or whatever. It's a pretty cut-and-dry case of academic boosterism and something many of us actively discourage in many other university articles (including the afore-mentioned Harvard). --ElKevbo 19:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I reverted "It is one of the most prestigious universities in the universe" which is obviously vanadalism. Apparently, JaysCyYoung is trying to use perception to ellude users from removing "considered one of Canada's leading universities". When Players Club added the above statement here, JaysCyYoung added this without prior concensus. It is obvious this user is bias because he is Queen's University Student. Also, Macleans Rankings is unreliable and does not give users a whole perspective. In terms of Research intensity/faculty, Queens is not even close to McGill, McMaster or the University of Toronto. 203.218.143.15 02:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding the end of your post, its not up to you to decide whether or not Macleans rankings are reliable. They're considered the standard in Canada and a reliable source. That being said, the phrase still has no place in this article. - pm_shef 02:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Its not up to you either to judge its reliable. Stop acting like you're like the law.
Agreed with PM shelf. I make no mistake that I am biased because I attend the institution (and wish to have as comprehensive and informative wikipedia page as possible), but I was unaware that such a small segment would generate so much controversy (much like the Jackets war I vouched for). However, I do take offence at an anonymous user vandalizing my user page and launching personal attacks, then calling me out in this article when I have no problem with the article being reverted. If Harvard is the standard, then the Queen's article should follow suit. I made no mistake about that, I merely reverted what I saw as petty vandalism. Now please get off your soap box 203.218.143.15. I also find the idea of Mac being a better research school amusing. That may be your opinion, but I certainly don't believe it to hold much credence. Most people I've talked to see the Big Three as McGill, Queen's, and U of T, but that is off-topic.

JaysCyYoung 05:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You find it amusing because you are ignorant. Your pride has shielded yourself from facing reality. Pride is a sin and you have too much of it.
Why is there so much interest in one phrase when so much more could be added to other pieces of the article? ManjaMan 03:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove per PM shef. Deet 23:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There is so much discussion of entrance marks. It is repeated 3 times in the article (once under institution, once under admissions, and once under academic rankings). I don't think most people care about this information; it is really irrelevant information about the univeristy. One mention maybe, but this mostly just seems like it's written by an arrogant Queen's student. Does anyone else think the entrance marks thing need to be cleaned up? YahoKa 20:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Broader Learning Environment"

What is the "broader learning environment"? Isn't this simply fancy term for a more residential school? ManjaMan 02:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Merging Clark Hall Pub and Grant Hall

  • I've proposed that both Clark hall pub and Grant Hall be merged here. First of all due to the precedent set at Vari Hall and York Lanes. The fact is, neither of these buildings are notable in and of themselves. They are notable simply by association with the University. They would do fine to have a section in the main article, but there's no reason for them to have their own articles. -- pm_shef 01:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I respectfully disagree with you on Grant Hall. It is one symbolic building within a well known university (I certainly don't think all buildings on campus should have their own article). Sure, it can probably be expanded with relevant history, but a merger as you suggested would not be appropriate in my opinion. I don't know what you're referencing with the examples you cited, but I would offer Widener Library and Stanford Memorial Church as other examples of key buildings in well-known universities having their own articles. In regards to Clark hall pub, I would suggest a more appropriate merger would be to merge with Queen's Faculty of Applied Science, as everyting seem to be relevant only to AppSci.--Greenmind 01:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There will be literally hundreds of articles to go through if this precedent is set. e.g. Robarts library at U of T, etc and etc.
  • Indeed, what makes Grant Hall any more notable than McGill's Arts Building? or York's Vari Hall? None of these buildings are notable outside of their association with the University. Why not just include a section on Grant Hall in the Queen's main page? -- pm_shef 17:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Grant Hall isn't necessarily more notable than either of your examples. Again, I'm not saying every university campus building in Canada should have an article. But landmark buildings are appropriate, especially in well known universities (Queen's, McGill, UofT, maybe UBC and Waterloo as well). I'd be fine with the McGill Arts Building having its own article, as I'm not affiliated with McGill in any way and still I know it's status as an iconic and historic building. --Greenmind 01:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the issue over Grant Hall, I think that Clark should probably be moved to the Queen's Faculty of Applied Science page, as Greenmind suggested. There should also be some further clarification added between Clark Hall & Clark Hall Pub--Adamtunis 16:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

But landmark buildings are appropriate, especially in well known universities (Queen's, McGill, UofT, maybe UBC and Waterloo as well). Spot the Queen's ego.:) I think Grant Hall should bb merged. I see nothing wrong with that. I am not comfortable with having Clark in Wikipedia, abd it should not be merged with the Queen's University, I don't think queens is very fond of it. Pete Peters 03:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Experts

We need experts on history, the campus architecture, and on organisations like student council. Isn't this a good enough explanation!? --Speedystickd 19:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it needs more explanation but I'm happy to wait for others to weigh in and offer their opinions. --ElKevbo 19:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT!!!!

This articla has been nominated for Collaboration of the week and the Article improvement drive. Please vote and help out!!!!!! --Speedystickd 19:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No