Jump to content

Talk:Peter A. Allard School of Law

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Champ 7FC (talk | contribs) at 15:35, 6 June 2016 (→‎Requested move 29 May 2016: Insert citation showing UBC campus news UBYSSEY uses the name 'Peter A. Allard School of Law'). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


The image Image:UBC CoA.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey am hendy,i live in kenya(Africa)i was wondering how can i get in to the school.i really want to study law.please help any one.thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.223.57.74 (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced statements

There seems to be quite a few edits made by unregistered users adding information that is not backed up by any reliable, verifiable source. If those users could add sources compliant with WP:V, it would go a long way to ensuring that the information remains. Agent 86 (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another unregistered user has restored the unsourced info, without citing a source in the article. The user mentioned a source in the edit summary about one item (which is likely more myth than fact), but reading the issue in its entirety did not back up the alleged fact. Agent 86 (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the persistent addition of unsourced, unverified statements, I have requested semi-protection for this article. Agent 86 (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarity, the issue isn't with notable alumni or faculty, although these sections run the risk of being of indeterminable length, as there really isn't any criteria for which alumni or profs are notable. Pretty much every prof has published, so that cannot be a reliable basis for inclusion. Profs who became high level judges, or who have produced work known and notable outside of the legal world, who are in the list, certainly seem to merit inclusion. There are also lots of alumni who have argued significant cases at the SCC, so that can't really be a factor for inclusion without anything more. Agent 86 (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that publications that become notable outside the legal community is what makes a prof notable. Since it's a law school, it should be publications that are notable *within* the legal community. I agree that arguing a case at the SCC isn't sufficient for inclusion, but that's not what the references attached to David Duff said - I noted that the SCC had *cited* him in notable tax decisions, which means the SCC reads his research on tax matters, and has adopted some of his reasoning. Also, it's the *content* of the publication list that matters. Duff's publication list includes the tax textbook that's used across the country. He is the Peter Hogg of tax. But how do you expect to show that aside from publication lists and court references? Emtyson (talk) 05:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the NCBL amongst other major institutes housed at UBC Law should be included. - anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.166.169 (talk) 07:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I cannot agree with the assumption that because a prof is cited by the SCC, it makes him notable. Tons of academics are cited by the SCC. It's also telling that this Duff fellow doesn't meet the notability criteria for his own wikiarticle. Just because a bunch of law students have reached "consensus" doesn't mean anything under wiki policies. Agent 86 (talk) 09:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I don't have to explain why the test for notability shouldn't be whether you have a wikipedia article or not. Also, please refrain from using language like "Duff fellow". It's not very respectful. I agree that anecdotal evidence from law students can't meet the criteria either, and I also agree that many people are cited by the SCC. However, not many people are cited in the *leading* SCC tax cases (there aren't a lot - most tax cases stay at the lower court levels), and not many people write the leading tax textbook. The problem with being a leader in a specialized field is that people don't recognize you as a leader unless they are involved in the field. What evidence of notability would you like? Newspaper articles? Comments by other tax professionals? Emtyson (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please read the wikipedia policies. I see that you've pretty much only edited on this article, so it might help to do so. You've said nothing much about this fellow to distinguish him from the scores of other profs who have taught at UBC. Without some sort of thought as to limiting criteria, this simply ends up as a very, very long list (in fact, it invites the question as to whether this section really belongs or if it is a trivia section in disguise). Recognition outside his narrow field may very well be one, supported by reliable sources per policy. The three profs listed have certainly made themselves known outside their academic role. And no one said that having an article was a requirement, but the lack of one certainly relevant to take note of. Agent 86 (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agent 86 Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Staying_cool_when_the_editing_gets_hot (especially #7): "Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanadaRed (talk • contribs) 07:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Joe Clark, here is an article off the Law Society of Upper Canada website: http://www.lsuc.on.ca/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=11004. Also: http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/2/4/h4-3406-e.html According to the Oxford dictionary an alumnus is "a graduate or former student". If alumni solely applied to graduates, then there would be no need to include "or former student" in the definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanadaRed (talk • contribs) 07:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not a matter of "principle". Policy trumps an essay. Many of the additions were and are unsourced. I've explained my edits in the edit summaries, unlike the unregistered user who adds names arbitrarily. The section also has the tendency to expand without reason or reasonable limitation (i.e. a large number of BCCA and BCSC judges went to UBC). If you want to expand the list to include all the judges and MPs and drop-outs who went to UBC, maybe you should create a separate article (i.e. "List of UBC Law Alumni"). BTW, If you have sources, add them to the article, not the talk page. (Oh, and try to remember to sign your posts, rather than to make anonymous snipes.) Agent 86 (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an aside, as a new editor, you might want to take note that an edit summary should briefly explain your edit, rather than to simply make snide comments that are contrary to policy. Agent 86 (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'm willing to compromise. I will remove Elizabeth A. Bennett, but will leave former Attorney General Bud Smith and former Prime Minister Joe Clark. I'll also add the sources to the article. CanadaRed (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Why this obsession with removing information form the UBC law article? Have you looked at the UofT Law and Osgoode Hall Law articles? They both contain what you refer to as "random judges", and other alumni that are arguably less noteworthy. I don't understand why you wish to prevent access to this information. CanadaRed (talk) 02:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge list into List of University of British Columbia people

The list of alumni in this article has become overly large and unwieldy, with no real limits or criteria for inclusion beyond a UBC law degree (or time in the school), to the point that it has taken over the article itself, which is purportedly supposed to be about the school itself. I have moved the list of names to List of University of British Columbia people. That article is specifically for the purpose of listing UBC alumni. Agent 86 (talk) 10:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with you. The alumni that are listed are all notable in that they all are either UN leaders, Chief Judges, or High Ranking Politicians. I've compromised and left out Supreme Court and Appeal court judges (although many other law school articles do indeed list them). I've listened to your suggestion and only listed people that would meet a clear standard of notability. Furthermore, many of the other law school articles have much longer lists of notable alumni. See below:

I can keep going, but I'm sure you get my point. Anyway, I am willing to compromise and remove some of the notable alumni that you feel do not meet a standard of notability. However, if you examine the list carefully and read the sources that I've listed, I'm sure you'll agree with me in regards to the notability of all of those that I have listed. CanadaRed (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • You've missed the point. This over-long list, with no real limits because of the breadth of what you propose, has completely taken away from the article, which is supposed to be about the faculty of law itself. It's not about "notability", it's about the article becoming less about what it's supposed to be about. Agent 86 (talk) 08:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to compromise, but you deleted MOST of the notable alumni. You seem to have an issue with UBC Law for some reason. If you want to delete notable alumni, then start with the other law schools (which have much longer lists of notable alumni). Furthermore, I believe this information is important, and very relevant to the article. It is not taking away from the article in any way. Please stop trying to prevent access to this information. CanadaRed (talk) 08:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this should be an article about what the title says it is. If you think there should be an article about "List of UBC Law alumni", go ahead and create it (it seems the article that is exclusively about UBC alumni doesn't meet with your approval). As for the articles, I have pared down at least one of them, and the fact that there are other articles with the same problem does not mean that it needs to be perpetuated everywhere. Agent 86 (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, if this were about some sort of "issue" I might have (the suggestion of which I find is contrary to WP:AGF), I wouldn't be trying to improve the article. As for your veiled accusation of censorship, if I were out to "block access to information" (???), I'd delete references to these individuals' UBC law degree on the wiki articles about them (at least for those individuals with their own article). Agent 86 (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted three alumni from one of the other law schools, and left it at least double the size of what I have made the size of the UBC list of notable alumni. This is clearly a double standard. I'm reversing your edit. The notable alumni are clearly relevant.CanadaRed (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm following the format of Harvard Law School for the "Other Programs" section. Direct link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Law_School#Other_programs If you think that having external links is wrong, then I'll be happy to let you delete them after you delete the links in the Harvard Law section. CanadaRed (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'm willing to compromise. I removed the external links, but I'm keeping the notable alumni. They are all relevant to the topic. CanadaRed (talk) 06:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Enough politicians, ex-politicians, QCs, and "leading" counsel (not a NPOV term, BTW), and superior court judges have UBC law degrees that we don't need to clutter an article about the university with more than some representative examples. Agent 86 (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about the page being cluttered. If you look at the law schools articles that I've posted above, you'll notice that their lists of alumni are much longer. Also, the Osgoode Hall list that you purportedly reduced is at least double the size of the list that I'm suggesting. I'm not suggesting that the above law school articles are wrong. I believe that you're wrong. The fact that you're unwilling to make such drastic reductions to any of these other articles also supports my belief that you're wrong and that they are right. It also clearly demonstrates a double standard. I've already compromised and applied some of your changes. CanadaRed (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've already stated that the other articles probably need paring, too, but this is the first article I came across and it's where I started. AFAIC, just because other articles have a similar problem is not a reason to perpetuate it. I fail to see how holding a consistent opinion is anyway a "double standard". As for your changes, I fail to see any "compromise" by your insisting to have extraneous politicians, etc., included in the list. I also fail to understand why you keep restoring material that is inconsistent with WP:NPOV. (As an aside, in the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I inadvertently made an edit to the article without realizing I was not logged in.) Agent 86 (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I compromised by removing the external links from the "Other programs" section as you had suggested. CanadaRed (talk) 00:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Alumni Section

Dear Agent86, please refrain from deleting notable alumni and discuss the conflict here. All the alumni that have recently been added are chief justices and lieutenant governors. They are all indeed very notable and certainly belong in this article. I wholeheartedly disagree with you about the list being made too long. Most of the other law schools have similarly sized lists of notable alumni and many have even larger lists than this one. You have in the past deleted a couple alumni that were obviously not notable (relatively speaking) from the Osgoode Hall Law School article and you have mentioned that as part of your justification for deleting alumni from this article, but you have kept that article's list at a much bigger size than the size of the list after the edits that I've been making to this article. You have also left many alumni that are way less notable on that list. Please explain why it is okay for that article (and many others that have been mentioned in the past) to have such longer lists, but not for this article (which in the first place has a much shorter list than the others mentioned)? I'm not accusing you of bias, but lets refrain from applying a double standard here. Your reasoning for deleting the notable alumni is based on your subjective opinion that the list of notable alumni is made too long, but I respectfully disagree. In my opinion, the list is not made too long and in fact the much longer lists in the other mentioned articles are not too long either. I have also noticed that you have had similar conflicts with other editors of this article over the same issue, which shows that I'm not the only one that disagrees with you on this subjective measure. I've tried to compromise with you in the past, but it seems that any added information to this section results in you deleting big chunks of it. I have spent many hours of my time researching and improving this article and would appreciate you not deleting all that work based on a subjective disagreement. Lets resolve the issue here in the chat section, as opposed to deleting information.

Best wishes, CanadaRed (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have already clearly stated my reasons here and in the edit comments, so it seems somewhat disingenuous to suggest I haven't discussed matters. However, I will do so once again, despite the risk - and reality - of repeating myself, as most of this is set out above on this very talk page. Many of the "notables" I've removed really have little to set them apart from many other similar statured people who happen to have gone to UBC. If there's anything "subjective" here, it is the random and arbitrary inclusion of certain individuals with no more or no less merit than others. Politicians, QCs, etc., who have been to UBC law are pretty usual and there is little notability in that. It seems arbitrary to include such individuals without something more. If simply being an MP with a UBC law degree is sufficient, why not list all of them? It is even more arbitrary to include "prominent" legal practitioners. There are many, many, lawyers with careers on par with individuals such as Richard Peck or Marvin Storrow (names that I had pared from the list), if not more so. Countless UBC law grads have argued "significant" cases and advocated for important legal principles. Including such practitioners on the list, without something else, invites a very long list indeed. I acknowledge that there is an argument for including chief justices of the Appeal and Supreme courts, but it's also not really all that significant for a chief justice in BC to have gone to UBC. Unless a particular chief has some other factor indicating notability (i.e. Bryan Williams), there is no real reason to include them. It also appears to me that you're suggesting I've removed LGs from this list, but I did no such thing. I would agree that such a person should be included and I've consistently left such people on the list. This is supposed to be an article about the law school. Having a large, arbitrary, unweildy list detracts from the focus of the article. There is a place for an expanded list - List of University of British Columbia people - but for some reason that does not seem acceptable despite a "List of"-type article being best suited for this info. Just because other articles have the same problem doesn't mean it's okay to perpetuate them. No double standard, no bias, nor any other sort of ulterior motive you might imply. This was simply the first article of this sort that I stumbled across and one has to start somewhere. I have done similar edits to a few other articles of this type, but am not really interested in combing thru Wikipedia and tackling them all. There are other projects and articles I am much more interested in. Someday, if I have far more spare time than I have now, I might tackle some of those other articles.Agent 86 (talk) 09:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, I wholeheartedly disagree with you. You have removed attorney generals and chief justices based on your own subjective belief that they aren't notable enough to be on the list. Richard Peck is a special prosecutor which has been appointed to prosecute the Ontario Ministry of Attorney General in the case of former Attorney General Michael Bryant and many others similar cases. The fact that that he is appointed to prosecute such cases shows that he certainly belongs on the list, as do the attorney generals and chief justices. I have compromised and removed Marvin Strorrow (although I believe that he also belongs on the list).CanadaRed (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please stop with the passive implied perjoratives. I cannot help but take your comments as personal rather than being about the interests of the article. You can call my position "subjective" all you want, but if that is so, it is no different than the lack of objectivity you are applying to this matter. Moreover, it misses my point, which is that there the inclusion of certain individuals is based on little objective criteria that distinguishes them from many other UBC grads who share similar circumstances. Some of the new rational for adding certain individuals is certainly a stretch (i.e. longest serving MP of the time). Moreover, I have not removed individuals because of my "subjective belief". I have set forth, repeatedly, why I've removed certain individuals, for reasons other than my "belief". Finally, I don't accept your assertion you've "compromised", while completely disregarding the fact that I've moved farther on this issue than you have. (Just take a look at the edits I made yesterday - adding individuals you advocated for, taking the extra step of providing a real justification for their inclusion). As for Mr. Peck, with all due respect there are plenty of UBC law grads with similar credentials. In short, the threshold you advocate is far too low, which only invites an unweildy list that takes away from the purpose of the article, which is to provide information about UBC Law. As for your undoing of the reorganization, you offer no justification for that. If this is supposed to be an article about the law school, it makes sense to put the deans and faculty ahead of a list of graduates. I also do not understand why you've undone the alphabetization of the list of graduates. The arbitrary order you've placed them in smacks of subjectivity, which you advocate against. Agent 86 (talk) 06:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no passive implied perjorative in the above comment. I simply meant that the threshold of notability is quite subjective (and yes my threshold is subjective too). The problem with electronic communication is that it is easily misunderstood, especially because a lot of cues (such as tone and facial cues) are absent. Anyway, I admit that some of my past comments may have implied bias on your part, but that last one did not. I do believe that we both want this article to be a good one and that we're both working towards the betterment of it. I think your last set of edits messed the article up (all the alumni are now under notable faculty for some reason). I believe that edit was not intentional. I also still believe that some of the alumni that you have removed belong on the list. I'm willing to have faculty above alumni. Your reasoning for that makes sense. Also, if you look at my last set of edits, the list was not in an arbitrary order... it was in alphabetical order. What sets apart the notable alumni that I have added from other law alumni is that most graduates of law school go into private practice. A select few become justices and even fewer achieve the venerable position of chief justice. Very few law school graduates become attorney generals, or special prosecutors assigned to prosecute attorney generals. These positions are certainly notable. The few additional alumni that I had added were all chief justices and one lg (which turned out to be a repeat and which I have since deleted - and no I'm not suggesting that you deleted the lg). Anyway, it seems our disagreement is of a subjective nature. I'm going to undo your edits so that I can fix the page, after which I will redo the cleaning of the external links and the placement of the notable faculty above notable alumni. I will also reinsert the justifications that you had previously added. However, I would like to keep the alumni list as it was. CanadaRed (talk) 10:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, any chance you can provide a source for Ted Lee (aka Edward Graham Lee) being a historian? CanadaRed (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 January 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Number 57 17:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


University of British Columbia Faculty of Law → University of British Columbia Peter A. Allard School of Law – Request received at OTRS 2015012310008188 - quoting http://news.ubc.ca/2015/01/22/peter-a-allard-q-c-donates-30-million-to-ubc-faculty-of-law/ as a reason for renaming. --Relisted. Sunrise (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about small and concise, but the Faculty has been renamed. It's a similar situation to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauder_School_of_Business, one of the other faculties at UBC. We've adjusted the text. We would also be fine with Peter A. Allard School of Law or Allard School of Law, which is the more common and less formal name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.41.3 (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Branding names of this kind are rarely seen in article titles e.g. Hotel Vancouver is not listed as the Fairmont Hotel Vancouver (or shouldn't be; I haven't noticed if someone has tried to move it there again); re the UBC Faculty of Law, I dispute the 205.* IP user's claim that either of the short forms are most common; see WP:COMMONNAME and note that GoogleBooks and GoogleNews sources need to be used to back up any claim of COMMONNAME, likewise view stats and incoming links. It's been known as the UBC Faculty of Law for a very long time and so sources are going to be predominantly that, not a newly branded renaming;
    • point ofinformmatnio re precedents - there is a provision in guidelines, however, for the more common since a certain date vs an older name that came before. Not a recent move, either...after a while. Usually since an official name-change or date of new usages. WP:OFFICIALNAME was a deciding factor when the Haida Gwaii article was retitled, though in that case involved the notability of renaming as part of an exchange in return for wind rights for Naikun Wind.
  • Similarly the "new' names for native peoples were decided upon, mostly, once they were shown to be current mainstream usage and standard Canadian media style for 20 years and more. On the other hand, corporate articles retitle and merge all the time in response to corporate mergers and rebrandings regularly; maybe there's a clause in the guidelines about corporations about that. Could be, and could apply to institutions.
  • Once it's widespread and "the standard usage" a change in the title can come about; I recognize the law school's interest in the page's title, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory or business digest. Also please note WP:AUTO re edits from someone involved with the institution an article is about; also WP:COI. Skookum1 (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand the name has been around for a long time. However If I understand this correctly: "Ambiguous[6] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." In this case, The University of British Columbia Faculty of Law is now an inaccurate name. It is being referred to as the Peter A. Allard School of Law or the Allard School of Law in media: http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/5463/New-UBC-law-dean-says-strive-for-work-life-balance.html Additionally, "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. The UBC Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration was also renamed and is listed by its correct name on Wikipedia: Sauder School of Business: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauder_School_of_Business The Sauder School represents the same scenario as the Faculty of Law: First established in 1956, the UBC Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration was renamed Sauder School of Business in 2003, as a result of a donation of a $20 million endowment by Dr. William Sauder.[11] As a result of a donation from Vancouver business philanthropist Robert H. Lee to support graduate-level education, the Robert H. Lee Graduate School was established at Sauder opened in 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.41.3 (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. This seems like such a no-brainer to me. If the school has been renamed "Allard School of Law", then the article title should reflect that. The old name may remain the "common name" for some period, but it's not accurate. It's no different than, say, the Booth School of Business at the University of Chicago, which was renamed after a naming gift in 2008. Esrever (klaT) 00:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible oppose. This proposal if accepted would completely rewrite our policy regarding official names. See wp:official names for an essay addressing this very common misconception. Andrewa (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The essay to which you link suggests three rationales for not always using official names: 1, Obscurity (the official name is never really used); 2, Competing authorities (article may have several names, all of which are in some sense official); 3, Changes to names (official names can be changed on a whim). Precisely which of those three rationales do you see as supporting the decision to keep an outdated name here? I'm asking in all seriousness, not from a need to be snarky—I quite honestly cannot understand why anyone would object to the move. As to the first rationale, I imagine the school fully intends to use its new official name, since, after all, someone paid a good deal of money for it. For the second, I could see a case for not changing the name from Allard School of Law to Peter A. Allard School of Law (since both names might in that case be "official"), but the old name has ceased to be an official name. Finally, it seems exceedingly unlikely—but not a metaphysical certitude, I grant you—that the school could change its name on a whim. Again, though, someone paid a good deal of money for that name, and I imagine the university fully intends to stick with it. I really don't have a dog in this fight, and ultimately don't care where the article ends up, but it just seems so baffling to me that when a school changes its name that the article title wouldn't be changed to reflect that. People will come to Wikipedia searching for the Allard School of Law, not for the UBC Faculty of Law. Esrever (klaT) 03:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Which people? Ones who already know the name, or ones trying to look up UBC's law school without knowing its name? As I've explained above, WP:COMMONNAME is decided by googlestats, viewstats and incoming links; not by recently-made name changes until such time as that name change is widespread enough to be consistently in use, per the parameters just mentioned; there may be an exemption given my examples of company name-changes but a lot of those are done without discussion and there's not enough people around who know the name-change "rules" to deal with such matters and they may, also, be construed as not being valid; And your "someone paid a good deal of money for that name" underscores that this is a branding name i.e. something like WP:SPAM on behalf of a sponsor, and not a memorial name for a noted member of the faculty or notable former graduate; if Mr Allard was such an individual that would add some credence to it, which simply being a benefactor does not. Examples like the Freddy Wood Theatre (Freddie Wood Theatre?) and the Chan Centre for the Performing Arts are different, as they were founded with those names and are well-known by them; same as the Buchanan Library and Buchanan Building. As for the example of the Sauder School of Business that may have been an undiscussed name change when it should not have been and may need revision. Oh, and welcome to the world of WP:wiki-lawyering; it can get far worse; I'll run those view stats and such now in a while but normally the nominator of a name-change is supposed to undertake to do that.Skookum1 (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand the value of common name, but according to the Article titles page "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what terms will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and is therefore familiar to our readers. However, common sense can be applied – if the subject of an article changes its name, it is reasonable to consider the usage since the change. This provision also applies to names used as part of descriptive titles." The Faculty of Law is largely a descriptive title that is used by many universities until they name the school. In this case, the current title "University of British Columbia Faculty of Law" hardly meets the concise requirement, but Faculty of Law wouldn't work as it is used by schools across the country. Surely the Allard School of Law is a better option as it is more concise and accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitansn (talk • contribs) 23:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That completely fails WP:UCN ; It DOES NOT MATTER what the actual name is, only what people commonly call it. If you apply common sense, the only name that matters is the name that people use, not the official name, not the advertising name, not the naming rights that were sold to the sponsor (donor) ; WP:ADVERT -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 07:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I see no evidence that the name has changed in common usage in reliable sources. That is what matters, not official names. If in 6 months or a year it becomes clear than everyone is referring to it by the new name, then sure thing, we can change (although probably not to the proprosed title, which is a long winded amalgamation of both).  — Amakuru (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 29 May 2016

University of British Columbia Faculty of Law → Peter A. Allard School of Law – In January 2015 the school officially changed its name from “UBC Faculty of Law” to the “Peter A. Allard School of Law”. The name was changed ‘in perpetuity’ (forever), and was accompanied by a major re-branding campaign at UBC and in the community at large. The Branding Standards Manual, published and available online at the Peter A. Allard School of Law website, details the name change and branding/naming standards, including that the name ’Peter A. Allard School of Law’ always precedes the name of the University of British Columbia in any dual mention. The name “UBC Faculty of Law” and variations thereof ceased to exist officially on January 22, 2015. UBC’s Senate unanimously approved changes relating to the issuing of diplomas etc.

Now, a year and a half later, the faculty members, students, wider community and local, national and international news media consistently refer to “Peter A. Allard School of Law” officially and colloquially. Diplomas read “Peter A. Allard School of Law”. The campus store (also online) carries “Allard School of Law” branded clothing. Students commonly refer to themselves as “Allard” alumni.

Searches of the Google News Archives for “Peter A. Allard School of Law” and the old “University of British Columbia Faculty of Law” clearly show that the news media has also transitioned to the correct name, and that the old name fell out of news media use soon after the January 2015 name change.

The current page name “University of British Columbia Faculty of Law” has not been correct since January 22, 2015. Although some previously argued in January of 2015 that the name change was then too new to be reflected at Wikipedia, the time has now come. The name ‘Peter A. Allard School of Law’ is in common and widespread usage in the general, academic and legal communities, and will never be changed again. The old page title has become archaic and perpetuates an inaccurate name. It’s time for the move. Champ 7FC (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC) -- Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. There's clear usage of the new name, so the name change is no longer too new.  ONR  (talk)  20:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I dislike the length and use of abbreviation in the new title and would favour Peter Allard School of Law or (better) Allard School of Law. Board Wesger (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. Respectfully, I strongly oppose Board Wesger's suggestion that we Wikipedia editors should invent a new name for a subject because of personal opinion, especially when the requested title for the page (Peter A. Allard School of Law) is both the official name and the name that is in common and widespread use worldwide. Under Wikipedia's rules and policies, we Wikipedia editors cannot, and should not, invent some new form of a name.

We Wikipedia editors should not coin a new form of name for anything just because we might be of the personal opinion that the official and commonly-used name is a bit too long or we personally dislike that the name has an in initial in it. This is especially true in the current circumstance where 1/ the official name is 'official' in that it is registered, trademarked and the organization has published a Branding Standards Manual that clearly indicates the exact form of the name to be used. 2/ The official name is in extensive and common use worldwide in the academic, legal and general communities. (Even the University of Hong Kong uses the full 'Peter A. Allard School of Law' name.) 3/ The news media commonly and extensively uses the full official name in its news stories. (See recent news stories and video broadcasts from CTV News[1], Huffington Post[2], Macleans Magazine[3], The Globe and Mail[4], Calgary Herald[5], National Post[6], Canadian Lawyer Magazine, Vancouver Sun, USA Today, France24, AllAfrica.com, Georgia Straight, Center for Research on Globalization to name a few. These mainstream news media outlets all use the full name: "Peter A. Allard School of Law" as does the University of British Columbia in its news and news releases.[7] The UBYSSEY campus news also uses the name: Peter A. Allard School of Law.[8])

For a Wikipedia editor to now invent a new form of a name that is different than the name that is already in common and widespread use is against Wikipedia's naming guidelines, a misuse of Wikipedia and also an abuse of Wikipedia's powerful influence as a primary and credible source of information for hundreds of millions of people, including journalists.

The current page title 'University of British Columbia Faculty of Law' has been incorrect for over a year and a half. Further, from January 2015 to May 25, 2016 the first sentence of the page inaccurately described the name of the school as 'The University of British Columbia Faculty of Law operating as The Peter A. Allard School of Law'. This name was a pure invention of a Wikipedia editor and was not found anywhere else at the time it was first published on Wikipedia in January, 2015. There were no citations of any other appearance or use of this name anywhere. This invented and false 'faculty of law operating as' name then propagated through many websites that simply steal text from Wikipedia and repackage it for business purposes.

This was a clear example of how a single Wikipedia editor invented/coined a new name for something out of thin air, and then that false/inaccurate name spread as other websites and persons adopted the false/inaccurate name because of their faith and trust in Wikipedia.

As Wikipedia editors, we have a duty to be as accurate as possible, and to back up what we publish with credible sources.

The Wikipedia Simplified ruleset says:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simplified_ruleset

"With reliable sources at the center of what we do, editors' original ideas, interpretations, and research are not appropriate here."

The Wikipedia policy on Article Titles states:

"Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles

I strongly oppose Board Wesger's 'original idea' and suggestion that we Wikipedia editors should invent a new form of name for a subject because of a personal opinion. The name 'Peter A. Allard School of Law' is both the official name, and the name that is in common worldwide use, and should therefore be the title of the page. This requested move should be a no-brainer, and is backed up by Wikipedia's rules and policies. We Wikipedia editors cannot, and should not, invent some new form of name for a subject.

(As an aside, although I have spoken strongly against Board Wesger's suggestion, I do appreciate their interest in the move request and in Wikipedia.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Champ 7FC (talk • contribs) 20:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. To Board Wesger: I see that you just opened your Wikipedia editing account on June 4, 2016. Welcome to the community! You will find it beneficial to become more familiar with Wikipedia's rules and policies before seeking to influence and impact the editing of Wikipedia pages in ways that violate those rules and policies. Champ 7FC (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Board Wesger also changed the name in the infobox from the official and commonly used 'Peter A. Allard School of Law' to the name 'Allard School of Law' that Board Wesger proposes in their above comment. Board Wesger also established redirection pages for 'Allard School of Law' and 'Peter Allard School of Law' which are two names he proposes. In view of the ongoing discussion and properly proposed requested move / title change, the activity by Board Wesger seeks to subvert and eliminate the proper process. In view of the fact that Board Wesger's account was created mere hours prior to this edit, and that this person shows more than a rookie's knowledge of Wikipedia, questions are raised about the good faith and agenda of the person who just created the Board Wesger account. Is Board Wesger a 'ghost account' for a person already having a Wikipedia account? I have undone the change made by Board Wesger and request that this person participate in Wikipedia with respect for the usual procedures and spirit of our community. Request Administrator to pay special attention to this move request and the editing of the page in question. Champ 7FC (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Allard School of Law per Board Wesger. Contrary to last year, I think there is enough evidence that the new name has taken hold in reliable sources, and is now the common name. But, the shorter name "Allard School of Law", without the "Peter A." appears more to be commonly used, including extensively on the university's own website,[1] and elsewhere,[2] and also is a much better and shorter name per WP:CONCISE.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Powerhouse duo: Mother, on graduate from UBC together". CTV News. CTV News. 29 May 2016. Retrieved 6 June 2016.
  2. ^ Patel, Arti (25 May 2016). "Indigenous Mom-Son Duo Graduate from UBC just one day apart". Huffington Post. Retrieved 6 June 2016.
  3. ^ Gillis, Charlie (9 May 2016). "China is buying Canada: Inside the new real estate frenzy". Maclean's. Retrieved 6 June 2016.
  4. ^ Perrin, Benjamin (23 February 2-16). "The law should ensure Pickton never profits from his horrific crimes". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 6 June 2016. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. ^ Carman, Tara (5 February 2016). "Attitudes hardening towards immigrants: UBC professor". Calgary Herald. Retrieved 6 June 2016.
  6. ^ Saltman, Jennifer (29 April 2016). "A roomie with benefits: Craigslist ads in Vancourver ask for sex in exchange for accomodation". National Post. Retrieved 6 June 2016.
  7. ^ UBC Media Release. "Retired Lieutenant-General Romeo Dallaire to receive honorary degree from UBC". University of British Columbia Media Release. Retrieved 6 June 2016.
  8. ^ Partridge, Emma (26 January 2016). "Law prof files human rights complaint againt UBC". The Ubyssey. Retrieved 6 June 2016.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_A._Allard_School_of_Law&oldid=724005108"