Talk:Peter A. Allard School of Law

Deletion of material

The material that you keep deleting is sourced. Also, it is not promotional. Please explain to me what is promotional about the school's history and programs. CanadaRed (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Please review the prior discussion on this talk page and its archive, as well as the AfD linked above. The article was cleaned up edit by edit, each with a justification. Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that I'm not the only one that disagrees with your reverts. I've added the material minus the boosterism that was there previously. It includes the history, Programs, and list of deans and notable alumni that were frankly there for years and were worked on by multiple editors before you came along and started chopping out whole sections without bothering to even look at the sources. If you feel that some of the sources are incorrect, make notes so that that they can be fixed. Instead you've chopped out whole sections, many of which were properly sourced and didn't have any boosterism. I'd like for a moderator or other parties to weigh in on this. In regards to the "revert war", you are also making reversions of the material. In the interest of a peaceful resolution: if you see any statements that are not properly sourced, point them out and I will either find a proper source, or delete them. Would that be a fair compromise? CanadaRed (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion nor is it an extension of the school's webpage. Please review WP:NOT. You have continually mischaracterized the reasons why each bit of content was removed. It is was not just "unsourced" for every one; I am not going to copy paste each of the justifications here. You need to deal with restorations piecemeal. I am open to discussing any individual edit you like. That is the correct way to proceed. Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I am willing to compromise. The section on History, notable faculty, and notable alumni definitely does not contain any element of boosterism. I'm editing the programs and research section to fix wording that may seem promotional. If you have issues with certain wording, or certain content you can fix it, but wholesale reversions or deletions are unacceptable. Also discouraging people from posting content is also unacceptable and goes against wikipedias values from my understanding. CanadaRed (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The appropriate thing to do is discuss each edit. I am not going to do all the work I already did again. Your edit warring back in of content that was carefully removed is inappropriate. Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I am a Canadian so have a general interest in this article. The university is an acceptable and accepted source for its own programs and history. Please view the good article status on university articles to see further examples of university sites as sources. Further, I don't see anything promotional about the content as it is now. I suggest further, civil discussion especially when both editors are at 4 RR.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC))

Another bad faith hounder, for petes sake. another dif - any objective editor can see that a) CanadaRed showed up out of the blue and undid work that was settled 4 months ago and at least edited by edited by eight other people including DGG after that was done; and b) the content that was restored was promotional, and that c) CanadaRed is acting as a classic advocate here, aggressively editing to keep promotional content. Not a leg to stand on in anything you wrote LOO, and now I have almost enough to put an end to this behavior by you. [User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] (talk) 02:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC))

To: User Jytdog: Instead of attacking users that disagree with you, why don't you work with me to make the page to something that you would agree is more acceptable. I've been editing the page to take out wording that may potentially be promotional. Please take a look and let me know if that helps, or if you have any other suggestions. Let's work together to fix the page. I don't agree with wholesale deletions of sections, but I do agree that we can make improvements to the article and edit parts that may come across as promotional. I'm willing to work with you here.CanadaRed (talk) 02:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Nothing more to say here for now. Your behavior is reprehensible and we'll see what comes out of the EWN and take it from there. Jytdog (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog.This place is ugly when editors make it ugly with threats and harassment. You refuse to see you have been edit warring as much as anyone here. You are not exempt from Wikipedia's behavioural guides. I gave two pieces of advice which applied to both editors. I will reiterate. One, look at the good articles on universities implying editors could see what the standard is on using university web sites as a source. Second, civility. I also implied both editors are at fault since both are at 4RR. Snark and snide comments don't convince anyone of anything unless you're on a playground. The editor you are in disagreement with, and it is a disagreement not an edict is trying to work with you. Give him a chance.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC))

This place is ugly when editors who have no prior involvement show up and misrepresent what has happened. Last warning for you. The diffs will tell the story, very, very clearly. Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• • Please note above request for uninvolved editor.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC))

You have made zero edits to the article. You did not arrive here as a neutral third party nor as someone who has taken a prior interest in this article. Another dif of a misrepresntation. law of holes Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

That would be the definition of uninvolved. Stop trying to define who can and who cannot cmt and why. Jytdog if I wanted to follow you around which you seem to be implying I'd have many many, more chances than this one article to do so. Good grief, get a grip! I'll push off and see if you two can reach agreement without this sideline.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC))

Jytdog, the only thing that others agreed to do months ago was merge the University of British Columbia Faculty of Law article with Peter A. Allard School of Law (based on the law school's name change). From my understanding the deletion of much of the material was unilaterally done by you, and was something that was disagreed with by at least one other user. Again, instead of resorting to attacks and calling my behaviour "reprehensible", why don't we work together to improve the article? There needs to be at least some compromise here. CanadaRed (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, the one who did something "en masse" was you. Each of my deletions had a justification; you reverted them all in one big swoop. And then edit warred to keep it. You are not acting in good faith at all. You are acting 100% according to WP:TENDENTIOUS. read that. Compromise is possible if you actually work through the deletions I made and discuss them. Reverting all that work and demanding I do it again is not asking for "compromise". I am happy to discuss any specific edit, as I said. Jytdog (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• Saw this going on from AN3. I restored the article to it's last clean version. At this point whether the page is going to be protected or not, I would expect editors to gain WP:CONSENSUS for edits here before adding them back yet again.

Speaking as an uninvolved editor in this dispute, I do agree that a lot of this content should not be added in this fashion. The university website is fine for basic information about the school, but notable people, research centers, etc. should be sourced to secondary WP:INDEPENDENT sources. These are the kinds of areas that either get WP:PROMOTIONAL or get bloated to the point they become WP:UNDUE weight when we don't have secondary sources telling us what's really noteworthy. If CanadaRed has specific individual edits they want to make, this is the time to review them here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

One section from the new edits I can see keeping part of is the history section. It would need some condensing to be more concise though while removing some flowery language. I'd be willing to rewrite that section, but I'll wait and see what others think. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The history section is the section I was seeing. I agree the source is fine and also that the content could be condensed. I noticed a few words that could be removed and would have removed them myself but attempted to remain uninvolved. The other content did not seem particularly promotional. We have to discriminate between content that is intrinsically positive and content that is promotional. However, bloat may be a consideration. I would again suggest the Good Articles on the WP university project might be a possible guide. I have to remove myself but thought I'd add some support for your suggestion. Thank you.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC))

The history section should be included. Feel free to reword it. Deans, notable faculty, and notable a reduced list of notable alumni should be included in keeping with other law school pages. I can individually add each notable alumni with secondary sources if others agree. The Programs and research centres section (the LSLAP program in particular) should remain. I had taken out language that was potentially promotional. I do think unilaterally reverting my edits without any discussion here was quite unfair. CanadaRed (talk) 04:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The content was added in through edit warring, so it's standard protocol to go back to the last clean version and force people to discuss the new changes. I didn't have any prejudice for any edits in doing that just so it's clear.

Keep in mind that the goal here as editors is not to go out searching for notable alumni, etc. That's kind of doing things in reverse order. We'll instead look at secondary sources that establish some notoriety for the person and their association to the college and then add them. For research centers, we'll want sources that show some degree of recognition that the specific center warrants what we call WP:DUE weight for the article. I'm not planning to be too involved in this article aside from stopping in to give this guidance, but CanadaRed, you will need to propose specific edits with sources here so they can be evaluated. Work on proposing small pieces or sections at a time so you can see where the potential issues are. These processes go slow, but that's what the page protection is intended to encourage. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)