Talk:Dawson College

Univ?

Removed: "The only thing separating Dawson from being the Big U is the fact that there are no residencies attached to the building."

Could this be expanded/explained by someone who understands and replaced in the article? Thanks sannse 18:59 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

It cannot be replaced, because Dawson is not accreditted as a university and therefore can never issue degrees. 132.205.94.174 02:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption

To the editor who wrote about this corruption case, please reference your sources or it will be reverted. Thank you, --Janarius 19:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that it should also be NPOV, thank you.--Janarius 14:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place for speculation. Facts should be well established. Bububu

You have removed references and pertinent information, this is an atack on the foundation of the wikipdia. 66.36.130.23 24 December 2005

Unnamed contributor 66.36.130.23, in my opinion you are hurting the cause you wish to serve by publishing stuff like "Dawson College currently has the most corrupt administration" when such a sentence can never be proven nor disproven. Furthermore, this has no place in an encyclopedia. You obviously are not neutral towards Dawson College. Bububu 28 December 2005.

Bububu reading the articles cited as sources will clearly prove the point that contributor 66.36.130.23 made.

It should be noted that the students of Dawson College are not members of the CFS (Canadian Federation of Students), nor the Quebec branch. If Dawson Student Union claims that they are accredited, which means independent status and suppsoe to represent the student body, where are all these 3rd parties coming from? Where does Dawson students comes into play? I haven't seen any yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.74.220 (talk)

Note While the Dawson Student Union is not a member of CFS (Canadian Federation of Students) it should be included for the simple reason that Dawson students and the CFS have a long standing relationship.

What a minute, I'm speaking about Dawson students, not the Dawson Student Union. CFS shouldn't even interfere with Dawson politics. Plus, it's the students who decides if ever to join the CFS or it's counterparts. CFS don't dictate Dawson Student Union policy, but it's the Dawson students (stated under the Accreditation act, see below). Again, where does Dawson students comes into play? How come Dawson students don't have that "long standing relationship" with the Dawson Student Union? Further more, the article you pointed out, that was 10 years ago and the situation has change. The last I remembered, last year student strike (2005), Dawson students voted "no" to strike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.74.220 (talk)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

To all users of the Wikipedia, we all know that an encyclopedia is a reference source containing information on a variety of topics. The information about Dawson College, such as it's a "corrupt" college, "Dawson College has been criticized for refusing to sign contracts with teacher" and "claimed that their support staffs are among the lowest paid unionized in Canada". All of these false and unproven statements are unacceptable and inappropriate in an encyclopedia. It's slandering and false representation of Dawson College as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.168.49.65 (talk)

Comment I agree. First of all, words like "corrupt" are usually point-of-view. If the claim that the support staff are the lowest paid in Canada, that claim must be backed up with a verifiable source. However, it is fair to include information about any court cases or other verifiable actions. On the other hand, I did remove a few POV statements that were favorable towards Dawson for the same reason. (e.g., saying that diversity "enriches the experience" of students is not verifiable. OhnoitsJamie^Talk 18:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also pointed out that Dawson New School is not the only program that exist at Dawson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.168.49.65 (talk)

Student Union controversey

The new edits are better in terms of neutral-point-of-view and verifiability. I have one question, though; the new edit states, "They are facing a court case on January 30th 2005." Did you mean 2006, or has this already taken place? Do you have any links to court records or news stories regarding the court case? Also, do you have a source for "lowest paid support staff" claim? OhnoitsJamie^Talk 19:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that the legal action was never approved by the student body, but rather by a handful of Dawson Student Union members. There are circumstancial evidences and hard copy documents that prove this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.168.49.65 (talk)

The main issue, beyond the court case, is the lack of faith shown in the Dawson Student Union by the general student population. An unrepresented majority of those studying at the College feel that their voices are being ignored and their positions as students being used to further the self-serving desires of a Union that appears to be placing its own agenda before the needs of the student body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TuxedoInferno (talk • contribs)

Wow, was I ever shocked to see this. The whole corruption business is bull crap. It's a bunch of idiotic, irrational students who want to rule the world and think they know what's best. They should be thankful that the College Administration hasn't given them all they want, and is instead trying to encourage them to get their act together. Anonnymous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.247.216 (talk)

Hello Anonymous Wikipedia User you claim that there is an unrepresented majority of students, whose voices are going unheard, while attacking elected their legal representatives. Your your rhetoric sounds oddly fascistic. The Dawson Student Union is an accredited student union and as such is the legal representative of Dawson students. If you are a student at Dawson that feels unrepresented why don't you run for a position in the next election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.137.10 (talk)

Comment Dawson Student Union have a representation of barely 1.5% of the total full-time student population. No Dawson students are attacking the Union, but have every right to be part of the democratic process, request financial statements and have a say in where their money is being spent. Under the accreditation act: Chapter II; Act 4, "Every student at an educational institution has a right to belong to the students’ association of his choice. He also has a right to take part in setting up the association and to participate in its activities and administration" and Chapter III, Division V: Effects of Accreditation; Act 26, "Every student at an educational institution who is represented by an accredited students’ association is deem a member of the association". Currently, the student body have been left out with pretty much everything.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.74.220 (talk)

Merge' I've merged the competing versions of the artice, removing unverifiable or POV statements from either version and adding the few external links I could find that provide information about the issue. (Note: blogs are letters-to-the-editor are questionable sources). If either of you wish to add anything, it must be sourced properly. If this becomes an edit war, I will file a request for comment notice to settle the dispute. OhnoitsJamie^Talk 21:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After countless trying to put a positive and neutral spins about Dawson College as a whole. A complaint to Wikipedia was sent already, due that the original article (the negatives remarks) is nothing more then defacing Dawson College with slandous and false information, which compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. As stated previously, encyclopedia suppose to be reference source containing information on a variety of topics, not propegada. Further more, the edits that was done was official information about Dawson College, with no offensive remarks to boot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.74.220 (talk)

Comment That information is "official" does not automatically make it suitable for Wikipedia. Quite often, "official" information will violate the neutral-point-of-view policy in that it is written in a promotional style. While some of the comments related to the student union issue have contained a negatively-slanted POV, it is completely appropriate to post verifiable, factual details about that dispute. That there was a court ruling in July and a current court case is a factual detail, and is in no way "slanderous." OhnoitsJamie^Talk 23:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Personally, all these statements in the article are just internal conflicts. There are piles of circumstancial evidences, proofs and even hard copy documents that can be used as counter-claims for every statements made (even the linked article about the court case), but again, this is an encyclopedia and there is really no place for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TuxedoInferno (talk • contribs)

POV edits

User:66.36.137.10; The statement repayment of damages resulting from members of the administration assisting in a coup of the Dawson Student Union EC needs to be toned down, especially the word "coup." As far as I can tell, there was one court ruling in July favoring the DSU, but that the matter has not been resolved yet. Please stick to verifiable facts and avoid POV language.
User:198.168.49.65; statements such as "...enriches the lives of all our students" and "...excellence in college education within a welcoming and stimulating environment..." are POV and read like promotional materials and violate neutral-point-of-view.

Comment It came from the official Dawson College website, which permission was given to be use in the Dawson College section in Wikipedia. Thanks for the POV note, it won't be appeared again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TuxedoInferno (talk • contribs)

Both Please review the three-revert-rule. OhnoitsJamie^Talk 23:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References regarding administration's point-of-view

Does anyone know if the administration of the has released a statement regarding it's official position in the student union matter? If there was one, it would help balance the reference links. OhnoitsJamie^Talk 23:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to find a statement from the administration. Additionally there have been other rulings that are peripheral to this matter, I will attempt to find information about them also. 66.36.137.10

Comment Added a link from an article from last year President of the Dawson Student Union, an official press release. Also added the official Dawson newspaper, the Plant (run by students), which have many articles about the Dawson Student Union and its questionable conducts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TuxedoInferno (talk • contribs)

Enough is enough...

Ohnoitsjamie is so kindly enough to solve this little issue about the constant changes and made a "merge" of both article together. I'm quite please that both side are made into one and remain neutral, which is deem appropiated for an encyclopedia. However, 66.36.137.10 keep on removing neutral statements. To make matter worst, the link to the Plant, the official Dawson newspaper website was also removed. The Plant has articles written by Dawson students and have every right to have their link placed as a reference. How can links to other news report that support Dawson Student Union is allowed, when linking to non Dawson Student Union support is not?

Further more, an official press release link article was removed, which was done by the former President of the Dawson Student Union of last year. Removing it and claims that the former President was "unelected" (look history on Dawson article) is pretty much one opinion, not a fact. Also, the court case is an internal affairs as well between the Dawson Student Union and the Adminstration. It got nothing to do with Wikipedia and it's inappropiate for an encyclopedia.

I will keep an open mind and I perfer a neutral state for all article, but out of balance (which tips a favor for one side then the other) is not fair at all. I have recently added a compromised for both side, while remaining a neutral article. I have also added the links that have some importancy and let's Wikipedia users decided what do believe in the links and information in these links that are provided. As Wikipedia users, we have no rights to tell others what to believe, but just give the information and let's the users decided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.74.220 (talk)

Comment I think the last edit by User:216.239.74.220 is a fair one (my more recent edit made only a slight modification to an awkwardly worded sentence). I'm glad that there are links representing both sides now; let's leave those as is. If anyone feels strongly that the article needs further modification, please discuss it here first instead of going back to an edit war. Thanks, OhnoitsJamie^Talk 02:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for fixing the typos and to Ohnoitsjamie as well. I have my objections to some of the links, but since this is the decision and policies of Wikipedia (and Ohnoitsjamie), I will bind by the decision. All I wanted is a fair and neutral article that reflect general information. After all, this is an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.74.220 (talk)

Comment I think it's started again. I have come to a compromised and decided to leave a neutral stand for both side. Is there anything that can be done now? They refused to compromised. Restored to Ohnoitsjamie approved to be fair version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.74.220 (talk)