Talk:OCAD University

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

A certain POV always exists, in one form or another. I’m not saying POV problems don’t exist, but NPOV cannot actually get rid of all POV’s because NPOV is itself a POV.—Al12si (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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

"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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

 

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Freshacconci, while an able wiki member, is an OCAD professor and is not the most unbiased contributor. So I have added the controversy section. If you feel there are other controversies to add, please feel free to include them and improve the article.

Musicmogul09 (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

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.

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)Reply

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)Reply

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) ocadman1Reply

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)Reply

I've attempted to make the article more compact and focusing more on facts. There has been one user undoing my edits without discussion on the talk page, and without providing any explanation in the history section. To me, that smells of vandalism and of a conflict of interest. The user is affliated with another university in canada. I have found that university articles reek of POV and/or puffery, and that members of different universities have a wp:conflict because they mutually seek to maintain a certain POV in their articles. If anyone wishes to discuss changes, do so here rather than simply undoing, and starting edit wars. Anything less, especially from wiki editors who should know better, is demeaning

Musicmogul09 (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think we need to find references that aren't self referencing. I've added a tag at the beginning of the article, but some editors should do some digging for something of substance.

Musicmogul09 (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's going to be difficult. There's actually not much out there. The self-references are fine for basic info. For more in-depth information and anything controversial, we would need to rely on newspapers for the most part, since books on OCAD are rare. I've sent a notice to the editor mentioned above about edit summaries. freshacconcispeaktome 16:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Now that OCADU is officially affiliated with the school, maybe the article should be moved to "Ontario College of Art & Design University"? LOctopus (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any references to support a change, and it would be to OCAD University. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Could we find a better photo for the infobox? The current one isn't great. Too much interference with street lights and overhead wires, etc. It would be fine if that's all we have, but there are plenty of shots on the Commons, not to mention lots of freely-licensed images on Flickr that could be uploaded to Commons. Any thoughts?--Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The name changes section has been streamlined. This was the longest part of the article before.

The section in the beginning about the degrees granted has been moved to the similar section in the body.

Section about the new building has been streamlined. Some sections without references have been removed.

References added.

Shame on the lazy editor who reverted my work rather than improving the article himself/herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocad99 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

You've removed sourced text (such as the section on Roy Ascott) with no reason given you've added notes in the text which do not belong (i.e. "see infobox"). The list of alumni is valid and is typical of all university pages--the sourcing is in the individual articles linked here. Also, please only edit under one account. You've edited as Fmm99 and Ocad99. This is sockpuppetry. I will place a welcome message on your talk page at Ocad99 that outlines how Wikipedia works, the policies, the style manual and so on. freshacconci talktalk 14:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The section on Roy Ascott is still there. It should be improved by actually stating how pedagogy changed and what it was before. The sourcing needs to be added for each person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocad99 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I included a reference of OCADU'S name changes and added info on it's curriculum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocad99 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please stop removing the lists of alumni. Each individual article is a source. Only remove those that do not mention OCAD in the individual article. Your persistent removal is disruptive and boarders on edit warring. You've deleted the list twice now. Please see WP:3RR. freshacconci talktalk 16:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

See List of University of Toronto people for just one example. This of course is a separate article given U of T's size and history. freshacconci talktalk 16:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am new to Wikipedia and just wondered if adding the architectural styles of the campus buildings would be useful? SC-architecture (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

By all means. So long as you've got the sources, feel free to WP:BEBOLD. Leventio (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The problem with controversies sections is that they usually violate WP:UNDUE and certainly in many cases WP:BLP. These sorts of sections also attract listcruft. We always have to ask ourselves, how significant is the incident? All institutions have these sorts of stories attached to them. However, how much real impact have they had? Things happen and then they fade in significance. A student planting a fake bomb several years ago is not significant. The Roy Ascott period is. We need to discuss these things on the talk page to avoid overly emphasizing things of little importance that may violate WP:BLP. And titling it "Controversies" is highly problematic as this is a non-neutral term. A significant situation (such as the Roy Ascott period) would have its own section without non-neutral designations such as "controversies". In other words, who is saying a particular situation is controversial? freshacconci talktalk 14:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well WP:BLP is stretching it. It's not a biography by any means. I agree that the word controversy is non-neutral. I have changed the word. I don't know what listcruft (sic) is, but the article also lists the address of every building. I think all institutions have addresses too! Someone seems to not only have added them, but given an explanation as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobility99 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have written on the talk page.

I don't appreciate the other user sending me rude messages and trying to bully me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobility99 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Do you understand what an edit war is? You have reverted without discussion several times. It is a poorly written section, not to mention the problems I address above. It may violate WP:BLP because it mentions names of living people. Listcruft means it invites further listing of every minor incident that ever happens. That's the problem with these sorts of sections. These incidents are minor and do not appear to have any lasting impact or importance, this WP:UNDUE. I am going to remove the section one more time and place it here on the talk page for other editors to discuss. Do not re-add it. It may violate WP:BLP and therefore cannot remain in the article as it is. Let other weigh in. (And don't go crying "bully" -- I've tried to engage you in a discussion and you have only now decided to actually discuss these issues). And please sign your name. freshacconci talktalk 14:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm placing this here for other editors to weigh in on. freshacconci talktalk 14:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Fake bomb Incident. Thorarinn Ingi Jonsson, a third-year integrated media student at the Ontario College of Art and Design, placed a fake bomb at the Royal Ontario Museum in 2008. He said the fake bomb and videos were part of an art project he had presented to his video class. OCAD suspended Jonsson, along with two faculty members (with pay) ^[1]

Textbooks with no pictures. In 2012, first year OCAD students had textbooks with no pictures in them. Instead, the art history textbooks pointed students to links. The textbooks cost $180. OCAD says the texts would have cost $800 with the pictures in them. ^[2]

Change to curriculum. Two faculty members, Allan Kazmir, who taught at the school for 14 years, and department chairman Peter Oliver resigned after OCAD president Sara Diamond made changes to the curriculum. ^[3]

I've outlined the problems with this section above. None of these incidents are particularly notable. The last section on faculty resigning perhaps could go under the history section or the section on curriculum. The others? Reworded, the textbook situation could be inserted elsewhere as there was a great deal of coverage. The fake bomb is not significant. Many things like that happen at any art school. This one event is not notable and per WP:NEWS has not had any lasting impact. If an editor want to reword the other sections and add them into proper areas in the article, I wouldn't object. I would like to hear for other editors however.freshacconci talktalk 14:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree that this material is very problematic and needs significant work before it can be added to the article. Some of it doesn't belong in the article regardless of how much it's edited. ElKevbo (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wait a minute, I responded to you quite quickly (check the TIME STAMPS (you're not the only one who can use capital letters)). You should grow up and be more considerate of other people — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobility99 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Common courtesy would have been to respond right away and not to edit war.freshacconci talktalk 14:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think I responded quite quickly actually. Took about 10 to 20 minutes? That seems quite reasonable. I don't see what your problem is. I would hate to be your husband with your attitude

I have moved the section about the art textbooks and the faculty resigning to the history section, and renamed it to history and curriculum.

Is it normal for students to make fake bombs in art schools? I don't think it's normal for regular universities, which is what OCAD is. Perhaps a tag adding that it is normal for art based universities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobility99 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

You're missing the point. You continued with your disruptive editing without discussing it. Finally deciding to register a comment is hardly being communicative. And I would appreciate if you kept the discussion civil and not made comments about me personally. Please see WP:CIVIL. As well, going through the list of articles I have created and blanking sections for no reason but clearly based on your anger about this dispute is needless to say, inappropriate. I am glad other editors have now witnessed your behaviour and you have been warned about it. Finally, part of discussing contentious information is to actually discuss it. You have continuously re-added the material even when you were asked not to. This is a collaborative process. And now that another editor has weighed in, you still re-added it without discussing it further The proper course of action is to leave it out until a compromise is reached here. What you have added is poorly written; they're not even complete sentences. Now other editors still have to go in and clean up a mess -- after cleaning up the mess with your other disruptive edits to several other articles (other editors should see Mobility99's contributions to see what I am talking about). Please also read WP:POINT as well as WP:SOCK. I would suggest sticking with this one account from now on. And I just saw that despite being warned, you're continuing with your disruption on other articles. Nice. freshacconci talktalk 15:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Another editor, now indefinitely blocked, has been trying to post the following text:

In 2012, over 300 students at OCAD signed a petition asking for a refund for the money they spent on the course Global Visual and Material Culture: Prehistory to 1800. This was because the textbook for the course did not have any pictures of art. Instead, the textbook had large blank spaces where the pictures would have been. It also had links to websites. The websites had pictures of art in them. It was reported that students did not like having to go back and forth between the Internet and their textbook. By comparison, the University of Toronto had a similar book, pictures inclusive, on sale for $151.20.

Students complained about the high costs of the textbook, the inconvenience of having to go between the textbook and the Internet, the book's poor resale value, and the environmental impact of printing textbooks with large spaces of blank pictures. OCAD offered to give students a free copy of the textbook.

Obviously the text itself is not appropriate but since this was well covered in the news, should the basic info be included in the article and where should it go? freshacconci talktalk 22:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

It should go in the history section or in it's own section.

MapleBleafs (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

What to do about self references from OCAD sites?

This section is too long compared to the rest of the article. How should it be reduced?

MapleBleafs (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

That’s the wrong way to look at the problem IMHO. The rest of the article is too stubby, so the solution should be to expand the rest of the article.—Al12si (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Is it necessary to list every alumni and notable people on this page? That info would be more suitable for the official OCAD page. Imagine how long the alumni list would be for U of T or Oxford university.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on OCAD University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140528023429/http://www.peqab.ca/completed.html to http://www.peqab.ca/completed.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121130051257/http://www.studentgallery.ocad.ca/gallery-76-project to http://www.studentgallery.ocad.ca/gallery-76-project
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.canadianart.ca/art/features/2003/09/14/130/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on OCAD University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201182606/http://cou.on.ca/news/media-releases/university/ocad-university-welcomes-the-inclusive-design-rese to http://cou.on.ca/news/media-releases/university/ocad-university-welcomes-the-inclusive-design-rese
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203080421/https://www2.innovation.ca/pls/fci/FCIENREP.resultats?mecanismeSel=Tous&provSel=ON&typeEtabSel=1&etabSel=145&secteurSel=Tous&discSel=0&secteuraaSel=Tous&dom_appSel=0 to https://www2.innovation.ca/pls/fci/FCIENREP.resultats?mecanismeSel=Tous&provSel=ON&typeEtabSel=1&etabSel=145&secteurSel=Tous&discSel=0&secteuraaSel=Tous&dom_appSel=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120831183602/http://www.mri.gov.on.ca/english/programs/orf/ri/documents/Ontario%20Research%20Fund%20-%20Research%20Infrastructure%20Projects.pdf to http://www.mri.gov.on.ca/english/programs/orf/ri/documents/Ontario%20Research%20Fund%20-%20Research%20Infrastructure%20Projects.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201182708/http://cou.on.ca/news/media-releases/university/ocad-university-opens-inclusive-design-institute to http://cou.on.ca/news/media-releases/university/ocad-university-opens-inclusive-design-institute

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply