Talk:McMaster University Library

How should the Staff and Labour section handle information regarding Jeff Trzeciak's legacy at McMaster? Users with IP addresses that have only edited this page, implying an affiliation to Trzeciak, have repeatedly edited to remove reference to negative impacts over the past week. All edits have been reverted by other established users. --Dnllnd (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this section was created to document the events of a narrow slice of time and the

WP:NPOV, or at least to point out the bias and attempt to mitigate it. That effort should continue and I hope to offer some suggestions soon. Also, an attempt could be made to expand the period of time covered by that section. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 03:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:NOT3RR, but re-adding any such disputed content is almost always not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the input,@TheCrazedBeast: and @Marchjuly:! I'm going to leave things as is and see how it plays out. Best, --Dnllnd (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The entire section is excessive detail, outdated, and presented from a POV. From what I know of the situation, and analogies with my own experience, I am very sympathetic to the POV, but that is irrelevant. WP is not an instrument of advocacy. DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The section is completely unnecessary. It doesn't document anything other than an interpersonal conflict dressed up by those parties involved in the academic language of dire import and wide-ranging effects. It also does not do anything to further the understanding of the institution that a reader would need to know. Concluded academic power struggles that don't have lasting impact are not notable in themselves, and this one does not claim any significant lasting impact on the institution beyond some personnel shuffles and one departure. Axe the entire section. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The sourcing seems entirely primary sources internal to the institution, if that is the case, this is a 'storm in a teacup. As said above "academic power struggles that don't have lasting impact are not notable in themselves", especially when they are not taken up by outside sources. Probably nothing worth saving, even disregarding BLP concerns. Pincrete (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Eggishnorn and Pincrete have the right of this, insofar as I can tell. This extensive coverage of an episode of internal staff infighting/bureaucracy provides absolutely no value to the understanding of Mcmaster University Library as an encyclopedic topic--as evidenced by the fact that absolutely none of this content is supported by so much as a single source that qualifies as an
  WP:RS for our purposes here. And while I am usually the last person to invoke BLP to remove controversial content simply because it reflects badly on a party, I have to agree that it is warranted in this case (again, owing to the lack of credible sources backing up/contextualizing any of these assertions). This entire section can (and should) be removed and the article will be better for it. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I went ahead and removed the disputed section entirely based on the above discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.