Talk:University of Ibadan

College of Medicine, University of Ibadan was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 17 December 2016 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into University of Ibadan. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Nigeria Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nigeria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nigeria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NigeriaWikipedia:WikiProject NigeriaTemplate:WikiProject NigeriaNigeria articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Yoruba High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yoruba, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yoruba people on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YorubaWikipedia:WikiProject YorubaTemplate:WikiProject YorubaYoruba articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles

Medicine Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I am trying to improve the Hugh Trenchard, 1st Viscount Trenchard article. Is the University of Ibadan's Trenchard Hall named after Hugh Trenchard? If so what was Hugh Trenchard's involvement in the university and does anyone know of any reliable sources on this matter? Greenshed (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having read two of the books in the 'References' section (the ones by Mellanby and Tamuno), I can confirm that much of what is written in the article intro is corroborated in both or either of them. Unfortunately it is some time since I read either of them and I no longer have immediate access to both books. Hopefully someone else can provide page numbers so that the article is supported by better supported by citations. 24.216.64.21 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Please do not remove citation needed tags unless there are either footnotes to citations supporting the text or links to articles which include independent reliable sources which verify the text. Linking to an article which mentions the University with no supporting sources is equivalent to having no sources in this article, it only muddies the water. Please refer to

WP:BURDEN. Fæ (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

See your talk page and the edit summaries. I notice most of your edits consist of inserting ^[citation needed] comments on wikipedia pages. Gomez3000adams (talk) 07:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you are now using

WP:BLP requirements for sources but you are intransigent and prefer to edit-war. Fæ (talk) 07:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Fæ is correct on this. As you are saying that a living person did something, there needs to be a source, the same as there needs to be a source on their individual pages. I have reverted to the last edit with the tags still in place. Do not continue to remove the tags, as they are properly placed. Continuing to remove the tags constitutes vandalism. --

talk) 08:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I have also tagged the page as needing more sources. --

talk) 08:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Not sure I agree with you on this one and I may pursue the dispute further, perhaps with an administrator. However I will not revert the changes (for now) Gomez3000adams (talk) 08:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and do it for you. RfC created, as you can see below. --

talk) 08:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• I'm afraid
  Fbifriday has been a bit dishonest here. My argument (see also on talk) is that the alumni have undisputed wikipedia pages that mention that they attended the University of Ibadan with some (though not all) providing references for that fact. I pointed out that Harvard University for e.g does not provide a citation for listing John F. Kennedy as an alumnus since, John F. Kennedy's wikipedia page mentions that he went to Harvard and provides adequate references. My argument is for using inline citations only when they're particularly needed. I think Fæ is a bit overzealous in his use of ^{[citation needed]} tags Gomez3000adams (talk) 09:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment: You made no such argument via this talk page, you made it on user's personal talk page, and as such, I didn't even see that argument at all, so I wasn't "dishonest". Also, please be aware that the names with the tags don't actually have proper citation on their individual pages. The ones that do are not tagged, only the ones with no citations at all backing their status as alumni. Also, please see
    talk) 09:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment: This appears to be a further
    ADHOM argument, I suggest you stick to arguing the case rather than defaming other editors. It would be helpful if you could support your claim that I have been overzealous with cn tags by naming those linked articles which support a claim of being an alumnus with a footnoted source. As I took pains to explain in response to your complaint on my talk page, I checked each article before adding a tag, so if this is no longer the case it must be due to later edits. If you can suggest a better way of identifying which articles support the claim of being an alumnus and which do not without using tags, please do so. Fæ (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I'm not referring to your general qualities as an editor but to your use of the tags in this article. If you feel there are some Wikipedia biography pages that don't cite facts they state, then perhaps you should clean up those tags in those articles. I would really rather we all spend time improving the article rather than going back and forth with these arcane policy tags. Maybe a solution is just to remove from the list, alumni for which proper citations cannot be found. I came on the article almost by accident and made simple edits I thought would add to it. I have no stomach for all the endless legalese over what are really minor changes Gomez3000adams (talk) 10:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll take that as a no then. You can provide no specific examples or an alternative way to comply with
        WP:BLP apart from just ignoring it. Fæ (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • If you read my comment you'll see I mentioned removing the disputed alumni from the list altogether Gomez3000adams (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • On that separate point, cn tags exist to highlight areas for improvement. When sufficient time has passed to demonstrate that a search for sources by editors contributing to the article has failed to find anything relevant then unsourced members with linked articles on the embedded list should be removed. As the information itself is not considered controversial, deleting without any prior notice would appear contentious. The same rationale would not apply to non-notable names without articles which probably should be removed on sight. In case you think this is just my opinion, similar guidance is available on {{
            BLP should you care to read it before making further arguments or resorting to calling anyone dishonest. Fæ (talk) 10:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
            ]

Gomez3000adams said above that they might "pursue the dispute further, perhaps with an administrator". I am an administrator, and I have come here as a result of a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, so perhaps I perform the task that Gomez3000adams ahd in mind. Firstly, Wikipedia policy is that information about living people must be sourced, and that any information that is challenged must be sourced. For both these reasons it is unambiguously a mistake to leave unsourced information about living people and remove citation tags, and there are no two ways about that. Secondly, there is the question as to whether it is sufficient to rely on the fact that a source is cited in another article. It is common in the case of lists to accept this, but this common practice is not really acceptable, for two reasons. Firstly, and most importantly, the other article may be changed or even deleted, so that the references disappear or become invalidated in some way. It is not reasonable to imagine that whenever anyone changes an article in a way that removes or invalidates a reference they will also trace every other article that might possibly rely on that reference. Secondly, it is unrealistic to expect that any user who wants to check sources may have to go on a trail from one article to another to find them. Consequently references should ideally be given locally, and we should not rely on citations in remote articles. What is more, policy is quite clear: if material is questioned or challenged then the onus is on the person wishing to keep it to provide justification. This means that if someone adds a tag for a source you may not remove that tag without providing such a source, whether or not you agree with the tagging.

It follows from the above that by Wikipedia policy that the citation tags should not be removed without providing sources. There is also the question of what consensus says. Originally this was a discussion among two editors. A third opinion was introduced, and supported the line that citations are needed. One of the participants expressed a wish for an administrator to become involved. That has now happened, and the administrator has again supported the view that citations are needed. Consensus seems, therefore, to support the same line as the arguments based on policy.

Finally, on the question of whether to remove disputed content immediately or wait for citations first, I think that Fæ's point is reasonable.

I stumbled upon this argument. As I really hate arguments, and this is about a not so very long list, I took it upon myself to add references to the list, as well as originating pages. Best regards --Muhandes (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Muhandes (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Given that the inclusion of any particular alumnus is not pivotal to the article in any sense, it would seem most appropriate to simply remove those that lack citations (if it's determined that citations are necessary). I understand that this is a bit of a philosophical bent (immediatism vs. eventualism), but given that this is simply a list that is, in essence, extraneous to the main topic of the article, I don't see how inclusion of questionable content is at all helpful while at the same time being very obviously unhelpful in cases where it turns out to be wrong.
  talk) 15:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Fortunately, the constructive contributions of Muhandes have removed the need for that in this case. But I support your general argument Gomez3000adams (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, having thought about it I agree.

talk) 19:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090211064826/http://www.lmu.edu:80/Page39340.aspx?DateTime=633259621200000000&PageMode=View to http://www.lmu.edu/Page39340.aspx?DateTime=633259621200000000&PageMode=View

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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.—

@

talk) 18:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]