Talk:Kim Richard Nossal

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 22:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Please sign your comments with ~~~~! Thanks!

Drinking Game

The drinking game is definitely NOT a practical joke, although it might seem so to someone who has not attended this particular university. Drinking games based around a professor's quirks are very popular at Queen's university, to the point that many people have bars sewn onto their university jackets to indicate which ones they have participated in. The rules to these games are also very consistent, so this isn't merely a "version" of the Nossal Drinking Game, this is in fact the Nossal Drinking Game.

To remove information of this nature is to deny a prevalent facet of tradition and community at Queen's. --Elfer 21:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. The drinking game reeks of "original research". Let the Globe and Mail, or Toronto Star, talk about the drinking game first -- then we'll write about it here. Andy Saunders 20:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Shall I remove all of the books written by Nossal as well? After all, those were "made up in school one day" as well. --Elfer 02:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Published works are verifiable. A drinking game is not. Andy Saunders 03:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you can verify that it exists if you want. Come over to Queen's and we'll prove it to you. --Elfer 02:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

re: Drinking Game

Wikipedia exists to convey factual, relevant information. That there is a Nossal drinking game is factual information. It is also relevant information. Ergo, there is no reason not to include such information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.206.152 (talk • contribs) 2006-11-15

Wikipedia exists to convey factual, relevant, verifiable information. That we can not verify the existence of a Nossal drinking game means that there is no reason to include such information. Andy Saunders 02:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry "OntarioQuizzer", you're categorically wrong about this one. Dr. Kim Nossal himself has acknowledged the existence of the drinking game, and specifically sent on an email referencing its existence last March. Seeing as how you do not attend Queen's, and do not appear to have ventured particularly close to Kingston, Ontario, I cannot understand what makes you think you have the authority to declare the drinking game "unverifiable". It exists. There are set rules. People participate in it. The information is relevant - others who may want participate in it will likely look to Wikipedia for the rules. Therefore, there is no rationally justifiable reason for you to remove it, Quiz-Kid though you may be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.169.250 (talk • contribs) 2006-12-06

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a place for original research. When the Toronto Star, Globe & Mail, or National Post does a story on the Kim Richard Nossal drinking game, or if someone does a scholarly, peer-reviewed, article about the Kim Richard Nossal drinking game, then it'll show up here. Before then, I will take steps to ensure that it is not included in the article. Andy Saunders 23:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Outside comments

Answering an RfC: verifiable means any editor or reader can confirm the source of the information. This doesn't have to be online. It can be a newspaper article or other news media. See WP:NOTE, WP:CITE. This also means we can't include hearsay or original research (one's own perspective or knowledge). If one or two or three editors "know" a certain fact, but can't produce a shred of third party confirmation, then the "fact" is liable to removal. BTW, User:OntarioQuizzer, don't forget that you can put the {{cite}} tag on any addition that seems unfounded. If a citation isn't provided, then remove it. Reverting edits repeatedly gives off the aroma of WP:OWN. HTH, David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 06:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• David has summed up Wikipedia's policies pretty clearly here. If you want a particular statement to remain in the article you should provide evidence backing up its truthfulness. ==Taxico 11:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• May I ask a question? What happens if we provide the e-mail where Nossal acknowledges it's existance? can it be proved then? P.S. that was some dirty play by Andy Saunders by not giving us an opportunity to cite the drinking game. Perhaps he'd appreciate it if everyone who participated in the game went on wikipedia and defaced his articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.213.230 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-11

• • I still think that the drinking game currently fails this aspect of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, regardless of whether or not Nossal acknowledges its existence or not. Andy Saunders 20:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• • I agree with both David and Andy above. Frankly, what's with the weird obsession with this drinking game? Is this really that crucial to you? You seem like intelligent and capable sorts, and there are a lot of articles on Wikipedia that could benefit from proofreading and grammar help. Perhaps there are better ways you could be contributing to this community? Just sayin' is all. --MattShepherd 21:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• • A copy of an e-mail can be faked. I could send you one from CAPT Spock at Starfleet Academy telling you this whole argument is illogical. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

• Okay, I think I can see what's happening, if the last 24 hours is an example. Unregistered users are continuing to "edit" this page (arguably vandalism), threatening other editors ("Perhaps ... if everyone ... went on Wikipedia and defaced his articles"), posting unsigned comments on the talk page. Frankly, it's easy to be threatening and make bold promises while hiding behind anonymity. Fortunately WP had mechanisms to quickly deal with IP-vandals and disruptive editing. For the time being, listing this page on the request for protection page for semi-protect (which discourages vandalism while allowing legitimate edits) might calm the waters. Clearly, the recent edit war is being waged with personal attacks, uncivil threats, disruptive behavior. I don't see an edit war, just youthful hijinks. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 21:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• • David, I definitely think that semi-protecting the page would lead to a productive discussion on the talk page here about the notability of the drinking game. Andy Saunders 21:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Go for it. ;) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)
• The drinking game clearly does not belong. Wikipedia is not for things thought up in school one day! Bucketsofg 23:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Saw your request for comment up, and I'm actually surprised at how easy the answer is. The inclusion of the drinking game is not acceptable under 3 levels of guidelines.

1. It violates WP:OR, as in it is original research put in the article. This is clear due to no sources added in whatsoever.
2. It violates WP:NOT, under "Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day", which this is.
3. Lastly, if it were that notable, it would have its own article, which it does not because it would fail WP:N.

Anyone who has questions on why it's not acceptable can talk to me. --Wizardman 17:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I enjoy your rules but maybe you should have added the rule 'wikipedia is not for things made up on the colbert report' otherwise this drinking game (which exists and is part of queens tradition) should be included, because it falls into the same type of category. QueensPolsGirl 05:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)