Talk:Toronto Metropolitan University

Racial controversy

I propose that the information that I added to the article be added under a new controversies heading.

Here is a list of sources for the addition. http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/two-students-kicked-from-anti-racist-meeting-for-being-white/ http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/03/16/white-students-kicked-out-of-anti-racism-meeting-for-being-white-187444 http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/21646/ http://www.inquisitr.com/1927617/2-white-students-banned-from-anti-racism-group-at-university-campus/ https://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/271775-student-group-held-event-combating-racism-one-group-left/ http://www.thestarphoenix.com/life/White+students+barred+from+minority+support+meeting/10895907/story.html#__federated=1 http://globalnews.ca/news/1885540/white-students-asked-to-leave-anti-racism-event-at-ryerson/ http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/03/16/two-students-barred-from-meeting-at-ryerson-university-because-they-were-not-racialised/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.20.83 (talk) 09:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing these additional links!

I'm still not convinced that this is of significant, lasting importance. Several of those sources are clearly partisan and pushing an agenda and at least one of them (The StarPhoenix) is a reprint of another one (National Post). I don't follow Canadian news but I do follow U.S. higher education news (which routinely reports on Canadian colleges and universities) and this issue doesn't appear to have any lingering significance or larger impact. Since it only involved a few students and many of the reports are clearly pushing an agenda, I recommend waiting for a while to see if this goes anywhere. If it does then we can certainly add it then. Otherwise it should probably remain here in Talk as it fades into history. ElKevbo (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Charges to use university athletic facilities

An article should not record prices (unless there is some encyclopedic purpose)—see WP:NOTCATALOG#5. I have asked for opinions here. Johnuniq (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The price of $499 is trivial. I don't think the article even needs to state that faculty must pay to use its facilities, but the price tag definitely doesn't belong. Jolly Ω Janner 05:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It has a purpose. It shows that the university charges different amounts to different categories of its community. I will remove the price if you remove the price the university paid to purchase the facility. If prices are irrelevant, then we should also remove the tuition costs and endowment figures from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.90.34.31 (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory (5. Sales catalogues.) "Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention." The only source provided for the cost of gym membership is the website itself and it only mentions it. If you can provide some reliable sources (not blogs), which talk about the impacts of the $499 price tag for faculty, please do let us know. Until then, I think it's best kept out of the article. Jolly Ω Janner 20:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jolly Janner: Thanks for spelling that out. @IP: People often want to use Wikipedia to tell the world about a problem (it's called righting great wrongs), and it's obvious that the only reason to mention the charge is to alert readers about some injustice. The fact that a $60-million purchase was made for the Mattamy Athletic Centre is clearly of encyclopedic interest and cannot be compared with the fact that staff are charged $499 per year to use a facility which is free to students. The matter would be WP:DUE if independent reliable sources had written about the matter—not a passing mention, but a description of the issue as if it has some significance. Some organizations provide free parking for staff, and some don't—details like that should be on the organization website and not in an encyclopedic article. Johnuniq (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no intent to right a great wrong. But if you are going to list the cost of producing the facility, it is fair game to list the pricing structure for the university community. Either delete the economics, or leave them in. But don't pick and choose.107.5.178.131 (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ryerson University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110929083319/http://media.www.mcgilltribune.com/media/storage/paper234/news/2009/01/27/News/Education.Ont.Applications.Up-3598528.shtml to http://media.www.mcgilltribune.com/media/storage/paper234/news/2009/01/27/News/Education.Ont.Applications.Up-3598528.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)