Talk:Southern Alberta Institute of Technology

Reasons for Move

SAIT is now known as SAIT Polytechnic. They have ditched the 'Southern Alberta Institute of Technology' for the more condensed SAIT. R.E. Freak 01:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

New residence

Will be the largest rez building in Alberta? Is there a citation on this? Also, I changed the anticipated completion date to early 2008 as that is our latest estimate. --James —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.248.52 (talk) 05:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

File:Saitrez.jpg

This article needs a new picture. The residence building on the left (taller, brown one), is no longer in use. The current two residence's are the one that is on the right in the picture, and one further to the right out of frame. Parking lot for it is where the fence is in this picture. — ク Eloc 貢 20:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Reads as an ad

I think this article should be marked as being written as an ad. Mentions "modern", "more than", etc... Don't know how to do it or would do it myself.--Arca (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, NOT an advertising service as this article clearly reads as promotional material written by someone with vested interest.(speaking of WP:SOAPBOX) Plus regarding the recent reversions to data provided in the "Labour Dispute Controversy" section, there's absolutely no WP rationale for reverting factual encylopedic content that is properly supported by references.ESPECIALLY so if it is stating facts that conforms to WP:NPOV. Feel free to add additional facts to alter/improve the NPOV balance should you wish, but reverting suggests blatant article protectionism and is essentially a form vandalism Like Budda (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

There most certainly is when it comes in the form of what reads like a press release from the labour unions with a particular point of view being forwarded. WP:SOAPBOX, WP:TONE, WP:NPOV all apply there, and that passage wasn't remotely inline with any of it. Stating the facts doesn't include using such loaded press language as "quick to point out" and "dismayed by" or "fair negotiated settlement" which doesn't appear in the source you cited. Take your press release and send it to the appropriate agencies, this isn't one of them.--Crossmr (talk) 06:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong. Enough with the weak wiki-lawyering. Encyclopedic content includes anything related to the subject heading.Press releases, and magazine articles are acceptable sources. There is sufficent precident for this information to be present in the article.About the only thing I'm willing to negotiate is the wording and placement. As per your comments I have reworded the choice of words in the document to better reflect the statments in the referenced sources. 17:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Like Budda (talk • contribs)

First, please review WP:OWN before making any more claims about what you're willing to negotiate. Second, I tend to agree that the current wording is completely unacceptable and is definitely POV. ElKevbo (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly ie WP:OWN - some people whould practise what they preach...

There's no "original research" the salary information is clearly stated on page 78 of the PDF file referenced. Whomever completed and apprved that document is responsible for any research and the accuracy of the information Like Budda (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's cited by the union folks then where *they* cited it needs to be referenced, not the document they referenced. In other words, you need to tell readers about the newspaper article or website where the union leaders said "The president earns..." It's neither necessary nor proper to cite the financial document.

However, I don't think the material should be in the article at all. It's crossing into soapboxing and POV-pushing territory, especially if the material has not been discussed by others and given prominence. ElKevbo (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like consensus to me.--Crossmr (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Why would you think you could beat your chest about references when your own edits don't include them? Like Budda (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Enough with the attitude and belligerence. You have an axe to grind - we get it. It's inappropriate and unacceptable.

And no, it's not appropriate to sprinkle a handful of "citation needed" templates (with at least one in the wrong place) when a single template at the top of the article will do. There is one reference in the infobox and there are several in your section so it's clear that the entire article needs help and not just a few statements. Let's be clear about that and use the appropriate template in the appropriate place. ElKevbo (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey ,ease up on the name calling. I don't work for SAIT but you obviously do. This article reads like a "fluff" piece that SAIT has created from the inside to promote itself. Given that there's no reason why the plight of your instructors and support staff can't be included as encylopedic content.It's been written about in the media and while perhaps not somethin SAIT themselves would want to see on their Facebook page there's no precident to remove it.BTW I'm the one that originally provide the "sectional" citiations required, all you did is move it.However specific statments can clearly be identified as needing reliable references.That way potential editors can be concise with respect to unreferenced content. I'll certainly give the original author some time to locate them before any further editing. Like Budda (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It's very obvious that you're here to do little more than grind an axe. You're a single purpose account whose first edits were to make very point of view and poorly sourced claims on an article and then continue to edit war over it and make personal attacks when your edits were not accepted. You've currently violated WP:3RR and if you continue to edit war on this article you are likely to find your editing privileges revoked.--Crossmr (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I dont' think you knw as much as you you think you do. What part of my edits where poorly sourced EXATLY? (as I've already pointed out MY edits are actually the ONLY properly sourced statements on this page! There's NOTHING wrong with the inclusion of this material on this page as it mets all criteria. I have no axe to grind and havnt "violated" any sort of rules, so enough of the scare tactics. If you feel my eidts are out-of-balance with respect to WP:POV then feel free to add balance through additional counter-points but don't just delete other people's efforts like you OWN the page Like Budda (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

2 editors agreed that this material wasn't appropriate for the page, you're the only one who does and have violated the editing policies in doing so. I see nothing here that indicates Elkebo has changed his mind since making the above statement.--Crossmr (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

All you need to do is learn to count and read.Well that and use the history features afforded to you.At 17:56 on May 27 Kevbo moved the section "Labour Dispute Controversy" to where it is now, made some edits to the wording, and requested some citations. In my mind that in itself constitutes a consensus as to the validity of this content at that point. I then adjusted the references to suit his sense of style and while I was at it pointed out he additional glaring deficiencies in the rest of the article with respect to unsourced content and the lack of references.It was I who added the "references required" tags not he. Anyways I'm applying for 3rd party intervention so hopefully we'll soon have someone without vested interest weigh in Like Budda (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

All you need to do is actually pay attention. It's very clear what you're here to do, and I'll point you to WP:COI because you obviously have a relationship with one of the groups involved in this dispute. As for his comment here is where he changed the order [1], and here [2] is where he said he didn't think it was appropriate. I'll let you look at those two date stamps very closely. His statement about it being inappropriate was made after he re-ordered it. And you should be aware that blanking your talk page [3] does not erase the fact that you violated 3RR in your crusade to include this information on the page. [4], [5], [6], [7], 4 reverts in 24 hours.--Crossmr (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Labour Dispute Controversy?

Again, if you look at the time stamps between the first and last reverts it is longer than 24 hours.Perhaps I should just refrain using the "revert" feature to restore the content altogether as it appears you somehow think it's appropriate merely to "blank" or "whitewash" the material through deletion which as far as I'm concrned is really no different than a reversion.So IMO you are just as guilty with your edits. But let's get to the heart of the matter as to appropriateness of this information relating to SAIT Polytechnic. I don't have anything to do with the parties as you imply, but it appars you certainly have some association with SAIT and are looking to protect the article from new or relevant material.But what I want to know is exactly what makes this material any less appropriate than anything else on this page? The material is all sourced from "neutral" newspaper articles that I've listed as verifiable references, and supported by SAIT's own data (as suggested in the articles) that SAIT offers into the public domain.Literally ANYTHING good or bad should be able to be written providing it is with neutral POV. Otherwise it's just censorship.I did my best to do so, and even ackowledged the edits/improvements made by another editor to achieve better NPOV. Still not enough? How would YOU suggest this material be written in order to conform? Like Budda (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No, actually it's not, and your continual lying does not help your case:

First revert per my time settings: Revision as of 07:27, May 27, 2011 [8]

Final revert per my time settings: Revision as of 04:54, May 28, 2011 [9]

That is less than 24 hours. The last revision would have had to occur AFTER 07:27 on May 28, it occurred 2.5 hours before that. You are a single purpose account who has repeatedly lied, thrown insults and edit warred to try and push his point of view here. That simply doesn't fly here. As far as conforming to the article is there any evidence this labour dispute is remotely notable? Has anyone outside a student newspaper and a free weekly newspaper(Which is about the same level) picked up on it at all? In fact a google news search shows "sait labour dispute" picking up a grand total of nothing in their archives search. Lots of businesses have labour disputes, they're not always relevant or notable unless something significant comes of them.--Crossmr (talk) 04:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because it isnt relevant or "notable" to one person or group doent mean it would necessarily be the case for another. Personally I find the statement "is conveniently located on Calgary C-train light rail system" un-notable becuase if I attended SAIT I most certainly wouldnt be using the Calgary rail system, although I'm willing to recognize some just might. As to whether it's "convenient" however THAT would obviously depend on numerous factors.So adjectives such as this shouldn't be used at all IMHO.(and goes to the original concern expressed that this article reads like an advertising brochure for SAIT Polyetechnic, which isnt encylopedic) Furthermore statements like "one of Alberta's Top 50 Employers" are certainly not notable to me as A) I dont live in Alberta and B) there's no context or reference provided as to how this determination has been made. Does this mean SAIT has the 50th largest workforce in Alberta? Or is it an award from some employment agency or entity? Or is it even accurate at all? Did the writer of this material bestow this award him/her self? Without ANY references whatsoever the reader is not being informed.

And finally since I'm on the soapbox (apparently) it's just as concerning to me when we have editors attempting to determine the "quality" of a reference that's been provided.Just because you don't happen to agree with what is written doesn't mean that it isnt "notable" to the extent it shouldnt be included in any article.But I guess Crossmr doesnt read or approve of the particular newspapers that I chose to reference.Well to be fair I've never seen either one of these papers in print but does that in any way affect their ability to be used as a verifiable source?Do you have evidence that would imply either of these papers are WP:NOTRELIABLE for any reason? If so please provide the rationale. Like Budda (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Reliability and notability are two different things. While the two papers are reliable, there is no evidence that either of them would make the incident remotely notable. The fact that Calgary has 6 or 7 major news organizations in the city and not one of them has seemingly put out a story about it suggests this isn't at all notable. As for being a top 50 employer, it's relevant to the subject, and a very quick search would reveal where it comes from. I found it in less than 30 seconds.--Crossmr (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

please see additional comments below in the "Reset" sub-topic and I'll try to keep it on one thread instead Like Budda (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Reset conversation

Can we please reset the conversation? Crossmr, can you please restate your objection(s) to this material?

Despite disagreeing with Like Budda's behavior, it seems to me that the material does appear to be sourced and relevant. I would have no strong objection to trimming the material to make it more concise but I don't think I agree with removing it entirely. ElKevbo (talk) 05:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

To the extent that the labour issue is confined to SAIT Poly and not to other schools in the area, I agree that it's reasonable to include. I also agree it needs heavy editing, especially the last sentence. I'm not sure the president's raises are relevant, and if they are, we need to clear up who's approving the raises—I wouldn't think she has the authority to give herself one. —C.Fred (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I definitely agree about removing the last sentence. I read through the newsletters and other materials published by the faculty union and I could only find this issue raised once and it was (a) not a prominent argument and (b) not contentious or aggressive. In fact, the materials I read from the faculty union didn't make this issue sound contentious at all and that raises some concerns for me about how this issue is being presented and described. Maybe this is more of an issue for the other union but I'm wary since the issue (a) is only being pushed by one editor only interested in this topic and (b) doesn't seem to be described by one of the parties as a contentious issue. ElKevbo (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Any objections, then, to adding the following text to the article?

SAIT Polytechnic's academic staff and instructors have been working and teaching since June 30, 2010, without a contract. The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees was unable to reach an agreement with the school, unlike similar negotiations around that time with the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology in Edmonton. Instructors are prohibited from striking under provincial law. The union entered arbitration with the school after talks broke down in December 2010.

I've removed the union's website as a source; it now relies on Fast Forward Weekly and the SAIT student newspaper. —C.Fred (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not completely caught up on the whole situation (I'm not having luck finding much information, particularly recent information and updates) but that text seems to say that there is only one union with issues. The original text focused on two different unions - one for faculty and one for support staff. And I'm not seeing much evidence that the negotiation with the faculty union has been particularly contentious although there seem to have been tensions with the support staff union and the text should reflect that, too. ElKevbo (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems like a non-notable labour dispute and the content is perfectly inline with WP:NOTNEWS. It was written with an obvious soapboxing POV stance. I'd like to see some evidence that this labour dispute has attracted anymore attention than the student paper at SAIT or the free weekly of unknown readership. There are several news stations, newspapers and radio stations in Calgary. Is there any evidence that even one of them has picked this story up? Your text is better, but I'm not convinced it's even worth adding. If they signed a contract tomorrow, would we leave it in the article as some kind of historical record of a significant event? Probably not.--Crossmr (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

After searching for some additional sources and having very little success, I've come around to your point of view. I am no longer convinced this belongs in the article given the lack of coverage in independent (or even dependent) sources. If there are no other sources available than those already presented this material isn't notable enough for inclusion. ElKevbo (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that reliability and notability are 2 different things. But you were attacking this content on both fronts by dismissing the fact that it was reported by at least 2 papers in the vicinity of Calgary. However I believe you are utilizing/interpreting WP:Notability incorrectly and unfairly in this instance, as in general it's use is primary to establishing if any particular content can "stand-alone" as it's own article in Wikipedia and I don't dispute this material would or could. However the WP:Notability guidelines clearly states: "Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article" So while the material may NOT be consider notable to the extent that it could stand on it's own with it's own title, there's nothing to keep it from appearing in an existing article providing it meets the neccessary criteria to do so, which I beleive it does. However what I would like to know is what direct affiliation you have with SAIT Polytechnic? Your user page at User:Crossmr clearly states there is an affiliation. I've already stated that I DO NOT yet it appears you've been less than forth-coming in this regard. Is this then just an attempt of corporate censership on your part? I understand if you feel that the material is one-sided at least as it was reported in the sources provided.However it was my impression that the goal of the editors was to then to seek out opposing material in order to hep create better balance in WP:POV. My problem was I couldnt find a rebuttal article to include. But does the lack of our ability to locate this negate an editor from including the former?? I don't think so. I am looking at rewording this material and including it with some additional information regarding SAIT Polytechnic's Faculty Association that I've found. You can feel free to tell me what you think of it once I've posted it here in "Discussion" for approval/concensus. Like Budda (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

and one of those papers is the school news paper and the other is a free weekly of unknown readership that covers all kinds of minutia. And honestly I don't remotely believe that you have no affiliation with either union. The chances of someone who claims not to be in Alberta, and who has no affiliation with either of these unions finding out about this labour dispute are astronomical. From the lack of coverage it's likely that hardly anyone in the city knows about this labour dispute let alone outside of it. It's only be covered in 2 places, 1 is a free weekly that's really only relevant to those living in Calgary, and the other is a student news paper which is really only relevant to those who have some connection to SAIT. So for a brand new single purpose account to show up, start edit warring and throwing insults over the content? Well, that's why we have the duck test. While notability generally applies to subjects of articles, we do also apply the concept to the content. We don't include every trivial thing that has ever happened at a school as an example. For the fifth or sixth time WP:NOTNEWS. While we're not talking about article level notability, we're talking about a timely news event, one that people really don't even seem to care about. If one of the major news outlets in Calgary actually did a story on it, you might have something worth including.-- Crossmr (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to show me where I was "throwing insults" because I didn't do that anywhere in my opinion. And I don't care much for your your LAME DUCK arguments either. I've stated that I have no direct involvement with SAIT Polytechnic and that is true, so I don't care if you don't believe me or not. My personal interest in SAIT Polytechnic was spurred by a recent honorary degree given by SAIT to Preston Manning, and my goal was to learn more about SAIT, including it's accreditations for awarding bachelor's degrees.The wiki article was of absolutely no help, (surprising actually given it's on-line brochure nature) so I was forced to seek elsewhere. I ended up calling an acquaintance/peer of my own that up until recently happened to be employed at SAIT and our discussions included on how SAIT is governed by an appointed Board of Directors and the faculty represented by an association of elected officials (not technically a union) which I happened to find interesting as I have some real-world training and experience in labour relations. This person also sent me a selection of links that included these articles from the Calgary Weal, AUPE, and FFWD newspapers. How was I to know that these were not THE big players in your local media OR that these papers are of limited scope with "questionable" readership? lol Is there a DUCK TEST for editors to come to such determination? What if we didn't have someone such as yourself IN Calgary (or better yet ON CAMPUS) to inform us as such and how rediculous we are? IMO the readership and scope issue is in itself totally irrelevant with respect to being able to used as a reliable source and while yes, they ARE from apparently small newspapers, they are NOT really "news" but instead a report potentially indicative of the labour environment at this institution.Like Budda (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

BUT AGAIN WHAT'S FAR MORE PERTINENT IS WHY YOU WANY THIS MATERIAL CENSORED? WHAT IS WHAT YOUR OWN PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT AT SAIT POLYTECHNIC THAT PRMPTED YOUTO POST A USER PAGE "AFFILIATION" AS SEEN HERE- Crossmr)IT APPEARS TO ME YOU SIR ARE THE ONE THAT'S EXPERIENCING A CONFLICT OF INTEREST! You keep pointing to "not news" but I disagree with your interpretation of that directive and your own conflicts of interest appear to be affecting your judgement! Like Budda (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

As a reminder, a key reason the conversation was reset was to focus on the primary issue of how to improve the article and to get away from comments on editors, ad hominem attacks, and the like. That means we need to focus on reasons grounded in Wikipedia policy why the material should or should not be included. WP:NOTNEWS (Wikipedia is not a newspaper) is policy and is a valid reason to exclude the information: it is not related to the enduring/long-term notability of the subject.

Regarding whether the sources are sufficiently reliable or not, I highlight this quote from WP:SOURCES: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It is appropriate to call into question whether the student newspaper is independent (and truly a third party) and whether it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It is also appropriate to question whether a free weekly newspaper has demonstrated itself as accurate and with good fact checking. Had the labour dispute been covered by the Herald or Sun, then we would have had a source or two meeting the WP:SOURCES requirement. It would also then be easier to use information from the school paper or free weekly—if the basics of the story match up, then it stands to reason that the details line up. However, there is no (evidence of) such coverage. Since the event is then covered only in sources that may not meet the verifiability criteria, and since the event does not show evidence of a lasting effect on the school, then the argument to exclude the material is valid. —C.Fred (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

In addition, WP:NPOV under undue weight would cover this as well. A free weekly and an involved school newspaper hardly show a wider public interest in this, and I doubt it would even warrant a single sentence to mention this let alone several tied in with an obvious point of view.--Crossmr (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

References

External links

I recently cleaned up the "External links" section of this article so it would comply with our external links policy. Another editor has objected to this on the grounds that the section is similar to that of another article. First, the policy is quite clear that we should "avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website." Second, that another article is out of compliance with the policy in no way justifies having a problem in this article. ElKevbo (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Logos

SAIT has recently updated their logo to the one displayed on this page and it made me realize this page needs a section talking about the branding of SAIT and its past logos. I would make these changes myself but I am not that great at writing.

new logo: http://www.sait.ca/about-sait/news/sait-stories-the-stories-behind-sait-polytechnic/sait-stories/2016-3-29-brand-reveal.php old logo: https://eacademy.ict.sait.ca/Images/SAIT_Logo.png oldest logo: http://www.sait100.ca/images/timeline/1970_SAITFirstLogo.jpg

Some good reference material: http://www.sait100.ca/index.php/about/100-years-of-sait — Preceding unsigned comment added by PersistantCoder (talk • contribs) 03:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)