Talk:Wilfrid Laurier University/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old comments

Revisions made by 216.249.51.238 to boast about business faculty, please source your claims. It doesn't help that your IP address resolves to WLU. Someone from the business faculty perhaps? - --Iamhenry (talk) 05:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Updated the site to reflect several incorrect links. updated the links for "Dr. Max Blouw" as it was listed to direct to Dr. Roseharts page. Further updated the location as it attempted to link to "waterloo, brantford, kitchener, ontario" likely because someone updating the information did not know how to adjust the information correctly. I added the additional campus locations and used correct links to the individual city page as well. 99.236.186.75 06:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Third revision by PeterK (24.112.245.31), just wanted to let you know.

Just so you know, I just got off the phone with one of the folks at Laurier and he would like to send me some accurate content that can be put on this page. This was in response to my request for a logo to put on the page. He said that any content that he sends me can be publicly released on this page. Timc 20:57, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have pasted in revised text as received from WLU. Unfortunately, I cannot get any images of the University crest for this page. My contact at WLU says: "We deal with requests on a case-by-case basis and if the logos were to be used only on your site, we'd have no problem with that. However, if all images and text are to be made available, we'd prefer to have no logo." Timc 16:38, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Its such a beautiful school. Can we change the picture of campus to something prettier?CRAZYBUBBA 21:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I updated the sidebar to note that Dr. Robert Roseharts term hasn't actually expired yet, and so listing Max Blouw as president before september is incorrect. Minor Change, but wanted to point that out. (72.143.172.142 03:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

History section is a mess

Fine writing by university students. the history section and the ability to follow its development is a mess. logic and ordering of information is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.167.113 (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed "Today Wilfrid Laurier University emphasizes liberal arts" from the history section as this this is not the case and was not remotely supported by the reference provided: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0008593 -Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.63.204 (talk) 02:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Took a stab at cleaning it up. Blotto adrift (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Weasel words

"The school is known particularily for its business program, political science department, graduate school of social work, and faculty of music." Ardenn 04:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Team Names

You can check the laurier athletics site. The Golden Hawk name was used long before 1981. In fact team in the 60s were the golden hawks

---

I went to WLU from 1973 (When it was Waterloo Lutheran) to 1978. The athletics teams were the Golden Hawks for years before I arrived. The Laurier Athletics site the previous poster refers to is www.laurierathletics.com. As evidence, at the bottom of the page on this link (http://www.laurierathletics.com/alumni/hofmembers.asp?inductyear=1995) there is a picture of the 1967/68 basketball team. Notice that their uniforms say "Hawks", not "Mules". My SPECULATION is that the name Mules was used for a time during and/or possibly following Waterloo College's affiliation with University of Western Ontario, whose teams were the Mustangs. The Golden Hawk name was adopted no later than the mid-60s.

BTW, I am now a faculty member at WLU. 69.196.9.156 01:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC) amarshal@wlu.ca

I found the information on the team names. Wilfrid Laurier was founded in 1911 as Waterloo College of University of Western Ontario. Western's teams were the Mustangs (men) and Colts (women) and Waterloo College teams were the Mules and Mulletes for the men and women, respectively. In 1957, the teams were definitely the Mules and Mulettes. In 1959, The Province of Ontario established three universities: Waterloo Lutheran University, University of St. Jerome's College and University of Waterloo. It was the University of Waterloo that continued to use the names Mules and Mulettes. The name Mules was dropped quickly and replaced with Warriors.

This comes from the University of Waterloo Wikipedia entry and a history document on the University of Waterloo website: http://www.athletics.uwaterloo.ca/Alumni/Gold%20and%20Black%20Newsletter/July_2006.pdf 74.108.134.40 00:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC) amarshal@wlu.ca

I have now edited this information into the article. 74.108.134.40 05:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC) amarshal@wlu.ca

What's In A Name?

I've added a 'citation needed' notation for the comment that the uni administration confirmed that the name Wilfrid Laurier University was chosen solely because of the initials were the same as Waterloo Lutheran University. I went to Laurier in the late 80s-early 90s - many believed that this was the case, but the university always maintained that the school was named to honour Laurier. Blotto adrift 17:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I graduated in '04, and don't know exactly on the origins, but I don't think I ever came across the school promoting the fact that it was renamed in homage to Wilfrid Laurier the man, but that it was just a conveniant fit as they moved away from their Lutheran roots. 24.68.249.197 20:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems everyone has a story about WLU being retained to keep the initials-- I have even heard stories about doing it to save on having to order new stationary, but there are no official citations for this. However, I don't think this warrants leaving it out altogether. The best documentation we have for this to date is simply the Cord archives from 1973 until someone can find a better reference beyond anecdotal evidence. --Iamhenry (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

An additional note regarding Jdarryls1 creating the section - because the creator of a section is NOT the owner. If you can find better content, contribute it, otherwise please stop being petty. --Iamhenry (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a current push to refer to the school as "Laurier University" instead of "Wilfred Laurier University" as part of a branding campaign? I notice that on the website the logos and navigation all just refer to "Laurier" now, although the page's title property still says Wilfred Laurier University. Kilkenny71 (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wilfrid laurier seal.jpg

Image:Wilfrid laurier seal.jpg 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 04:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Brantford Campus

Could someone please add more information on the Brantford campus? --Lesouris 05:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there still interest in more information on the two satellite campuses? --MikaelC 19:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I filled in a bit about the Brantford Campus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrownguy (talk • contribs) 06:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Rae no longer the Chancellor

Rae is no longer WLU's chancellor. Look on WLU's main webpage for confirmation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.81.119 (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Then please edit that, thanks! Firewal2 (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Quality scale

I assigned a quality rating of 'Start' on the Canada project banner for two principal reasons; (1) the article depth is less than similar Ontario universities, and (2) there is less inline referencing than there ought to be. I think the article is reasonably close to 'B' class, but isn't at that level yet. PKT (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Numbers need fixing. There are 11,689 undergrads and 729 grads in the University, the article says, but the Waterloo campus is "home" to 15,000 students. Is there a common source of student numbers being used by Wikipedia for Ontario/Canadian universities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.228 (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Faculty of Music

I removed the "Faculty of Music" section, because to be frank, it isn't notable and doesn't deserve a place in the article. Quoting WLU's own student newspaper won't change that fact. GreenJoe 22:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It most certainly is notable. Laurier is known primarily as a music and business school. Specifically, UW President summed up the local school's strengths in this way: "Conestoga College's strengths in health sciences, media studies and trades; Waterloo's strengths in engineering and computer science; Laurier's strengths in music and business education; and nearby Guelph with its health and life sciences and agri-food expertise." The quote from the student newspaper had facts, such as the fact that Laurier's music program attracts more out-of-provine students than any other program. This of course means that it is well known across the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.26.150 (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is what I removed from the article:

The internationally renowned Faculty of Music at Laurier is considered one of the best in the country[1], with programs in performance, music education, composition, music history, church music, theory and music therapy. In addition, Laurier is home to the Penderecki String Quartet - an internationally recognised group playing largely new compositions. The music faculty boasts two performance spaces - the Theatre Auditorium and the Maureen Forrester Recital Hall (named after the famous contralto and former chancellor of WLU). The faculty also attracts a greater percentage of students from outside Ontario than any other faculty at Laurier. [2] Laurier Msuic program boasts the only Masters Degree in Music Therapy. Laurier's strength in "music and business education" is touted as one of the reasons that Waterloo Region is a "powerful educational hub" by UW president David Johnson. [3]

Here are the issues I have with it:

1. It contains peacock terms, and simply boasts about the faculty, not providing any real information.
2. It isn't notable. The Cord's own article on this acknowledges that no one at Laurier even knows there is a music faculty. Thus it isn't notable.
3. The references provided don't back up the "facts" in the article, which again is full of peacock terms.
4. This entire paragraph needs to be completely re-written by someone knowledgeable with the subject before it can be put back in, and that's only after it can prove notability. GreenJoe 16:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ranking and Reputation

I would recommend establishing a Ranking and Reputation section, you can use {{Canadian university rankings}}. FYI, it ranks as #11 for comprehensive universities by Maclean's in 2011. --Natural R_X 22:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Added GatorEG (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Laurier strongly criticized; President apologizes; Wikipedia should include this

Let me preface this by saying that both my wife and I are Laurier grads. (My grad year was 1974).

This Wikipedia article sounds like it was written by the University's PR firm. An encyclopedia needs to go beyond providing data and accolades.

Recently, there has been a great deal of criticism of the University for the way they handled the situation with a grad student TA showing a video of a TVOntario current affairs program, Agenda, with Steve Paikin, that included controversy about genderless pronouns that was not considered to be politically correct. The university finally apologized but only because the TA had recorded the conversation when the profs (Nathan Rambukkana and Herbert Pimlott) were belittling her actions and released it to the news media. Shame on WLU.

Specifics are below, from the Globe, National Post, Toronto Star and CBC:

   Laurier apologizes to teaching assistant who aired clip of gender-pronoun debate The clip of Peterson debating sexual diversity scholar Nicholas Matte, she said, was meant to demonstrate ways in which the existence of gender-specific pronouns has caused controversy. ..... On the recording of the meeting, Shepherd is heard tearfully defending her decision to play the clip while staff accuse her of being transphobic and liken her failure to condemn Peterson to remaining neutral on the views of Adolf Hitler. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/11/21/laurier-apologizes-to-teaching-assistant-who-aired-clip-of-gender-pronoun-debate.html

   Christie Blatchford: Here's where Laurier can stick their apology to Lindsay Shepherd ... Rambukkana’s 'open letter' is all I expected of a man who would invoke the spectre of Hitler to try to shut down an underling — craven, dissembling, revisionist As for Rambukkana’s “open letter” to Shepherd, it is all I expected of a man who would invoke the spectre of Hitler to try to shut down an underling in a private meeting — craven, dissembling, revisionist.  http://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-heres-where-laurier-can-stick-their-apology-to-lindsay-shepherd

  Laurier professor, president apologize to TA over video sanction 'The conversation I heard does not reflect the values and practices to which Laurier aspires"This was on TVO," she [Shepherd] added; a public broadcaster known for educational programming. "It's crazy to me that it can't be shown in a classroom with adults."http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/laurier-lindsay-shepherd-apology-video-petersen-1.4412595 (Transcript of the recording: http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/heres-the-full-recording-of-wilfrid-laurier-reprimanding-lindsay-shepherd-for-showing-a-jordan-peterson-video

   Wilfrid Laurier graduate student delivers a wake-up call If you want to understand the intellectual corruption that is eating away at our universities, listen to an audio recording made by a graduate student named Lindsay Shepherd. She is a 22-year-old teaching assistant at Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario. Every senior administrator and every governor at every campus in the country should listen to it and ask themselves how far the rot has spread. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/lindsay-shepherd-delivers-a-wake-up-call/article37033031/

   WLU's contemptible conduct proof of intellectual assault underway on campuses. This contemptible episode has proven that, as one WSJ letter-writer put it, "The left is no longer able to recognize opposing political thought as thought" The story of Wilfrid Laurier University grad student and teaching assistant Lindsay Shepherd — who was recently subjected to a creepy, but instructive, grilling by campus superiors over material she’d used for her entry-level Communication tutorials — went viral on social media last week. http://nationalpost.com/opinion/barbara-kay-wlus-contemptible-conduct-proof-of-intellectual-assault-underway-on-campuses

Peter K Burian (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to spend time writing about this issue because I am convinced that it will be reverted. We need strong Support for including this issue in the article. Do you agree? Peter K Burian (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The extremely limited scope - a handful of people, one incident, etc. - make this sound like WP:NOTNEWS to me. Unless this develops into something more I don't think it's worth including because I don't know what readers are supposed to learn about the university from this information. "A few people made a bad choice once" isn't very informative or even interesting. ElKevbo (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

What should readers learn? If you want to understand the intellectual corruption that is eating away at our universities, listen to an audio recording made by a graduate student named Lindsay Shepherd. ... Every senior administrator and every governor at every campus in the country should listen to it and ask themselves how far the rot has spread. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/lindsay-shepherd-delivers-a-wake-up-call/article37033031/ Peter K Burian (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, some pundits sure are making meat out of this. That doesn't mean that we should follow their lead. ElKevbo (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

"A few people made a bad choice once"??? Perhaps this is something that could be said in 2017 (especially if someone is embarrassed by what the incident exposed) but it is no longer relevant in 2020. Extensive and high-quality coverage of the incident and most importantly of the processes that followed is needed. This is an example of what happens when fashionable rules infringe on academic freedom principles that universities have upheld since the Enlightenment, it is not merely a Canadian local story.2.84.137.158 (talk) 09:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• I disagree with ElKevbo. The relevant passage from policy would be WP:WEIGHT, not WP:NOTNEWS. How much weight do I attach? Well, at least a paragraph. Did the TA lose their job? Did anyone lose their job? If the President resigned over this, then it would definitely deserve more than a paragraph. These are quotes from four of Canada's top news sources, not tabloids. Maybe ElKevbo assumed this was tabloid reporting. Geo Swan (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I was looking for information on the Lindsay-Shephard-Affair in this article and I am astonished not to find even a link to the topic here which is of relevance for an international public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.76.245.32 (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The main reason why Winfrid Laurier University became known internationally is for the Lindsay Shephard Affair. It seems that the public relations team of the university is actively working to ensure that the affair does not get the extensive coverage it deserves on its Wikipedia page. I understand though that it would not be fair for the rest of the faculty of WLU to have a Wikipedia page where 50% of the content is about the violation of Lindsay Shephard's human rights. Perhaps a solution would be to create a separate Wikipedia page for the incident, link to the separate page, and improve the current text.2.84.137.158 (talk) 09:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for comments: is this highly-publicised issue about the University valid in the article?

Very recently, Wilfrid Laurier University (Waterloo, Ontario, Canada) was lambasted in the major news media for the reprimand it gave a Teaching Assistant for showing a video of a TV current affairs program. It was a controversial topic: Gender-neutral pronoun (e.g. "they" vs. "he or she").

The TA was accused by the professors of "being transphobic and liken her failure to condemn Peterson to remaining neutral on the views of Adolf Hitler." https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/11/21/laurier-apologizes-to-teaching-assistant-who-aired-clip-of-gender-pronoun-debate.html After the recording of the reprimand meeting was released to the media, the University President and prof wrote an open apology to the TA. Both letters were widely covered by the major news media. (Criticism of the university has been intense and relentless across Canada. https://www.therecord.com/news-story/7936187-wlu-apologizes-for-treatment-of-graduate-student/)

Please see the previous Talk item for more specifics and exerpts from major news media. Should this issue not be included in an encyclopedia article about the University? I believe that it needs to be included and I am a Laurier graduate, class of 1974. Do you support this position? Peter K Burian (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The title of this RfC indicates that the question is not being asked in good faith. I also don't understand how in the course of a few minutes we've gone from a normal Talk discussion to a full-fledged RfC.

Of course the article should include well-sourced negative information. So far, the specific incident in question is so narrow in scope that it seems like it's just a news item. A lot of attention in media articles but many incidents briefly raise a lot of attention without ever developing into anything meaningful. Unless this develops into something larger I don't see that a single incident involving a handful of people merits inclusion in an encyclopedia article that discusses the entire history, organization, infrastructure, and constituency of this organization. ElKevbo (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, you're right ... the title was badly phrased; I corrected it. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Update: CBC News believes that this issue is important, as does the Parliament of Canada:

  Will the prime minister join me in condemning the egregious crackdown on free speech at Laurier University?" he asked. The prime minister was in Toronto at that time, announcing the Liberals' new national housing strategy. So the question was answered in the House by Minister of Science Kirsty Duncan. "Our government is committed to creating open spaces for Canadians to debate and express their views," she said.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/laurier-apology-lindsay-shepherd-free-speech-peterson-video-sanction-1.4414147

Peter K Burian (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The level of press coverage makes the incident notable, and it is clearly pertinent to life in and administration of the university, so mentioning it here is valid. However, anything more than a couple of sentences would be out of WP:PROPORTION. Batternut (talk) 10:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, I posted brief coverage of the incident.

  In late 2017, Laurier received Canada-wide press coverage for an incident involving a Teaching Assistant who was sanctioned by a professor for showing a controversial video of a current affairs TV programme to students. After the audio recording of the meeting had been publicised, the professor and Laurier President Deborah MacLatchy issued a public apology to the TA. "The conversation I heard does not reflect the values and practices to which Laurier aspires", MacLatchy wrote.[19] When the incident was raised as a "freedom of speech" issue in Parliament during Question Period, Minister of Science Kirsty Duncan replied, "Our government is committed to creating open spaces for Canadians to debate and express their views."[20]

Peter K Burian (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

btw, Laurier posted info about the incident on their Facebook page. Numerous critical comments were posted below it. https://www.facebook.com/WilfridLaurierUniversity/?hc_ref=ART3fmpdfirsm98fiMcfJAWcKP0EUE1JItDV6AqpHXLSmIGOkoGvh7-Nbs6mjofyfnI&fref=nf&pnref=story Peter K Burian (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: Now the incident is covered twice in the one article - it was covered already in #history, and now your mention under #Academics. Batternut (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I was not aware of that. I updated the coverage under History and deleted the one under Academics. Peter K Burian (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Dubious IP edits from 2016

On 6 June 2016 99.247.161.151 (talk · contribs) made big unexplained edits. See here. Just pointing this out for any interested parties to examine.

"...in recognition of its vibrant start-up ecosystem."

doesn't sound too neutral.
Regards, 220 of ^Borg 07:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Need feedback: Controversy section - include name of TA or not?

In the Controversy section of History, the name of the central figure (Lindsay Shepherd, the TA) was included. A User deleted it today. I reverted that so the name of the person remained in the content.

Another User then reverted my edited and suggested this be discussed in Talk. (I agree, but could this not be done without reverting my edit?)

Question Do you support including the name of the TA, the central figure in the controversy?

Privacy is not an issue since hundreds of news articles have discussed her name and interviewed her. See https://www.google.ca/search?q=lindsay+shepherd&oq=Lindsay+shepher&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i60j69i57j0l3.3545j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

When did Wikipedia articles begin deleting names?? Peter K Burian (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Lindsay Shepherd is working with Macleans magazine who is writing a feature about her. Instant celebrity a bumpy ride for Shepherd https://www.therecord.com/opinion-story/7975915-d-amato-instant-celebrity-a-bumpy-ride-for-shepherd/

AND she is now writing newspaper articles about the situation: FINANCIAL POST

Lindsay Shepherd: WLU's interrogation revealed how university has lost sight of its key purpose - How can humanities departments justify charging students tuition if they are not teaching them to think critically? http://nationalpost.com/opinion/lindsay-shepherd-wlus-interrogation-revealed-how-university-has-lost-sight-of-its-key-purpose Peter K Burian (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

It's clear that this individual is willing to play a public role in this debate so I withdraw my WP:BLP-based objections. I'm still not certain that she has become prominent enough to warrant mention on WP:DUE grounds but that's a relatively minor quibble. ElKevbo (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, I added her name again. Peter K Burian (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Follow up two months later: I have reconsidered my position and returned to my original position that BLP demands that we not include this person's name. She is only notable for this one incident, an incident that the university has publicly admitted was an error in (their) judgement. If this person were notable for any other additional reasons then I might be ok including her name but since this is the only reason her name is included in any encyclopedia article I think that BLP calls for us to not use her name especially since omitting her name doesn't in any way hinder readers' understanding of this silly tempest in a teapot. That she defended herself - yes, publicly - does not change these fundamental facts. ElKevbo (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gracefool: Please participate in this discussion instead of edit warring. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't realize this section existed. See my reply about the same thing at Talk:Jordan Peterson#Lindsey Shepherd material. No BLP doesn't require us to not use her name, and that she has spoken about it publicly is relevant. ··gracefool 💬 09:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Wilfrid Laurier University Students' Union

The student union doesn't seem independently notable and I see no reason why it would need its own article. Marquardtika (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree, Marquardtika; Student Union should be merged into this article, as a new section. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC) (Laurier Alumnus, Class of 1974)

I also agree, Marquardtika. The Student Union page itself seems to serve as if it were an "about us" section of a website, rather than a necessary encyclopedic entry. Once the fat is trimmed away, the rest can be put into this article.--Tkbrett (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Student Union is much too long and sure, it sounds like it was written by Laurier's PR Agency. Condense and move it if you have time to do so. I will be away now for a day or so. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and implement since there doesn't seem to be any disagreement. Marquardtika (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Redirect to nothing ?

Wanted to use WP to inform myself about the topic "Lindsay Shepherd" ... which redirects to this topic ... which does not even contain the name. That's absurd. Either delete the redirect and make a separate topic and then maybe link to it from here ... or include information about "Lindsay Shepherd" here to justify the forward. (Sorry if my use of "Lindsay Shepherd" seems odd. I just wanted to signal that it's not so much about the person and more about what happened in particular.) JB. --92.195.118.50 (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC) PS: To give no information at all because of fear to write something offensive is worse than the alternative. We we delete anything not 100% clear from the WP half of modern human history will just get lost from view. If there are different POVs then better state both/all than to hide the whole thing. At least that's what I think.

WP:BLP, particularly WP:BLP1E, is pretty clear on this issue: We don't have articles (or redirects) for people who are not themselves notable except in the context of one event. I'll request the redirect be deleted. ElKevbo (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E does not discourage redirects of this type, nor should it. But obviously they only make sense if the target article actually mentions the person in question, which it now does. Smyth (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

No, this article doesn't currently have her name nor should it. Therefore the redirect should be deleted. ElKevbo (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

This redirect has been listed at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_1#Lindsay_Shepherd. Smyth (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I really can't see the supposed BLP issues here. The incident has been widely reported in reliable sources, including her name, and she has written and spoken extensively about in public. There really isn't a privacy issue here. You could make an argument to delete the whole section, but not to keep her name out of it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

You don't see a BLP issue with us prominently naming and featuring a graduate student who was only in the news because some faculty members smeared her and initiated an improper investigation for which the university later apologized? ElKevbo (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The BLP policy is all about avoiding Wikipedia causing harm to a person. But there's no indication that the publicity about this incident is causing her harm, nor that she wishes it to be forgotten. So no, there is no BLP issue. Undue weight, maybe, but I have no opinion on that. Jordan Peterson called it the biggest scandal ever at a Canadian university, but he may be exaggerating. Smyth (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, some members of the media and many political pundits used this story to advance their own agenda; we should not follow their lead or take their bait. ElKevbo (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

No, I really don't see a BLP issue here, and I spend a lot of time removing BLP violations from Wikipedia, so it's a topic I'm pretty familiar with. There's absolutely no point whatsoever in removing her name from this section when she is prominently named in the sources used, and she has talked widely and openly about the events, making no attempt at all to conceal her identity. If you want to delete the whole section that's quite a different matter, but I can't see any merit in a case for keeping the section but deleting her name. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd be fine with deleting the material altogether since it's not likely to have a lasting impact but I can understand others objecting because of the widespread (but very partisan and hyperbolic) media coverage. Even if we keep a sentence or two, however, readers don't gain any necessary, new, or unique understanding of the issue by including the TA's name so the spirit if not the law of BLP says that we shouldn't include it. (No, I don't think that the fact that the young woman defended herself after her name was dragged through the mud really qualifies as widescale coverage or a strong desire to be in the public light; she was already there against her own will.) ElKevbo (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

User ElKevbo's approach of "I will protect you even when you don't want to be protected" is close to what sparked the initial Lindsay Shepherd incident... 2.84.137.158 (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Important section: Milton campus, in partnership with Conestoga College

Someone just deleted 70% of the new content about the plan and its cancellation, claiming that it sounded like PR material. trim unnecessary details; this is an encyclopedia article, not a press release or news article (I subsequently reverted that edit)

Frankly, much of the other content of the Laurier article does sound like it was from WLU PR material, but the new content cites major news media. (Granted the plan for the campus was from a WLU site because the news media have not covered exactly what Laurier planned to do.)

I did this update (which was reverted and then re-inserted by me) at the suggestion of a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian communities in the Talk section of Milton, Ontario. Should we delete all mention of Wilfrid Laurier and Conestoga plans to create a campus in Milton?

    Milton's history with post-secondary education is captured. Beyond that, a more fulsome recap with other details can be appropriately presented at Wilfrid Laurier University#Planned Milton campus (which is out of date as of today and needs copyediting to fix current tense issues throughout). Hwy43 (talk) 02:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Milton,_Ontario#Should_we_delete_all_mention_of_Wilfrid_Laurier_and_Conestoga_plans_to_create_a_campus_in_Milton?

I am a great supporter of editors collaborating to make an article better, but that does not include deletion of a large section of content that is fully supported by major news media sources, including:

• http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/wilfrid-laurier-s-pitch-for-milton-campus-rejected-by-province-1.3080464 |title=Wilfrid Laurier's pitch for Milton campus rejected by province - Kitchener-Waterloo - CBC News
• http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/milton-education-village-laurier-conestoga-1.4624675
• https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/wilfrid-laurier-university-expanding-with-new-milton-campus-1.3890367
• https://globalnews.ca/news/4588272/doug-ford-government-cancels-post-secondary-campus-expansions-in-brampton-milton-markham/
• https://www.insidehalton.com/news-story/8985781-milton-mayor-extremely-disappointed-with-cancellation-of-90m-for-laurier-campus/

I hope that other contributors to this article will post their support for the value of this content about the planned Milton Campus. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

We don't need a play-by-play description of every event in this planned collaboration, only the most important information of lasting importance. Five paragraphs to describe a campus that doesn't even exist yet is four too many. ElKevbo (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

This plan for the Milton campus has been in the works for ten years. Surely the concept is part of the history of WLU and deserves more than a few sentences.

   The town of Milton, Ontario and Laurier were working together since 2008 to develop a 150-acre campus in Milton within the planned Milton Education Village (MEV). {{cite web|url=http://www.milton.ca/en/News/index.aspx?newsId=d7d4cdb8-2861-48ec-91ab-4eb7c4156899

I would have no objection to some condensing, but deleting 70% of the section, claiming that it sounds like PR, goes well beyond that. I would have no objection to moving it to the History section. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see many recent contributors to this article so we probably won't get a lot of discussion about this issue. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

You literally just added a quote from the town mayor and a quote from a university press release that just say "we're still working on this" so it's disingenuous to pretend that there isn't a lot of public relations material here. In any case, I made my suggested edit to this section and you've rejected it so the ball is in your court to make a counter-proposal. I strongly suggest that the history of this small development be made significantly shorter than the history section describing the entire university; right now both sections are five paragraphs which obviously places undue weight on these recent developments. ElKevbo (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a small development? A $90 million process that took 10 years to conclude and was then quashed by the newly-elected government... But sure, I agree that the section could be condensed, and, in the spirit of collaboration, I will do so now. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

The coat of arms appears to be incorrect, does not match what is on their social media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.246.16 (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)