Talk:Calgary School

Feedback

9 June 2006: 1758MST To say that Stephen Harper had a “rise to power” due to a group of political science professors like Barry Cooper is simply preposterous. This article reeks of an angsty U of C Young Liberal.

1) Harper rose because the Liberals failed Canada, and voters wanted to convey their disappointment.
2) There are leftist profs at UC, you know. Like Donald Ray, Brenda O'Neil, Pablo Policzer, why don't we write an article about that, and how they were single handedly responsible for Jack Layton's rise to power? Phobal 20:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Numerous people self-refer as members of or products of the Calgary School. Your hollow ad hominems and political axe-grindings don't belong in an encylopedia, Mr. Phoba. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.222.146 (talk) 07:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Membership

As long as this flawed article defines the School as "a group of like-minded academics from the University of Calgary’s political science and history departments in Calgary, Alberta, Canada", Harper is not to be grouped into this School. He's not an academic and although the author correctly framed Harper as being a UC alumnus, he never academically participated in either of those departments. More proof of a hidden agenda from upper Canada. Phobal 20:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Areas for expansion

I've just re-organized the article and added a lot of content to it. Areas that should be included:

• Denials of the existence of the "school" at all
• Links to/influence on Stephen Harper
• More detailed description of, and debates about, their political philosophy

The articles I've cited are quite long and can probably be used for a lot more material. Padraic 05:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The photos posted to give it a sense of credibility are cute. Phobal 20:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources

This tripe hinges way too heavily on an internet article from a C list magazine. Let me get this right, the only source of information illustrating the academic opponents of the so-called Calgary school is a general interest magazine called "The Walrus"? Furthermore, "The Media" is not a single general interest magazine called "The Walrus". As such, I am changing "The Media" to "The Walrus". Until then, don't use the pretentious term "The Canadian Media" until you have a plural amount of credible media sources acknowledging the Calgary School. "The Walrus" magazine is barely a credible source. Maybe the kid from upper Canada that wrote this article should join justin trudeau's campaign. Or just get it over with, and work for the CBC. Phobal 20:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This article cites 5 different media sources acknowledging the Calgary School, including 2 Albertan newspapers, and a long Ottawa Citizen article which actually disputes the Walrus article. As I posted above, the article could use more material on this dispute - so please feel free to actually add content and cite other sources if you have some that dispute its existence. As for your removal of photos because they "lend credibility", I have to disagree - photos are just there because they are content related to the material in the article. --Padraic 16:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's say some kid gets kicked out of a punk band, so as a form of emo revenge, he calls up an entertainment reporter to tell him that he just made a new genre of music. Let's say the globe+mail reporter did what any globe+mail reporter does best; overblow something stupid and give it cred by giving it some pretentious title; avant-garde pop punk. Let's say another four newspaper outlets decide to cover it, because, hey, the media doesn't like having to put in a lot of effort. Let's say someone reads these five insignificant article an puts up a wiki about a new genre. Let's say that someone heavily involved in the punk scene sees the wiki and pipes in: "this isn't a genre of music, this is just some overblown hype from a media that's having a slow day again." To turn around and say "hey, why don't you write a counter-point within this wiki citing some sources?" is just preposterous. The genre just doesn't exist, it's insignificant, it's overblown. No one is willing to debate it because it is so stupid, not even the Canadian press. The fact that it is not being debated is more powerful than another vulture journalist's view. The reason why there are no articles dismissing the school is because there's no point arguing the obvious. Kind of like how you won't find any articles disputing the Eugenics movement that were published within the last fifty years. Oh yeah, what's the name of the school representing the "like minded left wing professors" of UofC? This article, and the fact that its contributions have only come from upper Canadians is illustrative of why western alienation exists. I'd be curious to hear whether or not any of the two original contributors to this article have ever been within 750 kms of Calgary, let alone the campus, or better yet having met one of the "members" on the list in an academic setting. I have a feeling they just had a negative run-in with the UC ModelUN team at McGill or something. Phobal 15:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ezra? Ezra, is that you???

I removed the suggestion that Cooper openly subscribes to the Calgary school under the citation of an article that is not even linked or accessible. Further, don't use the term "other media sources" without actually citing "other media sources" that directly critique the school. All of these "other sources" from C list newspapers in C list cities only discuss the right leaning philosophies of these supposed members of 'the school', not their 'organization'. David Orchard is not a media source. The Walrus is "The Walrus", not an encompassing body of "other media sources". It's been just under a year and I'm still waiting for these "other media sources" while others quietly revise the article to look legitimate without speaking up.Phobal (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LeoStrauss.jpg

Image:LeoStrauss.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 14:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Leo Strauss as a Neoconservative

I removed the description of Leo Strauss as a neoconservative. As influential as Strauss may have been on some neoconservatives, it is simply incorrect to call him a neoconservative himself. The term (in its modern usage) barely existed at the time that he died in 1973.BenA (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Decline?

The section "Decline of the Calgary School influence" doesn't say anything about the decline of the Calgary School influence, it just describes other academic work happening at the University of Calgary and implies that this work represents rival schools of thought to the Calgary School. Of course, it is possible for more than one school of thought to flourish in the same institution. Is there any reliable source saying that the influence of the Calgary School has declined or is declining? FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, I'll change it. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)