Talk:Anne Innis Dagg

Proposed deletion

This article fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and Wikipedia:Verifiability, because the people mentioned, in particular Ian Dagg, and the Dagg children do not meet the requirements.

Extended commentary and personal opinion. GMG^talk 19:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I am privy to information from specific individuals at the University of Waterloo.

Firstly, although Ian Dagg was chairman of the Physics department at the University of Waterloo, the quantity of his publications was limited and none ever appeared in top journals. He made no impact whatsoever in Physics. Note that the minor scholarship made in his name is the outcome of a perfunctory administrative process which applies to any U. of Waterloo administrator who dies during his tenure, regardless of his stature.

Anne Dagg and her legacy are too mediocre and destructive to warrant a wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.74.170.122 (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• If you believe the subject of the article is non-notable, you may open a discussion at WP:AfD. Extended personal opinion and commentary is not necessary. GMG^talk 19:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Not the first to study animal behaviour in the wild in Africa

I realize that this is referenced to the CBC, but this is obviously a totally ludicrous claim that is demonstrably false. Ignoring the fact that native peoples of Africa have been doing it for thousands of years, to give just one example in the Western scientific literature, here is David Lack in 1935 (when Dagg was 2 years old) describing behaviour of bishop birds in Tanzania: Bueller 007 (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

This farce continues?

Extended commentary and personal opinion.--Dnllnd (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Ian Dagg was a mediocre non-entity as mentioned earlier. He had a very low profile and died before accomplishing anything. This whole biography of Anne Dagg with its obvious feminist narrative should be removed indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.96.189.132 (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

See above regarding extended personal opinion and commentary.--Dnllnd (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I do not understand. While extended commentary and personal opinion should not be in the article per se, I have seen quite of a lot of both in many talk pages, especially these days, in the political arena. As a matter of fact, the take page is precisely the place where editors offer their opinions and suggestions regarding the attributes of articles and their content. While these should appeal to objective standards and Wikipedia policies, the expression of opinions is inevitable. The talk page serves the purpose of expressing them while - of course - not affecting the (front) article until or unless some agreement by the editors can be reached. It seems to me that the editors here are trying to suppress or hide from the public, released information that could be damaging to the record of a high-profile Canadian feminist. In the public domain, such preferential treatment is biased and should not be allowed. Wikipedia is supposed to be an objective encyclopedia and not take sides. Moreover, this apparent "protection" backfires. By attempting to hide its material, this only serves to make the suppressed "extended commentary" all the more incisive.

@TonyMath: What's being hidden? The comments were flagged as containing personal opinion - which they do. --Dnllnd (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The full "extended commentary" dating back to 2017, which can be seen in previous versions of this talk page has been removed. Only a portion of it can be seen in the "flagged section". This is what I mean by hidden. FYI, it was more than commentary. It mentioned a history concerning Ian Dagg. I gather this was written by a whistle blower exposing dirty (departmental) laundry at the University of Waterloo, which no doubt, is unpleasant to feminist supporters of Anne Dagg. However, a fair encyclopedia is supposed to show criticism for a rounded balanced perspective of anyone's track record. That this criticism is not shown in the main page is one thing but it is certainly very strange that this criticism is removed from the talk page, of all places. I just found it strange.