Talk:Peter A. Allard School of Law/Archive 1

Archive 1

Image copyright problem with Image:UBC CoA.png

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:

• Image:UBC-Logo.png

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

• Looks like the other articles need paring down too. I'll have to add them to my to-do list. Agent 86 (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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:

• Osgoode Hall Law School
• Schulich School of Law
• University of Toronto Faculty of Law
• UC Berkeley School of Law
• University of Chicago Law School
• Stanford Law School
• UCL Faculty of Laws
• University of Michigan Law School
• University of Virginia School of Law

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

• Nothing wrong with external links, if you're following policy. A section of nothing but links is contrary to WP:NOTDIR, if you had noticed my edit summary before reverting my edit. Agent 86 (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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

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)

• 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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)

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)

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)

---

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)

• Comment how does that follow WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE, since it seems to be based on WP:OFFICIALNAME, where, when it isn't the common name, we don't use the official name. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 09:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• Oppose per the comment just above.Skookum1 (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
  • Comment: It's possible that the renaming of the Booth School of Business was in error. After this RM closes we might need to revisit that one. Andrewa (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

---

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

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: Moved to Peter A. Allard School of Law. Despite all the brouhaha, I see a rough consensus that the official name is reasonably well accepted in the sources and common usage. That, and lack of a clear alternative (the "Faculty of Law" is clearly outdated, and a shorter common name has not clearly emerged), leads to this conclusion. Fred C.'s proposal ("...at UBC") came late in the game and didn't gain traction, so it may be pursued in a new RM. No such user (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

---

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) --Relisting. Omni Flames (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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).
• 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, Huffington Post, Macleans Magazine, The Globe and Mail, Calgary Herald, National Post, Canadian Lawyer Magazine, Vancouver Sun, USA Today, France24, Indo-Canadian Voice, AllAfrica.com, Georgia Straight, McGill Daily, BC Business Magazine, 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. The UBYSSEY campus news also uses the name: Peter A. Allard School of Law.)

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.)

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Champ 7FC (talk • contribs) 20:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
  • Support this alternative proposal. Well put by Amakuru. Andrewa (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support "Allard School of Law". In addition to the above, this is the form of wording used on the School's logo,Twitter feed, monthly newsletter etc. WaggersTALK 14:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. Strongly Disagree that Wikipedia should use other than the proper name: Peter A. Allard School of Law. Firstly, although the short version of the name Allard School of Law does appear, it is not as common as the full name. The news media now uses the proper name almost exclusively, and I've inserted example citations and links although there are hundreds online. Where the short version appears on UBC's website, that is either following the initial use of the full name as per the UBC policies, or is contrary to the school's published Branding Standards Manual.

For Wikipedia to use other than the proper name: Peter A. Allard School of Law is a decision that has serious negative consequences for the University of British Columbia, and for the Peter A. Allard School of Law. This decision is not just about Wikipedia's policies or what a handful of editors desire. Wikipedia's powerful influence as a primary source for search engines, including the biggest - Google - means that Wikipedia leads and sets naming trends and standards throughout the world. For Wikipedia to publish a name other than the brand name - not just in this case, but for any registered brand - seriously undermines the financial and other costs of establishing, promoting and protecting any established brand. Especially this early in a major brand change (only a year and a half) for Wikipedia to use anything other than the official name is to actively undermine and work against what must be a huge and ongoing effort by the University and the Peter A. Allard School of Law to establish and promote their brand.

The 'University of British Columbia Faculty of Law' page has been incorrect/inaccurate since January of 2015 and now Wikipedia intends to rename it to an incorrect inaccurate name again. I view that as irresponsible, even reckless considering Wikipedia's power, reach and influence to set names into the public consciousness.

WP:NLT applies to threats that threats about someone else. Either way, the marketing and potential economic impact of a article title are not relevant consideration. Reliable sources are. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I urge senior administrators and even Wikipedia's legal department to become involved in this page naming decision, because of the serious negative consequences, and negative economic impact that this decision will have upon the Peter A. Allard School of Law brand and the school's ongoing brand promotion efforts. References Champ 7FC (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC) @Champ 7FC: please take a look at WP:OFFICIALNAME, and WP:AT (in particular, the "Conciseness" requirement in the first section, and the section at WP:AT#Use commonly recognizable names), to see our policy on how to name articles. The name that the school chooses to brand itself as is always a consideration in the naming decision, but is not the only or most important criterion. Additionally, I would be extremely careful when talking about "legal departments", bearing in mind the WP:NOLEGALTHREATS policy. To be clear, the Wikipedia legal department would almost never be involved in a simple content decision such as this one, and suggesting that a particular title is violating the law could constitute a legal threat, which is completely forbidden. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC) Comment. My friend, I am in no way suggesting that naming the page 'Allard School of Law' would be a violation of any law, nor am I threatening legal action. I suggested that Wikipedia's legal department might want to provide advice because lawyers are highly aware of the branding issues I am talking about. What I am saying is true: Wikipedia is not a little online encyclopedia just starting out. Wikipedia has so much power and influence that it no longer merely reflects society; it leads and sets trends, standards and places terms into the public vocabulary. It is a primary source for Google and thus for billions of users. In this case and in any case where a brand is formally registered and is in widespread use, setting the title of a Wikipedia page to other than the brand name is a serious decision that can have significant negative financial and other impacts upon a brand. Wikipedia has over 4 billion unique visitors a year. That's power to set a name or to undermine a corporate or institutional brand and this power needs to be very carefully considered. Perhaps Wikipedia's own policies need some enhancement to better reflect Wikipedia's power and influence? Champ 7FC (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC) This does appear to me to raise issues at least related to legal threat. If the argument was accepted, it would undermine several Wikipedia policies and guidelines. See below. Andrewa (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC) You seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it, Champ 7FC. To be frank, I find your approach obnoxious. Your argument that wikipedia should be concerned about the branding issues associated with its choice of name seems to be unsupported in all regards save your prejudice. Wikipedia is free to use whatever name it chooses, and its choice has no legal consequences. Your "suggested that Wikipedia's legal department might want to provide advice because lawyers are highly aware of the branding issues I am talking about" is contemptable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support move to formal name per ONR (that the formal name is now in common use), with redirects from other proposals that are used on their website/etc. I don't see any particular informal/shortened name in more common use. A related example (though one that has not been vetted by a WP:RM, so this might be WP:OTHERSTUFF) is Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, a name I rarely see in print compared to simply "Wharton Business School" or such (we have no other similarly-named articles that would merit the more cumbersome pagename for disambiguation purposes). DMacks (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: That suggests to me that Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania is the wrong name for that article, not that we should repeat that error here. Issue raised at Talk:Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania#Page name again. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Raised at ANI

Raised and deal with. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
After some reflection I have referred the legal issues raised above to the Administrators' noticeboard, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal consequences of page naming. Andrewa (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Move, but not to that title. I agree that the current title is outdated and has fallen out of common use. My suggestion would be to use Allard School of Law at UBC or, as an alternative, Peter A. Allard School of Law at UBC, based on the following two rationales:

1. Internal usage. A quick scan of http://www.allard.ubc.ca/ right now shows a news story that opens with "The Allard School of Law at UBC and West Coast LEAF are partnering to open a legal clinic" in an image and "The Peter A. Allard School of Law at UBC and West Coast LEAF are partnering to open a legal clinic" in a more traditional link. This shows that the school itself will clarify its status within UBC in writing.
2. Project-wide consistency. For a quick litmus test, I looked up the Kenan–Flagler Business School to see how the page is titled. It is listed under UNC Kenan–Flagler Business School. Coupled with the Wharton comment above, It seems that our internal style guidance says that UBC should be included within the title of the page.

Now, obviously, redirects are in order from any of the logical search terms. Further, I'm fine with the intro sentence as it's currently styled, even if the "at UBC" comment is taken into the page title—again, I use Kenan–Flagler as my benchmark. It's the page title that's the issue here, and Allard needs to appear in that; I think it's in the readers' interest if that's supplemented with at UBC. —C.Fred (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support move to Peter A. Allard School of Law. If I were looking for the law school at UBC I would probably search for University of British Columbia Law School and there is a redirect there. A lot of the fuss over naming goes back to the days when our search engine totally sucked (now it just kind of sucks) and between the search engine, redirects, and folks who will end up here through google I think fussing over the details is pretty pointless. We might as well name it by its formal name which will just save drama, which is a waste of time. The content of this article is horrible and I am going back to cleaning it up. Jytdog (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support move to Peter A. Allard School of Law, with redirects from every reasonable alternative (including the invented Peter Allard School of Law which some readers might try to use - redirect from incorrect version is potentially useful here). The formal name does seem to be widely used (though I suspect that the school's press office leans very heavily on all the local media to ensure this). It's a pity that a clearly COI editor chipped in with irrelevant arguments above to distract the discussion. PamD 07:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

---

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.

Needs work

The following is sourced to an SPS and is kind of promotional. This should be independently sourced and made neutral before it is added back

History

The Peter A. Allard School of Law at UBC is recognized as Canada's second academic legal institution, and it followed in the footsteps of Dalhousie Law School (now Schulich School of law) and Harvard Law School. It was unique in offering a broad range of courses, including international law, taxation, labour law, conflicts of law, and municipal law in addition to the traditional black letter law classes. UBC was one of the first schools in Canada to have professors utilize the Socratic method in teaching, pushing students to think critically of the cases they were expected to read.

Courses in law were taught at UBC from its founding. However, UBC did not create a formal Faculty of Law until 1945; it did so in response to the large number of veterans returning from World War II requiring post-secondary education. Given special funding by the provincial government, the law school hired George Curtis from Dalhousie's Faculty of Law to serve as its first Dean. Within two months the faculty was educating its first incoming class. Due to a lack of infrastructure, the University secured army huts that had been used to house servicemen during the war to house the law school until a permanent structure became available. The law school became the standard means by which prospective lawyers could become members of the bar, replacing the traditional approach that involved articling under an established lawyer in a relationship much like an apprenticeship.

In 1951, after the inadequacy of the army huts became apparent, the faculty received funding from the university to build its own permanent structure. This building became the first permanent structure for the faculty, and remained so until 1973. During this era, the law school pioneered the use of casebooks, collections of excerpts from legal cases designed to illustrate principles derived from judicial decisions.

On January 22, 2015, UBC announced a transformational $30 million gift from law alumnus Peter A. Allard, QC. Allard’s gift is the largest gift ever to a Canadian law school. In recognition of his gift, the university renamed the law school as the Peter A. Allard School of Law.

References

- Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced

This is mostly unsourced and what is, is to their website. Moving here per WP:PRESERVE. Should be independently sourced, of course. We are not a mirror site for their website, per WP:NOTWEBHOST

Programs and research centres

Centre for Business Law

The Centre for Business Law provides a robust, interdisciplinary and empirical research environment for research and scholarship in business law and finance policy, focused on both domestic and international comparative law. The Centre offers outstanding educational programs in business law for J.D. students, enhancing the quality of students' learning experience by increasing engagement with contemporary business law issues. The Centre's goal is to become a focal meeting place to enhance the intellectual exchange among the business law community, including scholars, judges, financiers, business leaders, legal practitioners, in-house counsel, government policy-makers and community members.

Centre for Law and the Environment

The Centre for Law and Environment seeks to establish a network of scholars and policymakers from a variety of disciplines, professions, and institutions throughout the world for the sharing of knowledge in the field of law and the environment. The Centre also provides a quality legal education that prepares students for a practice and a life as a lawyer that demands they be interdisciplinary, international, and attentive to indigenous issues.

Centre for Asian Legal Studies

The Centre for Asian Legal Studies is the largest group of academics teaching and researching Asian legal issues in Canada. The Centre’s teaching and research activities focus on the law and legal culture of China (including Taiwan), Japan, Korea, and Southeast Asia, with a particular emphasis on Indonesia and Vietnam.

Centre for Feminist Legal Studies

The Peter A. Allard School of Law is nationally and internationally renowned for its scholarship and teaching in Feminist Legal Studies. The purpose of the Centre for Feminist Legal Studies is to enhance the visibility of feminist legal studies at UBC and to strengthen cooperation in research, teaching, and graduate student supervision between scholars working within the faculty and elsewhere at UBC, as well as links and collaborations between scholars working in different university and community settings in British Columbia, Canada, and internationally.

Programs

• Indigenous Legal Studies Program
• Allard School of Law Innocence Project

Affiliated law reform organisations

• British Columbia Law Institute
• International Centre for Criminal Law Reform & Criminal Justice Policy

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced sections about people

These are all unsourced and cannot be restored until they are sourced per WP:VERIFY

Deans

• 1945 to 1971: George F. Curtis, OC OBC QC
• 1971 to 1976: Albert McClean, QC
• 1976 to 1982: Kenneth M. Lysyk, QC
• 1982 to 1991: Peter T. Burns, QC
• 1991 to 1997: Lynn Smith, QC
• 1997 to 2003: Joost Blom, QC
• 2003 to 2015: Mary Anne Bobinski
• 2015 to Present: Catherine Dauvergne

Notable faculty

• Beverley McLachlin PC, 1974–1981, current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
• Benjamin Perrin, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's former legal advisor.
• Joel Bakan, author of The Corporation.
• Norman MacKenzie CC CMG MM CD QC FRSC, former President of University of New Brunswick, former President of UBC, and former Senator.

Notable alumni

• Alfred Scow OC OBC, the first Aboriginal person to graduate from a BC law school and first Aboriginal judge in BC.
• Allan McEachern, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia and former Chancellor of UBC.
• Allan Williams, former Attorney General of BC.
• David Anderson PC OC, former leader of the British Columbia Liberal Party and former federal Cabinet Minister.
• Duncan McCue, reporter for the CBC.
• Frank Iacobucci CC, former Supreme Court of Canada Justice and former Dean of the University of Toronto Faculty of Law.
• Garde Gardom QC OBC, former Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia.
• George Hungerford OC, Olympic Gold Medalist.
• Jack Austin OC OBC, former Cabinet Minister, and former Leader of the Government in the Senate.
• John Alan Beesley OC QC, diplomat and ambassador.
• John Fraser PC OC OBC CD QC, former Speaker of the House of Commons and Progressive Conservative MP.
• Kim Campbell PC CC OBC QC, former Prime Minister of Canada.
• Leslie Peterson CM OBC, former Attorney General of BC and Chancellor of UBC.
• Michael Harcourt, former Premier of British Columbia, former Mayor of Vancouver.
• Richard Peck QC, frequent Special Prosecutor.
• Stanley Schumacher QC, former speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta and a member of the Canadian House of Commons.
• Stephen Owen PC, former Ombudsman of British Columbia and former federal Cabinet Minister.
• Steven Point OBC, former Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia.
• Svend Robinson, former Member of Parliament in the Canadian House of Commons
• Thomas Berger OC OBC, former Leader of the Opposition for British Columbia and former Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
• Ujjal Dosanjh PC QC, former Premier of British Columbia and former federal Cabinet Minister.
• Wally Oppal QC, former Attorney General of British Columbia.
• Paul D.K. Fraser, Q.C., LL.D., former president of the Canadian Bar Association, current Conflict of Interest Commissioner for the British Columbia Legislative Assembly

-- Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• I do appreciate a general interest in encouraging sourcing, especially where promotional editing has been going on, but the above items are not unsourced (and don't seem unduly promotional either). It is highly reasonable to leave sourcing in the linked articles, except where a specific fact is controversial and rightfully questioned, or to have no sourcing at all if something is obvious. For example, the fact that Garde Gardom was a UBC law graduate and was a Lieutenant Governor is covered in the Garde Gardom article and is not at all controversial. If you find its sourcing in that article inadequate, tag there. But requiring duplication of sourcing to here is excessive. By the way, I tend to think any false assertions of UBC law graduate status would be zapped out of Wikipedia already, due to general public scrutiny. Since all of the above items link to separate Wikipedia articles where it is reasonable to expect that the assertions are covered, I think all of this can safely be restored. --doncram 07:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. The deans list is one thing. TRIVIA in my view that people can find on the UBC law school website. The other two lists are 100% here to promote the school and yes unsourced promotional content doesn't belong anywhere in WP. Further I am not sure there is any encyclopedic value to this content - what accepted knowledge a reader learns by seeing this big list of blue links. I think none. if folks want to draw connections there can be a category of UBC law school alum or the like. Jytdog (talk) 08:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

By stating the deans list "is one thing" I don't know what is meant: is the point that it should be included obviously or it should be excluded obviously? Seems okay by me to include, anyhow, and I doubt the info is false.

"Notable alumni", however, is a standard section in Wikipedia articles about universities, and really cannot be disputed here. In Category:Law schools in Canada, I browsed through a bunch and find them in almost all (not in Lakehead University and Thompson Rivers, which are new and have no notable alumni yet). The one with the most extensive alumni list, divided into sections, is perhaps Osgoode Hall Law School. I browse in U.S. and Norway and other law schools, and find the section in every example I check. About a category instead, that is like arguing for a category but not a list at AFD in contradiction to wp:CLT which explains how they are complementary and fine. Indeed there already exists Category:University of British Columbia alumni which could be divided, uncontroversially, to separate Faculty of Law alumni. It is absurd to require that this one law school alone will not be allowed to have an alumni section. Readers in fact expect to find a list like this. I arrived here from responding to an AFD where it was suggested there were problems at this Talk page (I participate in AFDs regularly), and thought there might excessive promotion advocated here, but removing alumni section is over the line in the other direction. --doncram 13:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I added Frank Iacobucci to the list with some references. As a former (and relatively influential) Supreme Court judge, I think his is the sort of name that should appear in a notable alumni list. /wiae /tlk 16:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I mean that the list of deans is at least some kind of actual facts about the history of the university and not just a self-serving promotional laundry list. As for other universities, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and our articles about universities are some of the most promotional, heavily influenced-by-conflicted-editing cesspools in Wikipedia, as a class. We have even have an essay just for universities: WP:BOOSTER. Go read four articles on universities - actually read them - and try not to gag a little as you do. Heck read this one before I worked it over. I think having a category of alum would be plenty to communicate the information, and in each of those people's articles there will need to be sourced content justifying the category. Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Work

OK, we have a week to work out content. CanadaRed I suggest that you propose specific content, with sourcing, that you would like to add or restore. Please do so in separate sections so we can have reasonably focused conversations.

I have no changes to offer; the article is fine as it is, as far as I am concerned. But I am willing to consider proposals that are supported mostly by independent sources. Some use of sources from the school is OK, but material supported solely by sources from the school is unlikely to be OK. The reason is that sources from the school generally are intended to promote the school and will be extremely unlikely to have anything negative about the school; therefore content sourced solely from the school is unlikely to be able to comply with NPOV. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Notable faculty section proposal

The notable faculty section should be re-added. And the history section should be re-added. The history section was already sourced. I'll work on other sections and post them here when I have more time.

Notable Faculty

• Beverley McLachlin PC, 1974–1981, current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
• Joel Bakan, author of The Corporation.

References

-- CanadaRed (talk) 05:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for proposing specific content. The ref you provided for McLachlin says she is former faculty, not current faculty. Do you mean "Notable former faculty"? Am willing to accept the supreme court site as relevant per DUE. But for Bakan, again we want independent refs - this a general principle in WP. The website for the Corporation is not OK for showing that this deserves any WEIGHT. Jytdog (talk) 06:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Notable Faculty includes former faculty, not just current faculty. And in regards to the Joel Bakan and the corporation refer to these links: CanadaRed

References

-- (talk) 07:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The content should clarify current or former. Also IMDB is user-generated content and is not reliable per WP:RS. Jytdog (talk) 08:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The content has a date range of when she was there. That should clarify it. Also, IMDB is not the only source that I posted. CanadaRed (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Former history section

Here is the history section i removed. This is mostly unsourced, and what is sourced is sourced to their website. This is 100% not OK -- it fails WP:NOTWEBHOST and because of that it fails WP:NPOV. It is also shot through with puffery so fails NPOV and WP:PROMO on those grounds. Those are all policy and not negotiable.

History

The Peter A. Allard School of Law at UBC is recognized as Canada's second academic legal institution, and it followed in the footsteps of Dalhousie Law School (now Schulich School of law) and Harvard Law School. It was unique in offering a broad range of courses, including international law, taxation, labour law, conflicts of law, and municipal law in addition to the traditional black letter law classes. UBC was one of the first schools in Canada to have professors utilize the Socratic method in teaching, pushing students to think critically of the cases they were expected to read.

Courses in law were taught at UBC from its founding. However, UBC did not create a formal Faculty of Law until 1945; it did so in response to the large number of veterans returning from World War II requiring post-secondary education. Given special funding by the provincial government, the law school hired George Curtis from Dalhousie's Faculty of Law to serve as its first Dean. Within two months the faculty was educating its first incoming class. Due to a lack of infrastructure, the University secured army huts that had been used to house servicemen during the war to house the law school until a permanent structure became available. The law school became the standard means by which prospective lawyers could become members of the bar, replacing the traditional approach that involved articling under an established lawyer in a relationship much like an apprenticeship.

In 1951, after the inadequacy of the army huts became apparent, the faculty received funding from the university to build its own permanent structure. This building became the first permanent structure for the faculty, and remained so until 1973. During this era, the law school pioneered the use of casebooks, collections of excerpts from legal cases designed to illustrate principles derived from judicial decisions.

On January 22, 2015, UBC announced a transformational $30 million gift from law alumnus Peter A. Allard, QC. Allard’s gift is the largest gift ever to a Canadian law school. In recognition of his gift, the university renamed the law school as the Peter A. Allard School of Law.

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 08:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the first paragraph was not acceptable. The part that I had restored, and propose to restore again is this. The links are dead and need some work. I don't agree with chopping it out wholesale.

History

Courses in law were taught at UBC from its founding. However, UBC did not create a formal Faculty of Law until 1945; it did so in response to the large number of veterans returning from World War II requiring post-secondary education. Given special funding by the provincial government, the law school hired George Curtis from Dalhousie's Faculty of Law to serve as its first Dean. Within two months the faculty was educating its first incoming class. Due to a lack of infrastructure, the University secured army huts that had been used to house servicemen during the war to house the law school until a permanent structure became available.[3] The law school became the standard means by which prospective lawyers could become members of the bar, replacing the traditional approach that involved articling under an established lawyer in a relationship much like an apprenticeship.

In 1951, after the inadequacy of the army huts became apparent, the faculty received funding from the university to build its own permanent structure. This building became the first permanent structure for the faculty, and remained so until 1973. During this era, the law school pioneered the use of casebooks, collections of excerpts from legal cases designed to illustrate principles derived from judicial decisions.[4]

On January 22, 2015, UBC announced a transformational $30 million gift from law alumnus Peter A. Allard, QC. Allard’s gift is the largest gift ever to a Canadian law school. In recognition of his gift, the university renamed the law school as the Peter A. Allard School of Law.

CanadaRed (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@CanadaRed:. Thanks. This is an improvement and thanks for your serious attempts to compromise.

@Jytdog: The university web site is an acceptable source for much content about the university. If the university is considered notable by WP standards and deserves inclusion then there may be information on their website that will not be in any other sources. Universities are first, educational institutions. (Of course, they must also be businesses to stay afloat). This means that their websites must contain truthful information about the university. With accreditation, what you say you can do must be what you can actually do. No university gains anything by falsely advertising and in fact as in the case of Trump university might be in danger of legal proceedings against it. As well, much information on a university website is meant for students as well as outside readers. So, we can trust that information from a university website is vetted by the university itself and likely by outside accrediting agents. This does not mean that the website might contain language that is not encyclopedic. For our purposes that language can be removed. NPOV does not mean we must hunt out and find negative information on any subject. It does mean we must represent the sources per weight in the mainstream and per weight in the article. If there was something in a university history negative enough to be significant; I'm sure there would be sources on it. Even then weight must be considered. We cannot make the mistake of considering a lack of negative content as lacking NPOV or of determining that intrinsically positive content is lacking neutrality, that's a misreading of our policies.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC))

Now you are misrepresenting WP:RS, an essential guideline (diff) Actually read WP:SPS - extraordinary claims cannot be sourced to an SPS. And you are misrepresenting the purpose of university websites, which is not to provide objective, independent information about the school but rather to put everything in the most positive light possible. This specific misrepresentation made in this situation is highly disruptive. Read WP:DISRUPTIVE. Your hole is getting deeper. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

CanadaRed - When I removed this and posted it on talk I said the history section needed to be entirely reworked. Of course a history section would be useful. A version like what was here, and like what you propose, it not acceptable as it violates our policies and guidelines. The revised version still contains unsourced promotional content like "The law school became the standard means by which prospective lawyers could become members of the bar, replacing the traditional approach that involved articling under an established lawyer in a relationship much like an apprenticeship.". It also contains extraordinary claims sourced only to the university's website like " During this era, the law school pioneered the use of casebooks, collections of excerpts from legal cases designed to illustrate principles derived from judicial decisions.". It also contains content already discussed in the article about the gift; unclear why we need to duplicate information. It is also sourced entirely from the school's website. Not use-able. Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, it's time for you to settle down. While I agree that it is appropriate to tone down promotional language—and the previous version did have material that was promotional in tone that needed to be toned down, the school's own web site is an absolutely acceptable RS for many details such as who the deans were, the notable outside achievements of alumni or current/former faculty, what programs it offers, and so on. That is not a policy violation nor contrary to guidelines to use those as sources; it is only a policy violation if there is copy and pasting, or if the content crosses the line of WP:NOADS. WP:PRIMARY does not prohibit use of this material to verify basic information such as this. Also, you need to stop making threats toward people by saying things like "your hole is getting deeper" and characterizing discussion as "disruption". The article as it sits is very sparse and expansion would be a benefit. Montanabw^(talk) 23:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Misrepresenting guidelines, especially in dealing with an edit warring advocate and after parachuting into an article like this is extremely disruptive. You are digging your own hole deeper by showing up here as well and adding yet more confusion to the discussion.

The issue is not "primary" but SPS.' Building a whole section of promotional content from a promotional SPS is unacceptable in WP - it doesn't matter if the SPS is from Ronco or Pfizer or Harvard. Yes some very bare-bones facts may be fine to source from an SPS. That is about it. Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm finding you very insulting Jytdog. I've been trying to work with you, and compromise with you to fix this section up. Instead of trying to work with me to clean this up, you're fighting everything I suggest, and then going as far as name calling. I am not an "edit war advocate". I am also not an "SPA", I am not here to "promote anything", and I'm not here to fight with you. You are also making threats against everyone that disagrees with you. Anyone that disagrees with you is adding confusion to the discussion? Isn't this supposed to work on consensus? CanadaRed (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Others whom I have argued with in the past have showed up here to continue arguing with me; I did not ask them to and neither did you, and all they are doing is adding confusion and noise to the discussion. My only comments for you, CanadaRed, is please focus on proposing independently-sourced, neutral content. More content is what you want. So find independent reliable sources about the history and whatever else you want content about, and present neutral content based on them. it is simple. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

There are three editors here who are telling you that the university site is an acceptable source for the history section. That is agreement. This discussion is not between two editors nor is this about arguing with you, Jytdog. This is about adding content to an article. Canada Red has rewritten a version that has removed bloat and flowery un encyclopedic language. That is what is under discussion. Second, we must distinguish between aspects of a university that are positive in nature and therefore are naturally promotional for the university and the act of adding content to an article that deliberately promotes content. You are attempting to own this article which isn't a great idea. Let's move on, please. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC))

I'm rather disappointed to see additional editors coming in here just continuing past personal conflicts (it just blows up the talk page further and lends creedence to the idea that hounding is going on).

I made a comment above that a small part of the history section would be ok sourced to the university page. I haven't really seen a version close to that proposed yet (especially without fluff), so here's what I was thinking:

History

Courses in law were taught at UBC from its founding. However, UBC did not create a formal Faculty of Law until 1945; it did so in response to the large number of veterans returning from World War II requiring post-secondary education. The law school hired George Curtis from Dalhousie's Faculty of Law to serve as its first Dean. Due to a lack of infrastructure, the university secured army huts that had been used to house servicemen during the war to house the law school until a permanent structure was built in 1951 and used until 1973. On January 22, 2015, the university renamed the law school to the Peter A. Allard School of Law in recognition of donation from law alumnus Peter A. Allard to the law school.

References

I will also point out that this is the only addition I can see right now where the university site alone is appropriate. This is about the extent of what we should be doing with a non-independent source like this. However, I can't access the first source to see just how much of the content above is actually sourced or if more specific references from the source are needed in parts of the text. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Please AGF. No one came to this discussion attacking anyone or dragging along some personal agenda. The attacks came from the other direction and sometimes those attacks must be met and dealt with.

This link may be useful.[3]. As well, there is information on a university which only the university has. This information may be a necessary addition to complete a good article on the university. So I hope we can keep an open mind on how much to use the university web site. My thought is that the history of the school is important in the understanding of the Law School and how it developed and since there is a well developed history on the university web site of the school, your version maybe on the short side.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC))

You are advising to edit against the WP:PROMO policy - read that. The university has its own website. We are not here to host their content. Your advise also violates the SPS guideline. Content based on your advice will not fly. Dif. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Its not just me advice Jytdog; 4 editors are suggesting that at least the history section can be sourced to the university web site. This is a consensus. I am asking you again to move on and look at the possible variations of content being offered. (Littleolive oil (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC))

See the comments of the admin who locked the article here. On point. Two hounders and an advocate are all wanting to edit counter to the policies and guidelines (3, not four); it means nothing. You can say all you want here; the policies and guidelines are what matter at the end of the day. And note that I've said a bare bones history can be sourced solely to the website; any more would be UNDUE and PROMO. Since you are getting invested here and seem to want more content, why don't you go find independent sources instead of wasting time making bad arguments for bad content? Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, I am not certain why you appear to be making a choice to dig in here, but the reality is that you really have to stop casting aspersions such as "Two hounders and an advocate are all wanting to edit counter to the policies and guidelines." No. There is a reasonable disagreement here, along with some areas of agreement that could have long been solved had there been less heat and more light. There also seem to be several misunderstandings. The University web site is a perfectly acceptable source for some things: (WP:PRIMARY: "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia." WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD is clear: "While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative..." We can question them when used for puffery, if a copyvio or where use is OR. None of that is going to be happening here. Using the University's web site is not a WP:PROMO violation per se, it is how it's used. But for some things (and history is a good example), the in-house material is going to be the most comprehensive. Sure, the more secondary sources found the better, but let's work on content, not personalities. Montanabw^(talk) 07:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I am looking forward to seeing a proposal for the history with solid sourcing. Jytdog (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Although it's a bit bare, I would be more than happy with the version that Kingofaces43 has suggested. Jytdog, who are you suggesting are the hounders and advocates here? So far people who have disagreed with you are: CanadaRed (me), Montanabw, Littleolive oil, and doncram (from when you first deleted all the sections). Also, even Kingofaces43 who had reverted the page back to your version has posted an acceptable version of the history section. That is in total of 5 users that are clearly telling you that the history section can be reposted with at least some of the information sourced from the the university's own website. How many users here have agreed with you: a total of 0 (zero). All these users seem quite neutral to me. In fact, Kingofaces43 even reverted the page back to your version. Personally, I think people have better things to do than follow you around merely to disagree and support causes that go against you. As hard as it is for a narcissist to accept, the reality is that you're not that special. Also, I've said this many times, and it seems that you're deliberately ignoring it: I am NOT an advocate. I do not want any promotional fluff on this page. I merely don't want all the sections to be deleted. What I am suggesting is that we rework the sections so that there is absolutely no promotional fluff. I've invited you to help us rewrite the information (as Kingofaces43 has already done with his above suggestion) so that it is acceptable. Instead, you have a personal vendetta against me, and have decided to just sit there and fight me on every suggestion I make. It doesn't seem that the well being of this article is what you care about at all. Please take a step back, take a deep breath, and instead of throwing out insults and accusations, post some suggestions/sources etc. so that that we can "make this wikipedia article great again". CanadaRed (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

the effort to write long things here instead of simply doing the work of crafting well-sourced content is hard to understand. If you want content that sticks, do the work. it is simple. Jytdog (talk) 07:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, it's pointless for me to suggest any content. You have a vendetta against me and you're clearly biased against anything that I suggest (even when 5 other users are telling you that you're wrong). You're not here to improve the article in good faith. You're just here to block me. You keep resorting to ad hominem (which is a logical fallacy - please educate yourself on it) by attacking me and others that disagree with you. In your world, we're all "hounders and advocates" and any suggestions that we make are by default wrong. You completely ignore the substance of the suggestions and resort to attacks, and threats. It's quite ugly. Makes me wonder the kind of person you are offline. Anyway, it seems there is at least a consensus on the history section that Kingofaces43 has suggested: 5 vs 1. CanadaRed (talk) 07:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

boring and wrong. you seem to be looking for excuses not to do work. Jytdog (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

sources

• McLaren, edited by John; Foster, Hamar (1996). Legal history of British Columbia and the Yukon. Toronto [etc.]: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 9780802071514. {{cite book}}: |first1= has generic name (help)
• Brockman, Joan (2001). Gender in the legal profession : fitting or breaking the mould. Vancouver [u.a]: UBC Press. ISBN 9780774808354.
• Mossman, Mary Jane (2006). The First Women Lawyers a Comparative Study of Gender, Law and the Legal Professions. Oxford: Hart Pub. ISBN 9781847310958. -- footnote 44 is interesting. It says:

44) C Cleverdon, above, n 15 at 8. In 1909, law students requested the British Columbia Law Society to institute formal lectures; thus, the Vancouver Law School (1914 to 1943) and the Victoria Law School (1914 to 1923) came into existence: see WW Pue, above, n 15 at 44-64. Although lectures on law were offered at the University of British Columbia from 1920, the faculty of law was not established until 1945: Pue at 59-65. Comparing the British Columbia situation to other provinces, Pue concluded, at 62: 'the Vancouver Law School deserves to be recognised for what it was: a sustained, serious professional training school—no more; no less.'

Note 15 says: Oscar Bass, secretary of the Law Society of British Columbia, responded to an inquiry about the admission of women lawyers, clearly indicating his opposition: see WW Pue, Law School: The Story of Legal Education in British Columbia (Vancouver, Faculty of Law of the University of British Columbia, 1995) at 223. Similarly, forty lawyers in Nova Scotia forwarded a petition to the legislature in 1917, 'praying that women he not enabled to practise law in the province': see C Cleverdon, The Woman Suffrage Movement in Canada (Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1950) at 173. See also JBrockman, Exclusionary Tactics: The History of Women and Visible Minorities in the Legal Profession in British Columbia' in H Foster and JPS McLaren (eds), Essays in the History of Canadian Law: Vol VI, British Columbia and the Yukon (Toronto, The Osgoode Society, 1995) 508.

That was one minute of looking on google to find these refs with the search - "university of british columbia" "law school" history. one minute. That is not even going to the library. If you really care about this, do the work to find independent sources. Jytdog (talk) 08:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• Jytdog this has has to stop. You do not have the right to decide the usefulness of content per how long it takes an editor to find content. You do not have the right to judge an editor or content based on increasing absurd criteria as in you didn't even go to the library. This is ownership. There is agreement here to use the university web site as source for some content of which history is one of those instances of content. This is consensus. Are you going to continue to ignore this agreement in favour of your own criteria?(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC))

Finding sources has to stop? Hm. Local consensus cannot over rule policies and guidelines. You know this. You can pretend that you and Montanabw parachuting in here to support the addition of badly sourced, promotional content will ultimately "stick", but it won't. Every comment you have made here is use-able to demonstrate a pattern of behavior that you are not WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. I keep pointing you to Law of holes and you keep digging deeper. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

more sources

Walked down the street to my library and obtained the following:

• McClean, A. J. (1984). "The Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia, 1970-1981". Dalhousie L.J. 8 (185–200).
• Blom, Joost (1991–1992). "The Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia 1981-90". Dalhousie L.J. 14 (195).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)
• Rae, Ann; Halevy, Balfour (1998). "Diana Mary Priestly: An Appreciation". Law Libr. J. 90 (123): 123–128. (nice piece about the person who was the librarian there for many years, which includes useful information about the law library as well)
• Anand, Sanjeev S. (2004). "Canadian Graduate Legal Education: Past, Present and Future". Dalhousie L.J. 27 (55): 55 to 162.

The last one is quite extensive - over a hundred pages.

Also found the following which I would have to request through inter-library loan, which is too much trouble for me, but maybe one of those passionate about this content could request it

• Blom, Joost (January 1999). "Looking Ahead in Canadian Law School Education by ; QC The University of British Columbia Law Review". 33. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

That took about 20 minutes. There are plenty of sources available with which to build well-sourced, NPOV content. Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

continuation of discussion

Kingofaces43, I do agree with your version of the history section. That said, who exactly are you suggesting is here from past personal conflicts? Please back that statement up with a link to whatever personal conflict you're referring to. It seems to me that the other users that are posting here are neutral. CanadaRed (talk) 08:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) CanadaRed, please WP:FOC. Entertaining personal disputes here only distracts from that as I mentioned earlier.

You've been getting quite a bit of advice on how WP:CONSENSUS-building works at Wikipedia in addition to sourcing and other policies, especially in avoiding what we call WP:PUFFERY. That is primarily done by avoiding primary sources for more than very basic content like I showed and seeking out independent secondary sources like Jytdog did above. On that note, do re-read what he has written here. No one is disagreeing that a bare-bone history can be sourced to the university website. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Kingofaces43 I'm NOT asking you to entertain any personal dispute. I'm asking you to stop making false claims about people "hounding". If you do make such a claim, then back it up (which you have been unable to do thus far). You and JYTDOG's false claims are precisely what is creating distractions on this talk page. Also, I would like to make note that you and JYTDOG are buddies, and it's quite clear that you're here to to provide back up for your friend, and not as a good faith editor. The others that have been posting here are unbiased third parties. I can't really say the same for you. That said, I agree with your version of the history section, and will be willing to post it when the protection is over. Again, I do NOT want any puffery or promotional material on the page. We are all in agreement on that. What I disagreed with is outright deleting everything (including parts that had no puffery and promotional material). A better course of action would have been to edit out the parts that you believe have puffery or promotional material and properly source the other parts.

References

CanadaRed (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Kingofaces. We do not have consensus to source a bare-bone history to the university web site. At best we have a draw to source some content to the web site. The university history of the law school is well developed. This is an academic institution and we can agree, I hope, that academic institutions are more than capable of the kind of research such an extensive history requires. A university site also carries other pertinent information as Montana mentioned above. For example, if we are looking at a university who has better information on the faculty and their credentials than the university. If we want to note weight per who is a significant faculty member than secondary sources are useful. I have pointed out that other WP university articles use the university web sites. My concern here is that in view of Wikipedia's need to retain editors we have an editor here who is advising an inexperienced editor that he is " not even going to the library", who has thrown up barriers at every step which he bases on a debatable notion of primary sources and when they are usable. He has called the editor an advocate when that editor has clearly attempted multiple times to compromise. No one suggested we include puffery. In fact I and other have suggested removing flowery language. This is a content dispute about the quality of sources and has been from the beginning. The trick is to listen to all sides without judging the editor; this has not been the case here. If Jytdog is willing to use a bare bones version of the history section, that's a start. However, no where in our policy do we have wording that indicates the source is OK but we have to leave out pertinent and useful information. If the source is reliable explicitly per the content we wish to add we can use the source, period. We cannot, of course, violate Wikipedia's policies in doing so such as in using the source to promote the university site or including content in a way in our articles that violates NPOV, and no one is suggesting we should. I will assume, then, that we have agreement for a version of the history section to begin with and from there can add content, with agreement, to fill out the section.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC))

yep you have obviously not been reading - I wrote that here. Any by bare bones I mean bare bones, with no extraordinary SPS claims like "pioneering the use of casebooks". You and I just recently ran into this problem at WT:MEDRS where you are not dealing with what has actually been written and done. And here you are again, wasting time and space writing screeds on talk instead of helping building content. More and more you are showing that you are WP:NOTHERE. That is the case I will be bringing against you at ANI. Loads of diffs for that. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Be my guest. You have threatened and harassed me all over Wikipedia and we can see how that flies. And yes, I have that information. As for my comment. Yes I do read. My concern as I wrote is not about you agreeing to a bare bones version and I clearly described what I meant by that, but how you are pushing and threatening other editors with arguments that have nothing to do with our policies, like suggesting an editor has not done enough work or has to go to a library to look for sources to be considered. I am concerned about that Jytdog and think you have to back away from that kind of dialogue. What we have on the table is agreement to include something on the history using the school's web site. I am assuming that despite the threats you wish to go ahead with that. What version do editors here find acceptable. Perhaps we could move on with out threats and make some progress adding content to the article.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC))

Copyrighted Material

Jytdog, first of all, I posted your buddy, Kingofaces43 version. I didn't know the material was copyrighted. I assumed that being an "experienced" wikipedia user his version could be trusted. It's interesting how you wasted no time in using it to attack me though. You should have pointed out the problems or made the corrections here in the talk page while we were waiting for the protection to be removed. Anyway, I will paraphrase and rewrite it. It'll be interesting to see how you attack me next. CanadaRed (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

A copyvio is a copyvio; doesn't matter who does it. Please focus on content based on the policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Please keep in mind I directly said I couldn't access the source in question and was only removing unneeded sentences (and puffery) from your last proposal. I couldn't verfify the source much less check for cooyvio at the time. This is why we focus on content on article talk pages so we can work out those details. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

You guys weren't working out anything. You were just making attacks and threats against other users. This isn't a forum to bully and fight users that you dislike. You should be working on the articles in good faith. To be clear, I did not write the history section. It was written by previous posters, and posted in good faith believing that Kingofaces43 had worked out the kinks. I've reworked the history section, and cleaned the copyright infringement. Waiting for Jytdog's next attack. CanadaRed (talk) 05:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

as I've been saying all along i welcome well sourced, NPOV content about the history. I also said bare bones content sourced from the school's website would be fine as a start. I also went and found some sources for you. I won't respond again until there is more content to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog Look, maybe we both want the same thing. Much of the time wasted fighting and arguing seems to be based on misunderstandings. Let's start over and work together in good faith in order to make this page better. I welcome tips to improve the content. Just try to tone it down a bit so that your comments don't come across as attacks and threats. I'm extending an olive branch. CanadaRed (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The way to extend an olive branch is to stop talking about good faith and olives, and instead to talk about article content, and to engage with any substantive points raised. There is no need to ping an editor who is obviously watching this page, particularly when there is nothing related to article content for them to see. Johnuniq (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Law Students Legal Advice Program

Law Students Legal Advice Program

Established in 1969, the Law Students Legal Advice Program is a non-profit organization operated by law students from the Peter A. Allard School of Law. Operating 20 legal clinics throughout the Lower Mainland, LSLAP provides free legal advice and representation to clients that are not able to afford legal assistance.

References

I propose to add the law school's clinic to the article. CanadaRed (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

We do not need to repeat the entire legal name of the school. Two refs from the program itself, one from the law school, and one from a social services agency which basically copies the program's website. It would seem that this is not noteworthy enough to deserve any WP:WEIGHT in this article, as there are no independent sources actually discussing it. Jytdog (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

here: Waitzer, Adam (January 24, 2016). "Pilot law clinic offers free legal services to businesses". The Ubyssey. is an article from the student newspaper there, which at least has ~some~ independence. Jytdog (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

I would like to propose an edit to the Allard Prize for International Integrity section of this page. There has been a factual change - the Allard Prize for International Integrity is no longer part of the law school. I suggest the following sentence be added after the first sentence in this section: The Allard Prize became independent of the Allard School of Law at the University of British Columbia on June 21, 2019. Here are some supporting sources: COI disclosure: I am an employee of the Peter A. Allard School of Law. Thank you for your help, Ellecashmoney (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Done Zoozaz1 (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Vancouver School of Law

Should information on the Vancouver School of Law be added here or is there enough to make its own article?Naraht (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)