Talk:Upper Canada College

A fresh start

I have removed all of the previous discussion to an archive page, linked above, so that we can make a fresh start. I have removed semi-protection from the article as an experiment to see if we can all work together to improve the article. This experiment can only work, and the article remain unprotected, if editors:

• agree to make only edits that conform with Wikipedia’s policy of a neutral point of view;
• refrain from deleting large portions of text for any reason;
• post requests for verification of contentious points of information on the talk page instead of removing them from the article;
• be civil with each other.

Administrators will be montioring the article and will restore semi-protection or even full protection if it degenerates into a revert war again, or if large parts of the article are blanked. Let’s work together on this. Ground Zero | t 17:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ground Zero: thank you for responding to my latest comments on my talk page. Although I cannot say that I agree with every position you advocate, I do not think it is necessary to revisit these arguments at this time. I think what is important here is that you have removed the semi-protection from the article, despite your obvious trepidation in doing so. I truly believe that it was the correct thing to do. I hope I am proven right. My graditude, Blunders of the third kind 02:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Metta Bubble, FYI, 66, 68, 38, 70, wormwood and blunders are not sock puppets as you allege in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ambi#Help_Please. 68 and 66 are the same person (me), just logging in work and home. 38 eventually registered and became blunders (not me). 70 eventually registered and became wormwood (again, not me). go ahead and fully "investigate" the sock puppet issue. it's a red herring to distract from my legitimate complaint to the head of your Association of Member Advocates about your behavior as an "advocate" who likes to call his clients dicks. 66.208.54.226 13:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Alumni

I have a few issues with the following section:

"The College states that 99% of all graduates go on to post-secondary schooling. Though the career paths of the College's alumni are varied, with most achieving moderate success, UCC has a reputation for educating many of Canada's powerful, elite and wealthy. The school has produced five Lieutenant-Governors, one Governor General, no less than seventeen graduates have been appointed to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, twenty four have been named Rhodes Scholars [25], and at least twenty four have received the Order of Canada since the award's inception in 1967. The varied results of UCC's graduates prompted James Fitzgerald to write the book Old Boys: The Powerful Legacy of Upper Canada College, in which he tried to explore "a school that could produce a federal cabinet minister and a drug-crazed murderer in the same graduating year." [26]"

i) "with most achieving moderate success" - the sentence is both subjective and objecive. I have (on multi-occassions) changed the sentence to read: "Though the career paths of the College's alumni are varied, UCC has a reputation for educating many of Canada's powerful, elite and wealthy"; only to find it reverted. Objective and subjective statements have no place in an encyclopedia entry;

ii) "The College states that 99%.." - I have not seen this stated anywhere. The College does state 100% on all its publications.

iii) "The school has produced five Lieutenant-Governors, one Governor General, no less than seventeen graduates have been appointed to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, twenty four have been named Rhodes Scholars [25], and at least twenty four have received the Order of Canada since the award's inception in 1967." - There are a few issues here surrounding the veracity of the statements - with the exception of the Rhodes Scholars, the other figures have not be accurately counted. For instance to state that only 24 Old Boys are members of the Order of Canada - is simply wrong and is very hard to properly count. To be honest, I don't think an encyclopedia entry can cite lists of Old Boy accomplishments unless the figures are real and not mere estimates or approximations.

• i) "with most achieving moderate success" I have no issue with your proposed sentence "Though the career paths of the College's alumni are varied, UCC has a reputation for educating many of Canada's powerful, elite and wealthy," but can't recall it ever being proposed. Mostly people just obliterated the entire text at the opening of that section, as seems to have been done again today.
• ii) "The College states that 99%.." A copy of Old Times I have from the mid '90s gave the number 99%. Granted, that is now almost ten years old, so if more recent publications say 100%, then the number should certainly be altered to reflect the current situation.
• iii) "The school has produced five Lieutenant-Governors, one Governor General..." Apart from the cited number of Rhodes Scholars, the numbers given are drawn from a survey of List of Upper Canada College alumni, from which it is clear that the school has produced four lieutenant-governors and one governor general. It also shows that "at least" 24 have received the Order of Canada, and "no less than" 17 have been appointed to the QC. Just because these numbers are the minimums does not make them wrong, nor less real, and certainly not approximations. --gbambino 17:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of these points.WormwoodJagger 00:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Has there been any discussion/thought of adding a notable alumni section? AlmightyZoo (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)AlmightyZoo

Adams & Robertson

Kawasoe is the interim Headmaster (now Head?) of the Prep school - what are the exact posisions of Brad Adams and Michaele Robertson? Co-Headmasters of the Upper School? Co-Heads? It sounds incomplete and vague to say "the Upper School is headed by Bradley Adams and Michaele Robertson. --gbambino 03:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I see now that that information was inserted back on December 8, 2005 (Edit 1), and removed by User:Synflame on Dec. 17(Edit 2). I'll reword it to the way it originally was, but it's still rather vague. Are Adams and Robertson really Co-Heads? --gbambino 03:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Currently, Upper Canada College contains over 10 administrators. The result of this is that each has a narrowly defined job title, whereby duties are shared. This signifies primarily, that other that Jim, these administrators don't really warrant listing in this entry, and that their roles aren't what you mgiht perceive them to be. They are co-heads in the traditional sense, but their influence is not as great as the title would indicate. For this reason, and the relative vague-ness that user:Gbambino mentioned, I would recoomend their removal - and have done so. User:Synflame March 29

With all due respect, the previous user is incorrect in his responses. Robertson and Adams are the "Heads of the Upper School" and run the student-side of the Upper School(Programmes and Student Affairs respectfully). When examining the structure of UCC, one should view Jim Power, the Principal, as a sort of Chief Executive Officer of the entire College - which would include the Prep. and the Upper Schools. Serving as his primary academic heads would be Robertson (Head of Upper School, Programmes), Adams (Head of Upper School, Student Affairs & College Placement) and Kawasoe (Head of Prep. School - in essence a combined Robertson/Adams for the lower school). Given the fact that Kawasoe is on the same pay-scale and level of authority as either Robertson or Adams, it is essential, therefore, that we either keep all three or remove all three. There cannot be a double standard.

"Leading", "best", "most prestigious", whatever...

Just to bring these forward from the archive for a little background behind the statement "It is widely considered to be one of the leading preparatory schools in Canada."

"Upper Canada College, the most exclusive private school in the country."

• http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040911/UCC11/TPEducation/

"Upper Canada College, the province’s oldest independent school, will celebrate 175 years as what many consider the foremost private academy for boys in Canada."

• http://www.ourkids.net/school/artcl2004_ucc175years.shtml

"(he) attended Canada's most elite and prestigious school: Toronto's Upper Canada College."

• http://www.thespiannet.com/actors/F/fraser_brendan/index.shtml

"A sexual-abuse scandal that has engulfed Canada's most prestigious private school, Upper Canada College."

• http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2FArticleNews%2FTPStory%2FLAC%2F20031231%2FUCC31%2FNational%2FIdx&ord=2488099&brand=theglobeandmail&redirect_reason=2&denial_reasons=none&force_login=false

"sending your son to Upper Canada College, the most prestigious boys' school in the country..."

• http://www.moneysense.ca/planning/education_planning/article.jsp?content=20031107_143425_800

There are also some other sources which I inserted as footnotes (though some are taken from those above). --gbambino 01:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The operative words in most of those excerpts are "boys' school" and "for boys" - that doesn't mean that it is the most respected prep school in the nation. Moreover, "most exclusive" isn't exactly declaring this either. There is no doubt that UCC is one of the best schools in Canada, but I think declaring it to be the best is both not a neutral point of view and subject to dispute. --username911

As far as I see, only one specifically says "boys' school." And I do see that they all but one say, or imply, "the most exclusive," "the most prestigious," etc. That said, however, though I would argue that UCC is the most influential independent school in the country, I agree that saying "one of the leading" is the most NPOV way to go about it. I posted these examples because some felt it right to completely remove the sentence "It is widely considered to be one of the leading preparatory schools in Canada" from the article. --gbambino 16:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You do realise that in the opening paragraph of the article it states: " It is widely considered to be the leading preparatory school in Canada." That's both POV and inaccurate, hence my previous statement. That is what I think should be removed, not the statement "one of the leading private schools". --username911

Yes, I realise what it says, but, frankly, it's been bouncing back and forth between "the leading" and "one of the leading" (and even removal all-together) for so long now that I'm kind of tired of getting involved in the silly tit-fot-tat revert war. Please feel free to edit it yourself. --gbambino 18:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if some of you don't realize how petty you make UCC seem to parents considering sending their sons to you -- who would want to send their kids to a school that produces individuals who care so strongly about whether their school is called "leading" or "one of the leading"!

What, exactly, makes you think that those who insist it is the best school are necessarily UCC students or Old Boys? That's a bit of an unfounded assumption. --gbambino 21:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Doug Mackenzie info

I'm thinking the info regarding Doug Mackenzie's arrest and subsequent charging (which I actually added) doesn't belong in this article. He was a UCC student, but his crimes weren't linked to the school in any way, and I seriously doubt he's the only ex-student in 177 years to be charged with criminal offenses.

I will remove it, unless there are serious objections. --gbambino 20:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It made the local papers, therefore it's notable and verifiable. Perhaps he belongs in the alumni section but I think it's also plausible to put him in the scandal section since (a) his notability is so inherently scandalous and (b) his reason for notability is the exact some reason the other teachers are notable: child abuse.

Where ever it ultimately goes, I don't think you should censor this disagreeable aspect of the UCC experience. Anyone else agree? Jonawiki 19:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Censor? I added the Doug Mackenzie info initially. However, on further reflection, his arrest made the papers, and I think mentioned he was a UCC student, but none of his charges are related to the school. Therefore, it wasn't a scandal for UCC at all. Mackenzie may, however, warrant his own article, or be listed in other articles that talk about sex-offenders. --G2bambino 16:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Additions

I would recommened that some of these points be added eventually, though I should add the article is looking incredible.

- School Trips such as the Swaziland trip that occurs every 2 years where homes are built under habitat for humanity - which is completely funded by the students. The Costa Rica trip serves similar purposes.

- The release of Stephen Leacock's essay on camping from the archives.

- The UCC Old Boy network hosted at www.ucc.on.ca

- Boarding life

All good suggestions. However, why not attempt to add some or all of them yourself? --gbambino 03:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I will, but progressively. I'm reponsible, as are you, for much of what's already there. I just haven't logged in. I did create the school programs, publications, IB etc sections.

Fair enough. It seems that nobody, besided us, and vandals, really edits this article anyway! --gbambino 21:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral POV?

Parts of this page read like a pamphlet from the school and even when the school's darker (racist/sexist) parts are mentioned, it seems fairly biased. Although most facts are cited, two of the editors of this page have the UCC tag in their profile. Someone who isn't from UCC should review this article.

Instead of making a sweeping statement about the article, could you please point out specifically where it seems that POV is directing the writing of the text? Stating that it "reads like a pamphlet" simply isn't enough - often pamphlets list facts, and, coincidentally, so does an encyclopaedia. Further, just because one went to the school doesn't mean they're automatically biased in favour of it - there have been Old Boy editors here who were quite the opposite, and did their best to insert every negative point they could (fortunately the compromise is the ethnic and sexism section as seen now, which I'd say is accurate and fairly balanced, rather than biased).

If you want to request a peer review, then by all means, do so (though I'd imagine it would require you registering with a user name, or asking someone with one to make the request for you), but, instead of that, or in the meantime, you might want to try yourself to correct or counter exactly what you see as currently biased. --gbambino 17:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Someon is being called in to review this article. A complaint has been made about Gbambino's churlishness in dealing with outside editors, and editors who don't share his/her POV.

I don't know if Gbambino is churlish but would agree that Gbambino certainly lacks a neutral POV in his edits. He seems intent on maximizing the amount of positive things to say about UCC in excrutiatingly boring detail (like WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY too much detail on cadets, architecture and historical minutiae). He also systematically challenges each and every insertion that has a negative implication for the reputation of the school. I showed it to one friend and his reaction was that Gbambino probably worked for the UCC staff. Jonawiki 19:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What you find boring others may not - I'm no particular fan of military history myself, but no doubt there are others who would find UCC's Cadet Corps of interest. As for your allegations about my "censoring" negative aspects of the school's past, I suggest you do more resarch into my edit history - I may come down hard on POV, but anything that's factual and relevant I don't remove. --G2bambino 16:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Churlishness: and I quote - "if you want to request a peer review, then by all means, do so (though I'd imagine it would require you registering with a user name, or asking someone with one to make the request for you)". 'Nuff said

Wikipedia tends to favour those who are registered with user names. Not my rule, simply pointing it out for your benefit. --G2bambino 16:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not from the school, but judging from Bambino's history, I think it's fair to say that he's done a great job helping to promote UCC's image on Wikipedia. Since I've been to the school a couple of times, I can tell you that the school is, without a doubt in my mind, absolutely the best university preparatory school in Canada. The school has a rich history and has produced alumni of the finest calibre. And for those who don't believe me (Or G2bambino in this case), you should go visit the school yourself. Because, yes, it really is that good. --Canadia 17:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Re-Ordering Article

I would like to suggest we delete the "Building Crisis" article. Only architectural historians would care about this extraordiarily niche write-up on UCC.

The "Athletics" section is a useless listing of sports in bullet form. I say we delete it.

I think "Ethnic and Gender Issues" are far more significant than "Cadets", "Move" and "Norval." As such, I propose we move "Ethnic and Gender Issues" above "Cadets", "Move" and "Norval."

The "Scandals" section should be placed at the top of the "Today" section, not hidden away in a redundant "Recent Events" section. Magonaritus 03:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the building crisis was a fairly significant part of UCC's history - it's included in other historical accounts of the College. As for the "Scandal" and "Ethnic and gender issues" sections, moving them to your proposed locations seems motivated by nothing more than a desire to degenerate the school as much as you can. As opposed to your personal opinions about importance and redundancy, is there actually a justifiable reason to move anything? --G2bambino 16:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources for scandals

Some of the allegations against individuals are shockingly unreferenced. The sections will be removed in accordance with Wikipedia policy if no sources are promptly forthcoming. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No mention of Herbert Sommerfeld, and the scandal at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.56.50 (talk) 04:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Featured Article

I was wondering: do you guys think that this article deserves to be one of Wikipedia's "Featured Articles?" --74.112.92.249 19:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It still has a number of citation needed tags that would definitely undermine any nomination. --G2bambino 17:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Work to be done for FA

I looked back at the discussions that went on before Canada was nominated as a featured article (archived here and here).

It seems some key things to focus on are:

• Avoid repeated info
• Make sure images are all fair use
• No {{fact}} tags (meaning all major assertions should be properly cited)
• NPOV
• Punctuation, grammar, spelling, etc.

Anybody else see any problems that need worked on? --G2bambino 18:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree completly. I believe the majority of pertinent information is already on the page, and is therefore sufficient - content wise.

• I believe all the images are in fair use. Regardless, Paul could grant their use officially.
• Citing if the major issue - especially with NPOV (Which I think the article already is). Many of the historical issues are lacking citation. Again, Winnell should be consulted for sourcing.
• Ultimately we are going to have to go paragraph by paragraph to edit.

Other than that, all I can say is we need to keep plugging. Synflame 21:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC - 5)

I'm not sure about Paul granting fair use to any images - perhaps those that fall under the school's copyright, but I don't know which ones those are, nor how it could be proven that anyone had granted free use to them. Anyway, I don't think it matters, as long as they've all got a good fair-use rationale, which I think most do right now. The only one that's a little bit dubious is this one: Image:UCC-1.jpg, though I've been wanting to replace it with a better image anyway.

Much of the history section comes from Dick Howard's Upper Canada College, 1829-1979: Colborne's Legacy of from William Killbourn's Toronto Remembered - the problem is that there's a footnote every few paragraphs instead of after every sentence containing a factual assertion. Don't know how to sort that out... either put the specific page where the info comes from, or in the footnote say "paragraph from Howard, Richard; Upper Caanda College, 1829.... etc."

The following I know happened (as I personally witnessed them) but not sure where there's a source:

• "In 1991, UCC was visited by the Hungarian President Árpád Göncz, who would soon after enrol his grandson at the school."
• "...and in 1993, Prince Philip again visited to officially open the Foster Hewitt Athletic Centre, the Eaton Building, as well as the rebuilt College gates, the Mara Gates, at the foot of the main avenue."
• "...the bunk-house, known as Stephen House, won a Massey Medal for excellence in architecture."
• "After the closing of the Gardens in 2000, the event was moved to the Air Canada Centre and then the Ricoh Coliseum. Over the decades other games were added to the roster, including a game involving the school's Junior Varsity team, the final game of the house hockey tournament, and a game between Havergal College and Bishop Strachan School. By the early 1990s, pleasure skating, and Prep School games had been added to the evening's schedule."

Do we need sources for everything? --G2bambino 22:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Also foud a missing date in this paragraph: "The College maintains and administers its own publishing company, the UCC Press. The Press, which produces all school publishings, also once printed professional texts, novels and histories, such as those by Robert Lowell. The latter ceased in 19??; today, the UCC Press still prints the majority of school related publishings (newspaper, alumni magazines, financial reports etc), save the College Times." --G2bambino 23:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So when are you guys going to nominate UCC as one of the featured articles? --74.112.92.249 07:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I still don't think it's up to snuff. There's still a bunch of assertions about the school being the wealthiest, or the arts programme being the most endowed, without any cites to back up the claims. As well, I think length is still an issue. The guidelined for featured articles is here: Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. --G2bambino 17:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the history section to its own dedicated article, thus reducing the length of this one. Still seems to need some compressing, though. I've also nominated the page for a peer review, as recommened in the FA guidelines. --G2bambino 20:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

G2bambino: Stop Hiding UCC's Dirty Laundry

G2bambino, it's really pathetic and transparent your attempts to hide UCC's dirty laundry on scandals and ethnic/gender issues by relegating them to the "History" article. These 2 issues are not historical, they are current affairs because they are still so recent and still playing out as we speak. I like how your edit history only refers to these mass deletions as simply "reducing the history section." Disgusting. Stop being such a shill. You really need to look deep into your soul and better understand what NEUTRAL means as in "NEUTRAL Point of View". All you ever do in this article is compulsively edit this article with the agenda of minimizing any negatives and maximizing any positives about this school.

Firstly, I'll remind you to be civil. Secondly, the "dirty laundry" hasn't been hidden anywhere. What's been done is that the lengthy history component has been given its own article, with a summary on this page, and a link to the sister article. As you'll note, this is as per common Wikipedia policy. I'm sure you'll also note that the history summary here makes reference to the scandals, etc. If you have any evidence that points to contemporary issues regarding bigotry or sexism, please provide it and it can be addressed in this article. Otherwise, it remains history. As for the sexual scandals, there is, as far as can be found, one class action suit against the school still open. I will mention this in the history section. And, thirdly, sign your name when you post. --G2bambino 23:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

-- I have reverted your deletions. Your excuse to hide the school's dirty laundry does not pass the smell test.

-- Since you're a member of the Monarchist League of Canada, the whitest, WASPiest club in Canada, of course you would like to think that ethnic/gender issues at UCC are "history", but they are not.

-- The scandals, you admit yourself, are still on-going and only started several years ago. How convenient that the Doug Brown case that STARTED in 2003 and did not end until 2005 is now "history".

-- Lastly, you hold the Featured Article standard for Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools in high regard. What does that article say on structure? It says "The key to writing a good school article is to explain why the school is unique. What makes it different from every other school? Does it have special programs? A history of championship sports teams? Famous alumni? Has there been a noteworthy event there?" If you take a look at their 4 Featured Article examples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:FA-Class_school_articles), you'll see that these schools will have sections on topics unique to them like "Student Privileges", "Uniforms", "In Popular Culture" and "Accusations of Bias in Admissions Test". If you do a search for UCC in the news, the 2 most common topics on the school will deal with scandals, sexism and racism. They define the school. Jonawiki 23:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

-- On Jan 20, 2007, you added an insanely boring section on the HISTORY of the school motto and crest going back to the 1800s. Shouldn't THAT go into your little article on the "HISTORY of UCC"? I mean, my God, who honestly cares about the graphical evolution of the school crest from the 1800s till today? You consider the Doug Brown case of 2003 to 2005 "history" but this you do not? Hypocritical much? Jonawiki 23:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The scandals are a recent part of a long history. They are given due mention in the summary of the school's history here, and covered in detail in the school's main history article. If there is anything more ongoing than what is mentioned, please provide the evidence. --G2bambino 23:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I have to add the following: the Doug Brown case is currently under appeal (both conviction and sentence), so its hard to categorize it as "a recent part of a long history". It is a contemporary, ongoing legal proceeding. G2bambino, you mention above "as for the sexual scandals, there is, as far as can be found, one class action suit against the school still open". Seems to me that that would move the whole issue smack into the present, no? You're speaking about a CLASS ACTION (i.e., a lawsuit with so many plaintiffs that the court will, if certified, have to appoint a representative plaintiff before the suit moves forward). Maybe you can explain your rationale in a little more detail about why you think this subject should form part of the school's "history" - because it really isn't readily apparent.Blunders of the third kind 18:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Past cases are past cases - I don't know how anyone can argue that something closed and finished is not now a part of history. However, if there's a cite for anything currently ongoing, then let's add it as a current event. I can understand why Jonawiki would refuse to accept my openness to that, but I'm a little confused as to why everyone else is jumping on this "Bambino is a fascist censor" bandwagon. I added a bit about the class action suit as I think its still ongoing, though I haven't yet been able to pull out a source for it. I believe there's only four or five plaintiffs. I'm unaware of what's going on with Brown - but, as I said, if we've got evidence to back up a claim that its still ongoing, then... put it in! --G2bambino 19:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Blunders of the Third Kind, as an FYI, in response to your comment, B2bambino decided to delete the entire Scandals section. Nice, huh? Jonawiki 23:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The scandal and ethnic/gender issue sections have been in the main UCC article now for several months. Please stop censoring and deleting UCC's dirty laundry. I have put them back. As per the "Featured Articles" on Secondary School guidelines, these are the EXACT type of things you should be including in a secondary school feature article... they speak to the uniqueness and media notability of the school. Pretty much any newspaper article on UCC is either going to talk about the rape scandals or the racist/sexist sins of the UCC establishment. Ghettoizing these issues to your obscure "History of UCC" article is not satisfactory. Please do the mature thing and stop deleting things over and over again. Discuss it here instead of engaging in an immature revert war. In addition, I deleted your motto/crest section. You can place your write-up on crests and mottos into your "History of UCC" article at your discretion since that topic is clearly historical in nature, has no current affairs relevance and is not interesting enough to warrant space in the main UCC article. Jonawiki 22:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There are 175 years worth of newspaper articles that mention UCC, only some in the past 10 will mention the sex scandals. Not one contains anything about "racist sins", and only one, published 13 years ago, alludes to anything remotely bordering on sexism. Please follow your own advice re. the reverting and discussion; and, pertaining to that, I've already explained that the moving of the majority (note: not all; or have you even read the current history section?) of the info about past scandals and ethnic/gender issues (of which I wrote about 75%) to a main history article is as per WP guidelines. What seems to be your sole beef is that the "dirty laundry" isn't being given the prominence you think it should. Well, the reality is that your claim about the scandals "defining the school" is merely your own POV, which, I'm sorry to tell you, doesn't matter here. If you want to slander the school, get your own blog and do so; stop using Wikipedia as a free way to promote your grudge. --G2bambino 23:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I've requested that a mediator be brought in to deal with this problem. --G2bambino 00:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

- Your POV is that of a marketing brochure. Stop using Wiki as a free way to hype how awesome you think UCC is. Do it in your Live Journal and be done with it.

- I deleted your crazy boring historical treatise on crests and mottos. It doesn't belong in the main article. It needs to be banished to the "History of UCC" article that nobody but your mom will read.

- I put back in the scandal and ethnic/gender sections. They have been there for MANY MONTHS now. You need to DISCUSS things HERE first BEFORE deleting whole sections that that the Wiki community colloborated on.

- Please try to reply to people point by point. I know it's to your advantage to conveniently ignore certain issues and points that people raise, but it only reinforces the impressions that you have a POV agenda and that you're not discussing issues in good faith. Your last statement above borders on incoherence. Jonawiki 00:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The simple thing to do here is until mediation is resolved is to leave in both sections till you hear otherwise rather than continually taking out one seciton or the other in a revertt war. Leave them both (Personally nothing wrong with lots of info on said subject). Till wiki mediation says otherwise.--Xiahou 00:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, mediation is welcome. However, this isn't an issue of deletion: the sex abuse scandals and ethnic issues are still mentioned in brief on this article, and covered in detail at the sister article History of Upper Canada College. This was done to reduce the length of this article, as per WP guidelines. Jonawiki merely seems upset that the scandals aren't being given the prominence he feels they deserve, and has, for some reason, targeted the crest and motto section for revenge. One way or the other, I don't care if the crest and motto section is moved to History of Upper Canada College as well. --G2bambino 00:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's unfortunate that G2Bambino acted like a little child in continuing to delete the sections on Scandals and Ethnic/Gender issues. Hopefully he will stop the revert war. I look forward to discussing why his Crest/Motto section needs to be banished to the History of UCC article where it belongs. Jonawiki 00:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to congratulate G2bambino on all the fine work he has put into this article. Kudos.

As for Jonawiki's demeanor.... no comment.

Having said that, I would like to chime in on a couple of things:

(1) G2bambino's editorial choices IMHO show a pattern of excluding content critical of UCC and "balancing" substantive criticisms with positive trivialities.

(2) The essay on the crest should go into the article on the History of Upper Canada College, not in this main article.

(3) G2bambino should stop deleting the sections on Scandals and Ethnic & Gender Issues. As Jonawiki rightly pointed out, they have been in the article for at least several months. The burden of proof rests with G2bambino to argue why these sections should be deleted before he goes around removing content without community discussion.

(4) I think G2bambino was right to call in a mediator. Magonaritus 02:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your compliments re. the article. It's much appreicated. However, I do take some issue with the implication that I "deleted" content "without community discussion."

Firstly, I'll repeat myself so that it's clear: I wrote 75% of the Scandals and Ethnic & Gender Issues sections myself.

Secondly, they weren't simply deleted. They were subs of the History section within this article; they therefore went (in full, no less) with the rest of the History section to the sister article History of Upper Canada College, with a reduced history here that still made reference to the past scandals, etc. This was done because this article was much too long to be approved for FA status; and I explicitly stated my motives at the end of the preceeding section here at Talk. Of course, this whole stink Jonawiki has caused has erased any chances of the article becoming an FA; one of the FA criteria is that the article be "stable."

Anyway, I still maintain the belief that because the Ethnic and Gener Issues and Scandals are a part of the school's history, and were in the History section before, they should be presented fully in the History of Upper Canada College article, and mentioned in the History summary here. Further, the "scandals" still ongoing should be covered in a Current events section, or something similar. --G2bambino 20:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's laughable to state that you wrote 75% of the Scandals and Ethnic/Gender Issues sections. Not. True. Oh, and irrelevent. (Unless stroking your own ego is relevent?)

You stated and then deleted the following questions "Anyway, why is there a problem with creating balance? Isn't it our mission to provide impartial information, so as not to create a slanted perception, despite the fact that some editors might wish otherwise?" This is the problem with your notion of NPOV: as Magonaritus pointed out, you feel it's appropriate to balance a substantive negative with a trivial positive. This is ludicrous. For example, this would be your NPOV on Nazis: "Nazis hated Jews and killed many of them. However, Nazis were quite clean. Nazis hated homosexuals and killed many of them. However, Nazis were quite polite to each other. Nazis invaded every country around them unprovoked. However, Nazis believed in educating their children." Point in fact, you're NOT NPOV on UCC, you're a living breathing propaganda machine that is trying to turn Wikipedia into a marketing brochure for the school.

I'll ask again for the 6th time, knowing that you'll ignore the question, for the 6th time: why is the motto/crest section not in the "History of UCC" article? It's about the past. It talks about 1800s this and 1800s that. It has no relevance to the school today which the crest/motto at the top of the page hasn't already addressed. For you, the Doug Brown case of 2003 to 2005 is "history" but the motto/crest section is not? I look forward to you once again ignoring your hypocrisy on this matter for a 6th time. Jonawiki 22:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, you are a boor who provides nothing constructive. Dealing with you is a waste of anyone's time. I'll wait to see if someone else of a saner mind will provide some thought on this issue. --G2bambino 22:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You have called me a "boor" or a "crude uncouth ill-bred person lacking culture or refinement." Hmmm... that sounds like a personal attack to me. You should be aware of the Wiki policy on No Personal Attacks WP:NPA. I'll leave you a reminder about WP:NPA on your talk page.

Oh, and congrats, as I predicted, you avoided explaining why the Motto/Crest section should not be moved into the "History of UCC" article for the 6th time. I look forward to raising your hypocritical position once again for a 7th time in the near future. Jonawiki 23:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A third opinion has been requested. --G2bambino 23:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Mine's not the requested third opinion, but apparently I'm the originator of this article and I was asked to comment. Anyway, the scandals should obviously be mentioned in the main article, since they are important to understanding the school's current state and position. How much information about them should be in the article is another question, though, and one which it's wise to ask for mediation on. I don't think we need a subsidiary article about the history of UCC, either – little of the history of any school is going to be really important, by which I mean necessary to understand how the school developed into what it is today.

To my mind the bigger problem is the massive amount of trivia in the article. Does the world really need to know about the Joe Cressy Golf Tournament? The article about St. Michael's College School had the same problems last time I looked; I hope the inflation of these articles isn't some form of inter-school rivalry. John FitzGerald 00:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I just checked. The St. Mike's article has been extensively and neatly trimmed. John FitzGerald 00:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly all for neatness, and I too have wondered about the value of information on things like the Green Report and Grandparents' Day. However, I loathe to remove them for fear of the debate arising as to what is pertinent to keep and what isn't; ie. where do we draw the line? (That problem has already arisen over who should be on the selective list of notable alumni on this page.) I am sure, though, that only the most important parts of UCC's history should be outlined here, as you said, to help understand basicly how the school has developed into its present incarnation. However, the school's full history really is lengthy and thick with important persons and events. Similarly, we don't need every detail of the trial of Lorne Cook or what the contents of Ashley Chivers' computer were on this article - though the subject definitely merits full space elsewhere. Perhaps the Scandals and Ethnic sections can remain here, but be edited down to the basics with more fleshed out text at the History of Upper Canada College article. --G2bambino 00:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Good luck with it, all of you. Obviously between you you have the capacity to turn out a pretty good article. You may argue a lot more but St. Augustine said something about heat being necessary to produce gold. Luckily I went to a school with no history of distinction, except perhaps as a producer of scruff. Oh – as a former educational researcher in T. O. I should add the caution that assertions about the school's academic excellence should include the caveat that its students have characteristics which would enable them to do well in any school (they come from high-achieving families who can afford to promote their children's academic achievement outside the curriculum). Lawrence Park Collegiate has an exceptional academic record for the same reason. There are also technical problems with any system for ranking schools by achievement. I used to rank schools by achievement for the separate board, and I can assure you that the best-known published rankings, including EQAO's, have to be taken with many grains of salt. I will check back about that issue. John FitzGerald 17:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

How can we talk about UCC nowadays without mentioning the scandals front and center? For the past decade, any major article about UCC in the Star or Globe is about the scandals. They have no place in an article hidden away on the history of UCC. Also, UCC has a reputation as a prestigious WASPish old-boys-club institution. Again, the ethnic and sexual politics are not a matter of historical interest, but speak to the very unique character of the school. Is Gambino a UCC employee? He seems to spend an enormous amount of time working on the UCC article and most of his edits seem to be sneakily pro-UCC. Gambino sure loves his weasel words. 12.198.166.130 00:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think "weasel words" and "sneakily" qualify as personal abuse. You know, even I am not perfect. The reason there is open editing here is to allow others to correct one's personal biases. And while i think the scandals should be prominently mentioned, putting them "front and centre" seems inappropriate. Is it your intention that the article start with something like "UCC is a private school in Toronto famous for sex scandals"? That's scarcely a fair statement of its chief historical role, which is preserving the power of the Canadian establishment. As I noted, this problem was solved in the article about St. Mike's. And there are ways of dealing with unreasonable edits. G2bambino (sic) has suggested a reasonable plan. if you have a reason for preferring another why not tell us? John FitzGerald 14:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Accusing someone of using weasel words is not personal abuse. It's an official Wiki policy to avoid weasel words, see WP:Weasel for more information.

No, I don't think that the article should start with "UCC is a private school in Toronto famous for sex scandals". But let's face facts, if you have read the Globe, Post, Sun or Star over the past decade, many of the articles discussing UCC have been about the scandals. The scandals and ethnic/gender issues are FAR more important, notable and relevant to understanding UCC than trivial and narcissistic details such as maple syrup manufacturing at Norval, the Battalion Ball's origin in 1887, Sir George Parkin as a notable faculty member or that mountain biking is a sanctioned sport at UCC. When was the last time you saw an article in the newspaper about any of these things?

G2bambino keeps finding exuses to squirrel these sections away. As such, I question the neutrality of his POV. No, I do not find his plan reasonable. My plan: just leave these sections alone. Keep the status quo. They have been there for many months. They are somewhat well written and reasonably well sourced. If you want to shorten the article, go make editorial cuts to other less important and more narcissistic sections of the article. But leave scandals and ethnic/gender issues alone. 12.198.166.130 17:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sections of the article that are great candidates for shortening or cutting include:

>List of Principals: cut this, or put it into the article about the history of Upper Canada College

>Note Faculty: cut most of these people, if they're not notable enough to have an article about them in Wiki, then it's not worth listing them here

>Branches: cut this or make it into a sentence rather than a long bullet point that wastes space. The cities mentioned are hyperlinked to Wiki articles about the city, not to any info about the branches.

>Norval: too much information, needs trimming. Should probably be subsumed into the section on "Campus and facilities"

>School events: too much informationa about the 19th century origins of events, needs trimming

>Athletics: same situation as "Branches" above

>Over Usage of Subsections: Get rid of subsection headings 2.1, 2.2, 4.1, 5.1, 7.1, 13.1, 13.1.1, 13.2. I'm not saying to get rid of the text in these subsections. I'm just saying the text doesn't warrant a structured subsection heading like that. It makes the Content tab longer than it needs to be. 12.198.166.130 17:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• An encyclopaedia lists facts, and we construct the articles here in a format that begins with general overview and moves on to more minute detail. Separating the scandals and ethnic/gender information from the history implies two things: 1) these are current, still ongoing events, and 2) the information within them is absolutely necessary to give readers an overview of the College. Firstly, it's clear they are not current, and secondly, asserting that they are needed in full to understand UCC is merely an unfounded opinion; the prevelance of what's printed in the media is not a justifiable defence; the media's full of scandals instead of maple syrup making because scandals sell papers, maple syrup does not. The scandals and ethnic/gender info is covered in the history section as per our third opinion moderator's suggestion.
• Thank you for your more constructive suggestions. I've tried to make an attempt to incorporate some of them, though I'm not sure the current events section should be eliminated; where else could this pertinent info go? --G2bambino 21:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

(1) Actually, the Third Opinion did NOT suggest placing the Scandals section in the History article. He did not suggest anything with regards to the Scandals section.

(2) You assert that the Scandals section does not reflect "current, still ongoing events", but I thought several folks above have already shown that these Scandals are in fact still going through the court system and represent the very recent past. In fact, the consensus above seems to be that the Scandals section should remain in the main article.

(3) I find it somewhat odd and disturbing that you would assert that Ethnic and Gender issues at UCC are not "current, still ongoing events". Again, it seems that some of the events discussed in that section happened only within the past decade or two. I don't really consider that "history."

(4) Just because something happens in the recent past does not mean it should be in a History article. Should "In Popular Culture" sections go into History articles? (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuyvesant_High_School#In_popular_culture). Other educational institutions have seen fit to include issues of racism and controversy of the recent past in their main articles (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_State_University, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryville_High_School_%28Tennessee%29).

(5) You seem dismissive of the fact that just because something is reported in the news, it carries no substantive weight, and that the media only reports flighty sensational trash like... oh... I don't know... rape and racism at UCC? But I thought Wikipedia gave great deference to information reported by multiple secondary sources... aka notability (see WP:notability). Since there is so much notability about UCC as a den of sexual predation and white upper class protestant power structures, shouldn't these notable issues be acknowledged and explored? Magonaritus 05:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There has been no "consensus" on keeping the scandals in a separate section, other than the one between you and Jonawiki (though, you two may well be the same person); John FitzGerald stated they should be mentioned on this article, and they are. From the third opinion it can be taken that if the ethnic/gender issuas go in the history because they are past cases, then so would the scandals; recent history is still history, as noted below. There is only one case currently open against the school - it is addressed in the current events section. If you can give evidence of any kind of ethnic/gender issue presently at UCC, provide it. Until then, that there are any is simply your own fabrication. The articles you gave as examples are on schools that do not have as lengthy of a history (or, at least, a lenghty history has not been written), and therefore don't warrant a separate, dedicated history article. This one does. Lastly, the scandals, etc. are notable enough to be covered in the history article, even being given their own separate sections, but your and Jonawiki's assertion that their prevalance in the media supports their being given prominance in this article is baseless - Wikipedia is not a tabloid rag. --G2bambino 05:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your deletions again. Those sections have been in the article for months now. I will not allow you to delete them unilaterally. This is not your personal article. Can someone bring in mediation or arbitration? Thanks. Magonaritus 07:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The full history section was in the article for months; the sections you insist on reinstating were within it. The majority of the history section has been moved to a specific UCC history article. The burden of proof is on you to identify why the sections should now a) be separated from the history, and b) not be reduced here with detail in the UCC history article. Saying "but, it was in all the papers!" simply isn't good enough. I am attempting to edit this article to an FA standard, which takes work. Part of the criteria is that the article be "of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail," as per WP:Summary Style, which states "when there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own entry, that text can be excised from the present entry and replaced by a link." The former history section, including detail on scandals, qualified. It would be appreciated that instead of undoing all my work, you contribute to making the article better quality. --G2bambino 08:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

(1) You need to get your facts straight. This is the umpteenth time that you have assert factual inaccuracies in this talk page. The factual error you just made was to state that Scandals was part of the History section. But that's just not true. It was part of the Recent Events section, a totally separate section. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Upper_Canada_College&diff=103548613&oldid=103548503. So given your logic, the Scandals section should remain in the main article in the renamed Current Events section.

(2) You state that l have the burden of proof to show why the Ethnic/Gender and Scandal sections should NOT be deleted out of the main article. Can you please point out the Wiki policy that says the burden of proof lies with those who want do undo a deletion? The closest I can find to such a policy has the opposite stance. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikipediAhimsa "When in doubt, don't deleteThat is, edit towards a goal, not away from what you think is bad. If someone contributes something which you find unclear or misleading, polish their work to make it shine. This polishing may involve deletion, but that shouldn't be considered the intent of the edit."

(3) You state that you want to edit this article to an FA standard. Well, I checked the FA standard for schools at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools. It states "The key to writing a good school article is to explain why the school is unique. What makes it different from every other school? Does it have special programs? A history of championship sports teams? Famous alumni? Has there been a noteworthy event there?". How can you argue that the Scandals do not meet the criteria of making UCC "unique" and "different from every other school" and do not constitute a "noteworthy event."? The history of ethnic and gender issues given the school's "prestigious" reputation also meet this criteria. As such, you MUST include Scandals and Ethnic/Gender issues in the main article to qualify it as an FA article.

(4) Again, I ask you respectfully, please stop deleting these 2 sections for now. Please respect the status quo (that these 2 sections remain in the main article) until mediation can run its full course. I know you have put a lot of effort into this article, and we all appreciate it, but this does not give you special privileges to unilateally make editorial decisions and to unilaterally ignore consensus (See WP:CON for more information).

(5) For the record, may I ask, are you an employee of UCC? Or do you have some fiduciary or financial interest in the school?

(6) To further emphasize the "currentness" of the Scandals, I will be adding the latest development on the scandals to the main article per the Toronto Star article from February 2nd, 2007 (See http://www.thestar.com/News/article/177488) in which it states: "Upper Canada College has formally apologized to victims of sexual abuse at the prestigious school, saying that as an institution it "failed the victims and their families, and for this we feel immense sorrow and regret." The apology came in a letter sent to the entire UCC community – including students and their parents as well as past students, known as "old boys" – earlier this week. It referred to the sexual abuse of students as the most difficult issue the school has had to face in its 177-year history." The school has admitted now how significant the scandal has been to the school. This is an important and necessary issue that needs to be covered when discussing the school. Magonaritus 18:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic/gender issues was part of the history section, scandals was part of recent events - you are correct. Recent events is not the same as current events; recent events are in the recent past; as stated by our third opinion moderator below: "History doesn't need to entail 100-year-old accomplishments, it can be as recent as three months ago." You still cannot explain why the scandals make the school "unique" - a number of schools in Canada have been targeted recently with sex abuse charges, including Selwyn House, St. Andrew's, Appleby College, and Bishop's College School [1]. UCC's appeared more in the media because the school is already famous, it did not become famous because of the scandals. You also seem to operate under the assumption that the article makes no mention of the scandals or ethnic/gender issues, which makes me wonder whether you've actually read the article, or are just blindly reverting to get what you want. The issues are addressed in the current history section, in an abbreviated form; again, as said below "A paragraph or two should suffice to cover this issue." The court cases outlined belong in the history because they, save for one brought forth by Doug Mackenzie, are over. Thank you, however, for the link to the article re. the letter. Some reference can be made to it in the history section. As for status quo - there is none. This article is being edited to improve its quality - restoring the whole history section and separate recent events sections will be contrary to that effort. --G2bambino 19:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

I've removed the 3O request, as it looks like it would be around a 6O at this point. If an agreement can't be reached, I would advise filing a request for comment (probably the "society, law, and sex" category), or going ahead with the proposal for mediation if everyone will participate. I would also encourage everyone to remember to comment on the content, not the contributor, there's no need to speculate on anyone's motives. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 01:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I will address each issue numerically:

1. The Motto and Crest section should be merged into History of Upper Canada College, or even made into a separate article. Please follow the format similar to FAs like Cornell University and Duke University.
2. Ethnic and gender issues should be merged into the history section. While they are necessary to understanding the going ons in the college, there needn't be a whole section on it. History doesn't need to entail 100-year-old accomplishments, it can be as recent as three months ago. A paragraph or two should suffice to cover this issue.
3. I must emphasize the point of civility to Jonawiki and G2bambino, to which I need not give examples of incivility. I acknowledge the fact that keeping a cool head in such a hot environment is very hard (flashback), but I encourage the two of you to read WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:EW.
4. Though unrelated, I noticed that there was a request for peer review. My utmost problem with this article is the number of sections that can be split away into articles. Please consider this option, as this article is very large and unwieldy. Look at the format for University FA's. bibliomaniac15 01:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have attempted to address these recommendations. --G2bambino 17:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring third opinion

Magonaritus, the third opinion moderator explicitly stated "Ethnic and gender issues should be merged into the history section"; you have repeatedly undone the edits I did to conform the article to this recommendation. I suggest you undo your revert, otherwise you are clearly editing in bad faith and to make a point, both of which will get you blocked. --G2bambino 21:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

(1) Please provide the link showing that Third Opinions are binding.

(2) *I* never asked for the Third Opinion. You did.

(3) According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes#Discuss_with_third_parties, Third Opinions are for "disputes involving only two editors". Those two editors were you and Jonawiki. But now more than two editors are involved in a dispute because 12.198.166.130 and myself (and others in previous posts such as Blunders, Xiahou, etc.) disagree with you. Consensus (see WP:CON) is against you. Isn't Request For Comments now the proper avenue for dispute resolution in this circumstance?

(4) The Third Opinion from bibliomaniac was lazily done. He made the mistake of ignoring the issue of what to do with the Scandals section. Because of that massive error on his part, I hold little confidence in his Third Opinion. His whole opinion is suspect as far as I'm concerned.

(5) You are violating Civility for so eagerly "Calling for bans or blocks" just because I disagree with you (See WP:CIV)Please be civil, no need to resort to threats just because of this. Magonaritus 21:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Third opinions are most certainly not binding decisions, they're just a potentially quick way to resolve a dispute. If you still disagree, try mediation or a request for comment on the article. I encourage everyone, however, to avoid edit warring, that never ends well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 22:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Magonaritus, your 3RR violation was brought to a moderator's attention; that does not constitute "calling for bans or blocks" because you disagree with me. You violated WP policy; period. I see no agreement with you on the part of anyone besides Jonawiki - Xianhou only left a comment at Jonawiki's page re. his being warned about disruptive edits (which makes me wonder even more if you and Jona are the same person), Blunders asked a question about my motives and then departed, and 12 is just Jonawiki editing without signing in. Two users - Seraphimblade and John FitzGerald have supported, or, at least, partly supported my plan for the article. I've made a request for comment - though, it seems that attempts at intervention don't matter if I request them. --G2bambino 22:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

This is a dispute about the content and structure of this article.

Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute

• Previously, this article contained a lengthy History section as well as separate Current events section, the former included an Ethnic and gender issues subsection, and the latter included a Scandals subsection. In an effort to cut down on the minute detail in this article to acheive FA standards, the full History section, including the Ethnic and gender issues subsection, was moved to a newly created History of Upper Canada College article, with a more brief History, still mentioning the ethnic/gender issues, created here. To further reduce the article content, the Recent events section was split, with the current building project going into Current events, the Scandals subsection being moved in full to the History of Upper Canada College article, and a paragraph about them added to the History section here; these cases are now closed, and thus form a part of the school's history. The one ongoing case against UCC is covered in Current events. These scandals and ethnic/gender issues do not warrant full, detailed sections in this main article; they do not define ths school (a number of other Canadian private schools have faced sex abuse charges in the past decade); their prevalence in the media was due to the school already being famous, not the other way around; and there has been no mention of racism or sexism at UCC since one journalist commented on gender issues in 1994. --G2bambino 23:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Upper_Canada_College#G2bambino:_Stop_Hiding_UCC.27s_Dirty_Laundry for the detailed discussion surrounding why Scandals and Ethnic/Gender issues should or should not be deleted from the main article. Magonaritus 23:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Move most of the "Scandals and Ethnic & gender issues" to a sub article. Restore all deleted material that is sourced and put it in the sub-article. Keep a small section called "controversies" that should outline the most notable aspects of the Scandals and Ethnic & gender issues in about 3, at most 4 paragraphs. the section should have "main article" link to the sub-article will all of the controversies. futurebird 23:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Would the Controversies section be a sub of the current History? The notable aspects of the scandals, etc., are already there; just need a sub-heading created. --G2bambino 23:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't think so. My main point is that this information should be easy to find, but it need not dominate the main article. futurebird 23:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, not all of these problems appear to be "in the past" futurebird 23:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think (viewing from the outside) that the Controversies section should be a sub of the History Brian | (Talk) 01:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm new here too, I worry that doing so will make this section too hard to find. They should not take up as much space in the main article as they now do, but they should be mentioned. Putting them in the history section represents the POV that these things are "all in the past" perhaps that is true, but there are sources that do not agree so their view should also be present. futurebird 02:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

true, I did not view it that way, I would still favour moving most of the info to history, but perhaps a small mention else where in the article text could be a good comprise Brian | (Talk) 02:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Might I ask what sources state that the court cases covered in the history section are still ongoing? There is only one class action lawsuit still open, the other five are done. I'm also not sure that putting controversies as a sub within history would make it hard to find - it's a matter of either being a 1 or a 1.1; hardly a big difference. I only support this as it makes for a better structure to the article. --G2bambino 02:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

G2bambino, like you, I only want to ensure a "better structure to the article". So let me answer your genuine puzzlement on how the Scandal issues are "still ongoing." You seem to have a problem understanding what is written very plainly in the Scandals section. Perhaps I can assist with your difficulty in reading comprehension.

(1) Just a couple of weeks ago, "the school mailed a letter to the entire UCC community apologizing for the sexual and physical abuse at the school and referring to the abuse of students as the most difficult issue the school has had to face in its 177-year history". Would you consider this letter from several weeks ago a matter for "history"? Really? Honestly?

(2) Doug Brown is still serving out his 2005 sentence as we speak.

(3) The Sommerfeld civil suit is still pending as we speak.

(4) Cook's conditional sentence is still in effect as we speak.

(5) The apology letter from UCC from a couple of weeks ago only makes sense in the context of ALL rapes and child pornography that has occurred and "passed", including those of Noble and Chivers. Magonaritus 03:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

1) Yes.

2) Doug Brown serving his sentence is not a scandal for UCC.

3) There is no Sommerfeld suit, there is a class action suit in which he is named. That suit is mentioned in the current events section.

4) Lorne Cook serving his sentence is not a scandal for UCC.

5) The apology letter and its contents are mentioned in the history section; as you note: it pertains to what has passed. Is the past anything other than history to you? --G2bambino 04:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please hold off on deleting the Scandals section. You JUST requested comments only several hours ago. Not all comments are in. It's too early for you to start acting like a FINAL conclusion or consensus has been reached. Please cease & desist from any further deletions or edits. Magonaritus 05:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Five people have voiced approval for reducing the detail, of which four support a separate controversies section. Whether or not that controversies section is separate from history has yet to be determined. I am making an effort to bring about a compromise resolution; you simply want to keep as much negative information as you can front and centre in the article. --G2bambino 05:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Your assertions are untrue. You're twisting and exaggerating so as to support deleting the sections ASAP. Magonaritus 05:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

How so? --G2bambino 05:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please list the 5 people in the RfC process who suggested you create a Controvery article. of course, that might be difficult since only 2 people have responded so far to the RfC in the past few hours. Ergo, one example of your twisting & exaggerating to support a point.

Does the RfC process expire in 6 hours or something? What's with the rush to come to resolution in 6 hours or less? I'd advise letting the RfC process work itself out over the next few days, give people a chance to respond, and THEN start making edits based on critical mass of comments. Until then, please cease & desist from further deletions of the article. Magonaritus 05:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

1) To my suggestion "Perhaps the Scandals and Ethnic sections can remain here, but be edited down to the basics with more fleshed out text at the History of Upper Canada College article", User:John FitzGerald said: "Sounds like a plan."

2) User:Bibliomaniac15: "Ethnic and gender issues should be merged into the history section. While they are necessary to understanding the going ons in the college, there needn't be a whole section on it. History doesn't need to entail 100-year-old accomplishments, it can be as recent as three months ago. A paragraph or two should suffice to cover this issue."

3) User:Futurebird: "Move most of the 'Scandals and Ethnic & gender issues' to a sub article... Keep a small section called 'controversies' that should outline the most notable aspects of the Scandals and Ethnic & gender issues in about 3, at most 4 paragraphs."

4) User:Brian New Zealand: "I would still favour moving most of the info to history, but perhaps a small mention else where in the article text could be a good comprise."

5) Me.

I did not say five wanted a separate controversies article, I said five have advocated reducing the detail of the sections under debate. The five examples above support my claim. It seems only three support a distinct contoversies section: Futurebird, Brian and myself. Bibliomaniac only said ethnic/gender issues should be merged into the history section. --G2bambino 05:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Other

TO ALL: Please ignore the above paragraph "summary" written by G2bambino. It is transparently biased and replete with factual errors, mischaracterizations and half-truths. Instead, please refer to the extensive discussions found above at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Upper_Canada_College#G2bambino:_Stop_Hiding_UCC.27s_Dirty_Laundry. Thanks. Magonaritus 23:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

In what ways do you think the statement of the RFC is unfair? futurebird 02:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

On the service issue, I removed not mandatory. Service is required under the IB (granted the number of hours is pithy). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.134.139.13 (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What I found

Well, although I've never looked in to this before I did a search on google and I think that the concerns about sexism merit at least a mention in the main article.

• Going Co-Ed: Elite Private Schools in Canada Mary Percival Maxwell, James D. Maxwell Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Summer, 1995), pp. 333-357

  Fifty-one of the 58 member schools of the Canadian Association of Independent Schools were founded as single-sex schools and the majority remained so for most of their history; only 7 were founded on a co-educational ideology. CAIS schools have played a crucial role in the social reproduction of the upper classes and the institutional elites. Since 1970, many of these schools have "gone co-ed" and by 1992, 33 schools were co-educational at the secondary level. The forces that led to so many abandoning the "ideology of single-sex schooling" and embracing co-education are examined. The implications for gender relations and the social reproduction of elites are assessed.

• Old Boys: The Powerful Legacy of Upper Canada College By James Fitzgerald

  The author selected 71 interviews with old boys from the 300 oral histories recorded. The interviews are grouped into four sections roughly corresponding to the time periods of the previous four principals and cover old boys who attended the school from 1919 to 1993. The accounts are dramatic and sometimes poignant. They include the names of classmates, masters, and principals then at school and forthright judgments of their character and effectiveness. Although these oral histories reflect some editing, they are rich, primary sources on many themes. The themes include: the role of the student subcultures; perceptions of the school’s role in the respondents’ experiences in their personality development and intellectual, athletic, and interpersonal skills; and views on the school’s role in class reproduction. The interlocking themes of competition, homophobia, homosexuality, patriarchy, sexism, racism, and abuse permeate many accounts in all periods.

futurebird 03:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the co-ed thing has to do with sexism - a number of schools, such as Bishop Strachan School, are single-sex institutions but attract no accusations of being sexist. Fitzgerald's book, and reviews of it, are already used as sources for much of the ethnic/gender issues information; the reference by a journalist to sexism at UCC that I mentioned earlier was within a 1994 review of the book. Do you think that what's currently in the history section is sufficient to cover the topic at this article? --G2bambino 03:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Going Co-Ed: Elite Private Schools in Canada was what I found when I search for the school's name and "sexism" All I can see is the abstract. The school must be one of the cases mentioned. The mentions in the history section seem fair enough for the time being. The scandals section is too long. Do other schools on the wiki have similar sections? futurebird 04:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Some other articles have sections regarding controversies, but none of them have histories as long as the one that was here. The co-ed vs. single-sex issue could be an interesting addition if enough info can be found; I recall some discussion about it at the school back around 1990 or so. I will make an attempt to make a separate controversies section, and will make it a part of the history; however, if there's a consensus that it should be separate, it can be made its own section. --G2bambino 04:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

G2bambino's assumption is that because racism and sexism are verifably recorded as events in the past, they MUST by some unsourced Wiki policy be relegated to a History section. However, there are plenty of precedents which prove otherwise. Here are 7 examples where issues of ethnicity/sexuality/diversity and other controversies that took place in the past are given their own sections OUTSIDE of a History section:

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_College#Native_Americans_at_Dartmouth

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California%2C_Berkeley#Relationship_with_the_United_States_military

(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California%2C_Los_Angeles#Activism

(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Pennsylvania#Controversy

(5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University#Racial

(6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryville_High_School_%28Tennessee%29#Controversy

(7) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_State_University#Controversy

You don't HAVE to relegate ethnic/gender issues to a history section or history article. You are CHOOSING to do so. The question is... why? Magonaritus 04:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that they're still ongoing, if indeed definitive proof that there are any at all? --G2bambino 05:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a learning disability of some sort? Honest question. Not meant to be insulting. Because I really think you have a problem with reading comprehension. Let me spoonfeed you this tidbit: it is irrevelent if racism/sexism is "ongoing". The point is that other schools (i.e. Dartmouth, UCBerkeley, UCLA, UPenn, Bob Jones, Maryville, SFSU) all chose to discuss their controveries -- which took place in the past -- in a section OUTSIDE & SEPARATE from a History section. I repeat, in all 7 cases, the schools are discussing events that are NOT ongoing, but STILL chose to NOT discuss them in a History section. I hope this is now clear? Magonaritus 05:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that there are still ongoing ethnic/sexism issues at UCC? If not, then they're a part of the history. What argument do you have that they should not be? The other articles you cite aren't necessarily benchmarks; not a single one of them is an FA. --G2bambino 05:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My argument that they should not be part of the History section/article is based on the precedents of other 7 articles that have done the same thing. Just because none of them are FAs does not invalidate them as benchmarks or precedents. Magonaritus 05:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Why must this article be like those ones? --G2bambino 05:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Why must this article NOT be like those ones? Magonaritus 05:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A) because it doesn't have to be, and b) this one is being worked to become an FA and should therefore be of a better quality than the non-FA's you gave as examples. But, really, I have no objection to a separate controversies section, and I only support it being within the history because it just seems to make more sense that something from the past belongs in the history section. Seeing as you've got absolutely zero evidence pointing to there being any current accusations of racism or sexism at UCC, or any open lawsuits other than the one already mentioned, you don't have much of an argument for not including the controversies as part of the history. --G2bambino 05:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, are you saying that you consider the FA articles as model articles to be emulated? And that we should give them deference as precedents on how we structure the UCC article? Magonaritus 05:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. And as you'll note, the Duke University article has a mention of their 2006 lacrosse team rape scandal within the brief history outline with a link to a separate sub-article. --G2bambino 05:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank for walking into my trap. You hold FA articles from the WikiProject Schools in high esteem (See WP:SCH). Well, there are only 4 schools considered FA articles. One of them is Stuyvesant High School. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuyvesant_High_School#Accusations_of_bias_in_admission_tests. It discusses issues of racism at the school from 1996 and ending in 1996. None of the racism discussed is ongoing. And YET, this is NOT discussed in the History section of the article (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuyvesant_High_School#Accusations_of_bias_in_admission_tests). This is discussed in a section SEPERATE from the History section.

Since you want to emulate FA articles so much, you should follow the example of Stuyvesant and respect that ethnic/gender issues should NOT be in a history section/article and should play a prominent role in the structure of the article (just as it does in the case of Stuyvesant). Magonaritus 05:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Trap? Are you only here to play games? Firstly, there are more than four FA articles on schools (see Featured articles: Education; by my count there's eleven articles on schools or colleges). Secondly, I just read the Stuyvesant High School article (you really should learn to link to articles properly), and noted where the authors put the issue regarding admissions. Would you like to put a summary of the ethnic/gender issues in the student body section here? Seems strange, though, to separate it from a controversies section. --G2bambino 06:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's another glaring example of your oh-so-precious FA article contradicting your assertion. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_State_University#Activism. Michigan State University is an FA Article for WikiProjects University (WP:UNI). Like Stuveysant, they decided to discuss PAST issues of activism in a section SEPARATE from their History section. Magonaritus 06:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to answer my question above, or just continue to be a troll? --G2bambino 06:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, I don't care if you put the ethnic/gender issues in a "controversy" or "student body" section of the main article. My point is that there is no requirement that they be placed in a history section or a history article. As long as you leave the ethnic/gender and scandal sections in the main article, outside of a history section, I'm good. I do not think you should relegate these sections to a separate Controversy article. According to the standards for a FA article in WP:SCH, you should include noteworthy/unique/different features of the school in the main article. Scandals and Ethnic/Gender qualify as noteworthy/unique/different. Magonaritus 06:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Gotta go, will be back later. Heads up to you G2bambino... don't make any changes/deletions to the article until we've had a couple of days to get critical mass in generating consensus or feedback from the RfC process. There is NO urgent rush to resolve this dispute in the next 24 hours. I assure you that, in the meanwhile, any deletions you attempt to make to Scandals or Ethnic/Gender will be reverted. Magonaritus 06:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, three people do support a separate contoversies section. I never said including such a thing within the history section was a requirement, I said it makes more sense to do so as the controversies are a part of the past; you've provided no evidence to the contrary. The scandals and ethic/gender issues sections will be reduced, whether as a part of the history or in some other format. That means the notable information will be included as per FA standards, but will be pared down with detail on a separate article as per Wikipedia:Summary style.

As for your threats of reverting, they only reflect poorly on your demeanour and attitude. If you revert again in the next 24 hours, you'll be blocked. --G2bambino 06:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the article so as to a) put the ethnic/gender issues in a controversy section b) keep the ethnic/gender issues and scandals sections a part of the main article, c) keep the ethnic/gender issues and scandals sections outside the history section, d) not relegate sections to history or controvery article, e) include noteworhty/unique/different features of the school in the main article. That satisfies every one of your criteria, Magonaritus. It also conforms to WP:SS. --G2bambino 07:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed your edits on the main article page. I can live with them. Magonaritus 17:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess I know what happens when one goes on holiday for two weeks. On a more serious note, as a co-writer of the article, my apologies for not being here. I will way in on this later - just got in. User:Synflame 3:47 (UTC - 5) March 4 2007

Disputed neutrality

Since the neutrality of this article is clearly disputed and likely to remain so (especially since everyone in the dispute seems well intended), I put a POV tag on the article. There also is a lot of original research in it, which also affects the neutrality (for example, asserting without a source that the school plays a leading role in certain school associations). However, you're not supposed to multiply dispute tags, and the POV tag seems much the most appropriate. John FitzGerald 16:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I can agree that some of the assertions about the school's prominence don't have the sources to back them up, but, is the neutrality of the entire article really is dispute? Seems a tad drastic. --G2bambino 16:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

After the wonderfully entertaining cat fight between gambino and magonartus last weekend on scandals/ethnic/gender, I am now cool with the end result. So the most recent dispute is now resolved I believe.

As for the original research, I argued this in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Upper_Canada_College/Archive_2#Sourcing and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Upper_Canada_College/Archive_2#Semi-protection and further down the page in other subsections but eventually gave up because I have a life. If you want to fight that battle against gambino, then I will enjoy watching but will not participate.

Whenever you can eliminate gbambino's weasel words, this is a good thing and I will never object.

I thought everyone was okay with the prominence issue on UCC a long time ago?

Overall, I think the article is in relatively decent shape compared to its peers. Jonawiki 21:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I was absent for a few days and was judging from a quick read of the comments were. I'll take the tag off, even though I don't agree it's in relatively decent shape (it's fat and flabby, unlike the article on St. Mike's, for example, although i guess UCC boys might not consider St. Mike's a peer). I(I should note my shock at discovering that UCC boys don't know how to use titles properly. "Lord Kenneth Thomson," indeed. He ceased being Lord Ken after his father died and he took the title. John FitzGerald 14:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Saw your latest edits. I love them. Thank you. Jonawiki 14:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

NOR

I've flagged several more examples of original research. I haven't tagged the article as a whole because they aren't serious flaws in the article and can easily be fixed, either by providing a source or deleting them. I think the NOR rules are too broad myself, but when you do something like assert that UCC has a "new environmental mindset" or that the Wernham Centre is the most comprehensive of its kind you need sources. John FitzGerald 14:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

OMP

"The Ontario Model Parliament' (OMP) is Canada's oldest and largest simulation of provincial parliament. ... The first OMP event took place in 1986."

This is not true, not even by a country mile. See Category:Canadian youth parliaments for organizations dating back to 1912. Consider it changed. --24.79.241.243 02:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:UCC Crest.PNG

Image:UCC Crest.PNG 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 10:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Prince Philip and Howard Book - notes on recent edits

Hi there Miesianiacal A few notes on recent changes.

• Prince Philip is the official visitor but, according to UCC's most recent information is not on the Board of Governors [as per here]. Furthermore there is no citation for his involvement in the 1958 fundraising activities.
• The other issue is the use of the Howard book. There's a bit of WP:SYNTH going on here. The book doesn't say that UCC was especially modeled after Eton, it just notes curricular similarities. I am sure I've seen a reference to it being modeled after Elizabeth College. I'm looking for the reference. I'm assuming that you'll let that pass if I find it? Simonm223 (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

My copy of Howard's book is at home. I'll try to check it over the weekend. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to see if I can find my source regarding Elizabeth College and perhaps we can swap notes and decide how to represent it after we both look up our references. Are you ok with the Prince Philip changes though? The current BoG doesn't include him after all. Simonm223 (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, I'm not entirely okay with that, since this UCC page says he is a member of the Board of Governors. It also mentions Eton as a model school. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so the UCC website contradicts itself there a little bit apparently. I'll see if I can dig up that Elizabeth College ref for you my copy of the Howard book isn't at home so it'll have to wait until Monday if it was there. Simonm223 (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I am the UCC Archivist and have been watching this page and its changes with interest. I'd like to provide some background. I took up post in late 2011 and since that time have wanted to make some changes to the College Archives pages on the website. However, during this time, there have been service provider changes for website which have caused me to delay these changes. In fact, the content currently onsite reflects information likely created prior to 2008 and changes in staff within the College Archives.

There is digital documentation available on archive.org which supports the correction that Elizabeth College was in fact the model for the creation of Upper Canada College.

Reference via the Internet Archive <archive.org>:

Documentary History of Education in History: From the passing of the Constitutional Act of 1791 to the Close of Rev. Dr. Ryerson's Administration of the Education Department in 1876 (Vol. 1: 1790-1830), page 288

Also, recent research through UCC Acts held in the College Archives reveal the structure of our Board of Governors over its history. It does not include HRH Prince Philip, our official visitor since 1955, as a member.

I invite you both to contact me directly as I am happy to provide direction to online sources to support these changes. As an aside, I plan to update the Archives webpages. These changes will include those described above.Jmds archivist (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Time to update references to Prince Philip as "visitor", perhaps using some past-tense, or Too Soon? (Anyone know what happens in a visitor-interregnum?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.219.93 (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute - Socioeconomic diversity

The leader includes the claim that "However, UCC is today fully independent and the student and faculty populations are culturally and socioeconomically diverse". I have noted that this claim is dubious, vague, and possibly original research. It is dubious because tuition at the College is in the realm of $30K as reported by the article, and a quite calculation reveals that the 15% of students who receive financial aid still end up with an average bill of $10K -- not to mention the 85% who receive nothing. It is possible that the College's recent shows at improving diversity have completely undone the damage of history and expense, but I would like to see some numbers demonstrating that.

I could have removed the claim entirely, but I left it in because I believe it more clearly telegraphs the nature of the article when accompanied by the tags than removing it would. The casual reader, seeing the tagged claim, will know that the socioeconomic diversity of the College is something that some editors are attempting to assert without factual support -- this will imply in her mind that she should proceed with caution and know that the rest of the article is likely to be heavily biased in an attempt to cast the College in a rosy light -- as is often the case with articles about tiny clique-ish institutions on which reputations ride. This might be missed if the claim were removed entirely.

The reason for all this detail on a minor edit is that I actually came here looking for the criticism section. I am aware that the College has received its share. But the section's not there! I read the table of contents, checked a few likely bits, scrolled to the bottom: nothing. It was only after scanning parts of the talk page that I learned the controversies have been hidden in the "History" section. Those quotation marks are meant to signify that while that section is labelled "History", that label relies on a definition so tortured as to be worthy of Torquemada (another proponent of historical torture).

It should be obvious to anyone that putting current controversial events in a history section is ridiculous. The most recent event mentioned there is from 2014 which, for reference, was a month ago. One person on this page has suggested that history can mean three months ago (an oddly specific cut-off). By this definition, everything in this article is history. For example, the most recent reference in the curriculum section dates to 2010 -- there is no evidence about the curriculum for the on-going 2014/2015 academic year. I therefore suggest that the curriculum section be relegated to a sub-section under "History", along with the rest of this article.

All that is to say: numbers, please. As obviously vague, self-serving and (ironically) a-historical a claim as that, "however", the College is "today" now "diverse" will not go un-marked. Numbers should be cross-referenced against demographic data for Toronto generally. JohnKoziar (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The sources are in the article body. The lede is a summary. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable contribution. I have noticed that there are no sources which speak to this claim in the article, so I corrected your revision on your behalf. I apologise that I did not make this factor clear in my earlier explanation -- the point was lost to an earlier draft. There is one citation in the article which speaks to a similar claim: that financial aid was expanded in order to increase "socioeconomic diversity". The cited article does not exactly support this claim (it speaks to economic diversity and in fact suggests that increased financial aid might decrease cultural diversity); but that aside it is clearly unrelated to the question of whether or not socioeconomic diversity has in fact increased. If there is some source which substantiates this claim you can point to in the article, we can put it in the lead with all the other citations there.JohnKoziar (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The student body is already socioeconomically diverse; the scholarships aren't offered to boys who don't need the financial assistance. What the source in the article is saying is the college wants to increase the diversity. Then perhaps the answer is not some censorial blanket deletion but simply change the lede to say "the student and faculty populations are culturally diverse and the college aiming to improve the socioeconomic mix." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Your comment is not responsive to my issues. I agree that the article we are discussing includes a claim that the College wants to increase diversity. You claimed that there was a citation supporting the claim that the College is "socioeconomically diverse". I said there wasn't but that you should feel free to demonstrate that I am incorrect. You haven't. You have simply re-asserted your claim. This does not seem constructive to me. "Censorial blanket deletion" is not an appropriate label for Simonm223's action, which was to remove unsourced and vague content. Your suggested "answer" repeats the problematic claim. Since I have not detected any reason for your reversion of my and Simonm223's changes, I will undo your reversion. I am not certain whether this is appropriate and I recognise that it might be viewed as combativeness. My apologies if you view it that way. However, because I do not know why you reverted Simonm223's changes, I can't say that your reversion is appropriate. I do on the other hand understand why Simonm223 made the change he did, as he explained it clearly in the change-log. See also my below comment.JohnKoziar (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It's relatively clear from your short edit history, actions, and words above that you're new to Wikipedia and unfamiliar with its policies and guidelines. You've been alerted to WP:BRD already. Please read it. Additionally, deleting long-standing disputed content is not the way to deal with disputed content, unless a consensus is reached to do so; that goes doubly for sourced material (Philip on the Board of Governors). Please see WP:CONSENSUS. Lastly, a lede is a summary of the article. Removing material from the lede does nothing to alter the content of the article body. Simonm223 can defend his edits him/herself.

The Globe article does say 7% of students receive financial aid. Ergo, the socioeconomic character of the student body isn't monolithic; i.e. it's diverse. The school, as the article also outlines, wants to improve that figure to 25%. Regardless, I addressed your concern directly. I made a proposal that doesn't say the school is socioeconomically diverse, but aims to be, as sourced. Do you find it satisfactory or not and, if not, why? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Editor ‎Simonm223 has removed the offending sentence with my tags, and one other. I am happy that the unsourced and dubious claim is no longer part of the article. Unfortunately, removing the claim with the tags has had the effect I forewarned against in my first comment here: there is no longer a signal to the reader in the lead that Upper Canada College has had a long and divisive history and that a lack of diversity and sexual abuse controversies continue into the modern day, or that there are Wikipedia editors here who are actively trying to hide these on-going issues through a variety of fiendish manoeuvres. I am now going to think about appropriate ways to do this so that Wikipedia's readers will not be mislead. Presumably a banner of some sort is in order. JohnKoziar (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not your personal opinions. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This is ironic. If you have read the above you will have noticed that my issue is with a lack of reliable sources grounding your claim. In any case, it seems clear (based on the citation I mentioned above) that there are substantial competing views as to how diverse the College is and whether or not the College is truly committed to ameliorating the situation. (Though it does appear as if all of the views which cast the College in a positive light are from those closely associated with it.) In order to achieve neutrality, the competing points of view must be presented. Since they aren't I am going to add the relevant user warning. To be clear, there are two issues here. One is the claim about socioeconomic diversity; the other is that the structure of the article itself presents a bias. Though most of the competing view-points about the College have been presented, they are hidden in the History section and in an entirely separate "history" article. The skein is sufficiently tangled that it will take significant work to separate what is appropriately "history" back out from what should be in a controversy or criticism section on the main page. I am not going to that today, nor am I likely to begin that endeavour so long as a constructive discussion about it continues on this page.JohnKoziar (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I should also add that you "Miesianiacal" have reverted the page to the position it was in last week twice now, reverting changes by me and another user. This is two reversions, and therefore in violation of the procedure out-lined in the BRD page. "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing." JohnKoziar (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is well sourced. If you'd like to make an amendment, please present some proposals here and their supporting sources

Keep in mind, "controversy" sections are discouraged and WP:UNDUE must be considered. Also understand that within the context of WP:SUMMARY. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Whatever other issues are on-going, it is inappropriate to remove the POV Dispute tag while this discussion continues: "An editor should not remove the tag merely because he or she feels the article does comply with NPOV: The tag should be removed only when there is a consensus that the disputes have indeed been resolved." As the article stands right now, I think it is in a satisfactory position and I do no intend to edit it further until this discussion has progressed. Specifically, the POV Dispute tag is on the article, "MIESIANIACAL" has appropriately marked the specific claim under discussion with an appropriate tag, and he has re-stored Simonm223's updated reference regarding Philip.

I intend to continue this discussion later. For now, I will repeat "Miesianiacal"'s proposal above: "the student and faculty populations are culturally diverse and the college aiming to improve the socioeconomic mix." The first half of this statement is unsourced in the lead and in the article: it is a repetition of the original claim of which it is a subset; the second half is disputed in the Globe article that's been discussed. I also do not think that 7% of the student body receiving financial aid would prompt most readers to form the judgement that the College is "economically diverse". For reference, that means that over ninety per cent of the student body can afford $30,000+ in yearly tuition. Any claim that the College is "diverse" will be somewhat vague, but a good referent is to compare the College to the surrounds. Now, neither I nor anyone else so far has produced data on this comparison, but I regard it as highly unlikely that over 90% of Canadians or Torontonians generally can afford that kind of tuition, or indeed anywhere near that per-centage. So perhaps if a claim of this nature is to be made, once data is found, it should say "although the College exhibits considerable economic diversity, the families of over ninety per cent of its students are in the top decile [eg] of Canadian families by income". The dependant clause of that suggestion was satire.

Lastly, please avoid the ad hominem attacks. I am not new to Wikipedia, but whether or not I am is irrelevant. I hope that my facility with its policies is evidenced by my ability to quote them in support of my comments. A blanket reference to a policy without an explanation of how you feel it is being triggered is not constructive. JohnKoziar (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If you're going to put a tag that claims the entire article is in contravention of WP:NPOV, you have to start a discussion with an explanation of how the entire article is in contravention of WP:NPOV. All you've talked about so far is a claim made in the lede (look at the header you chose for this debate: "NPOV Dispute - Socioeconomic diversity").

At least "the student" part of the sentence "the student and faculty poulations are culturally diverse" is supported by:

• "The public image of UCC as a WASP bastion is long outdated, and any reference to it makes college members groan. 'We have a good deal of ethnic diversity here,' says Mr. Power, a statement that is reinforced by a glance at the classrooms... Some of the school's existing ethnic diversity has come from its boarders..." [2]
• "There has been a subtle change in the character of the student body. The growth of enrolment has increased the number of boys from a wide variety of backgrounds and decreased the ratio of those from old Toronto families. The address list now reflects Toronto's ethnic variety and resembles a small United Nations." Howard, Richard (1979). Upper Canada College, 1829–1979: Colborne's Legacy. Toronto: Macmillan Company of Canada. p. 15. ISBN 0-7705-1843-5.
• "Students come from across Canada (50 per cent) and internationally (50 per cent), from over 20 countries, including those in North and South America, Europe and Asia." [3]

Perhaps the "faculty" part should go.

The Globe article says "as part of Upper Canada's new strategic plan announced last week, the school has pledged to vastly increase its financial-aid package so that fully one-quarter of its students will be subsidized within a decade..." That supports the statement "the college is aiming to improve the socioeconomic mix."

Additionally:

"Central to the [Strategic] Plan is the notion of accessibility and diversity: that by changing UCC from a school where only the financially advantaged can attend, to a school that is open to smart, talented boys of every background, we can realize Sir John Colborne’s founding vision for UCC...

"We believe that if UCC keeps its boarding program, this will present a remarkable opportunity to better fulfill the College's Strategic Plan, including contributing to the objective of accessibility and diversity.

"In fact, we argue, that with boarding, there is an extraordinary opportunity for UCC to position its accessibility commitment on a national scale—an opportunity which should be embraced."p.4

UCC kept the boarding programme. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

When I removed the disputed section from the lede it was because I thought pulling a relatively minor detail from the lede would be more encyclopedic than having the signs of a low-simmer edit war going on there with what appeared to be a bad case of tag-spam. I would heartily dispute that the article has a systemic WP:NPOV problem. If there are statements attributed to Principal Power which have been reported in reliable sources that the character of the school is changing, well, that seems noteworthy to me. Attempts to ascertain how much the family of the average student on Financial Assistance pays after scholarships are applied is obvious WP:OR and should be avoided. In general, what I'd suggest is a step back from both of you. I know that this article is important and significant to User:Miesianiacal and that he's taken steps in the past to keep it in what has largely been a stable build. And stable articles can be very good. That being said, improvement is possible to any article, and continuous improvement is a good thing, so too much protection can be detrimental in the long term. However an agenda of trying to characterize the school as being an armature of privilege or specific political parties, if there are reliable sources that suggest otherwise, isn't necessarily positive improvement. Perhaps, instead of dueling edits on the article the two of you should talk out your issues here, on the talk page, first, reach a consensus about what changes are necessary and then post them together.

As an after-thought, before assuming I object to this or that reversion or change of one of my edits, perhaps let me assess the situation first and speak for myself. Simonm223 (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You'll note I welcomed proposals from JohnKoziar at 18:20. It's becoming increasingly difficult, though, to keep a handle on this, as he keeps shifting the goalposts.

The "WASP, Tory bastion" part is simply an element of the lede's summery of the school's history. I can't recall correctly, but, I think it's there because of the earlier efforts of another editor who was keen on having this article highlight the negative aspects of the school's past (which he also thought still exist). It isn't particularly controversial, though, because it's a sourced fact, and is fine (I think) so long as it's balanced with the facts about the changes in regard to the student body's makeup. There could be other ways to write the lede. But, deleting that stuff means the lede definitely fails to meet the standards of WP:LEADLENGTH (which it may not even now). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm not particularly plussed one way or the other about the lede other than preventing it from being a battleground. At this point User:JohnKoziar has, I think, broken WP:3RR - I think - I'm going to leave him a friendly reminder on his user talk page before taking any further action but if he doesn't subside this may require admin assistance. Simonm223 (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

From my take, he seems to have only just missed breaching 3RR (by an hour or so). Definitely at the limit now, though. I already left a notice at his talk. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Upper Canada College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051104233359/http://www.ucc.on.ca:80/current%20times/CurrentTimes-200212.pdf to http://www1.ucc.on.ca/current%20times/CurrentTimes-200212.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110706193704/http://www.ucc.on.ca/podium/default.aspx?t=112939 to http://www.ucc.on.ca/podium/default.aspx?t=112939
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131231001911/http://www.mytowncrier.ca/ucc-selling-art-and-land-to-cover-costs-of-lawsuit.html to http://www.mytowncrier.ca/ucc-selling-art-and-land-to-cover-costs-of-lawsuit.html

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Upper Canada College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100730051958/http://www.cbc.ca:80/lifeandtimes/black.html to http://www.cbc.ca/lifeandtimes/black.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110706193831/http://www.ucc.on.ca/podium/default.aspx?t=112815 to http://www.ucc.on.ca/podium/default.aspx?t=112815
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120206222404/http://www.hmc.org.uk/schools/international.htm to http://www.hmc.org.uk/schools/international.htm

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 32 external links on Upper Canada College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071206130402/http://www.cbc.ca:80/toronto/story/tor_ucc041008.html to http://www.cbc.ca/toronto/story/tor_ucc041008.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061019220840/http://www.canadianbusiness.com/my_money/planning/education/article.jsp?content=20031107_143425_800 to http://www.canadianbusiness.com/my_money/planning/education/article.jsp?content=20031107_143425_800
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070616145708/http://www.pathcom.com:80/~jfitzg/oldboys_reviews.htm to http://www.pathcom.com/~jfitzg/oldboys_reviews.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930023948/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM.20030611.uporn0612%2FBNStory%2FNational&ord=1155699612739&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM.20030611.uporn0612%2FBNStory%2FNational&ord=1155699612739&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930041711/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2FArticleNews%2FTPStory%2FLAC%2F20051206%2FHERBERT06%2FTPEducation%2F&ord=1167935787297&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2FArticleNews%2FTPStory%2FLAC%2F20051206%2FHERBERT06%2FTPEducation%2F&ord=1167935787297&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060922135525/http://www.cbc.ca:80/toronto/story/to_teacheracquited20051206.html to http://www.cbc.ca/toronto/story/to_teacheracquited20051206.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071206125255/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/story/2004/10/08/ucc_brown_guilty041008.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2004/10/08/ucc_brown_guilty041008.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051104232919/http://www.ucc.on.ca:80/current%20times/CurrentTimes-200209.pdf to http://www1.ucc.on.ca/current%20times/CurrentTimes-200209.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060829224654/http://www.socialjustice.org:80/subsites/privatization/pdf/Privatizing%20Education.pdf to http://www.socialjustice.org/subsites/privatization/pdf/Privatizing%20Education.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928101435/http://www.ucc.on.ca/podium/default.aspx?t=6608 to http://www.ucc.on.ca/podium/default.aspx?t=6608
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110103213047/http://www.ucc.on.ca/podium/default.aspx?t=112852 to http://www.ucc.on.ca/podium/default.aspx?t=112852
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070329094503/http://www.ctv.ca:80/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1110471318570_105880518?hub=Canada to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1110471318570_105880518?hub=Canada
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928101511/http://www.ucc.on.ca/podium/default.aspx?t=6616 to http://www.ucc.on.ca/podium/default.aspx?t=6616
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110706193819/http://www.ucc.on.ca/podium/default.aspx?t=112946 to http://www.ucc.on.ca/podium/default.aspx?t=112946
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110305001740/http://www.ucc.on.ca:80/podium/default.aspx?t=118378 to http://www.ucc.on.ca/podium/default.aspx?t=118378
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060529105231/http://www.umanitoba.ca:80/faculties/law/LRI/Legal_education/borrows.htm to http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/law/LRI/Legal_education/borrows.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070416040442/http://www.pathcom.com:80/~jfitzg/oldboys_excerpts_ucc.htm to http://www.pathcom.com/~jfitzg/oldboys_excerpts_ucc.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060720040105/http://www.pathcom.com:80/%7Ejfitzg/oldboys_review_ted_schmidt.htm to http://www.pathcom.com/~jfitzg/oldboys_review_ted_schmidt.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110305194114/http://www.ucc.on.ca:80/podium/default.aspx?t=112928 to http://www.ucc.on.ca/podium/default.aspx?t=112928&rc=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051105000354/http://www.ucc.on.ca:80/current%20times/CurrentTimes-200201.pdf to http://www1.ucc.on.ca/current%20times/CurrentTimes-200201.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100826103245/http://www.ucc.on.ca:80/podium/default.aspx?t=112936 to http://www.ucc.on.ca/podium/default.aspx?t=112936
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110706193609/http://www.ucc.on.ca/podium/default.aspx?t=119905 to http://www.ucc.on.ca/podium/default.aspx?t=119905
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110706193635/http://www.ucc.on.ca/podium/default.aspx?t=131511 to http://www.ucc.on.ca/podium/default.aspx?t=131511
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101201210307/http://www.ucc.on.ca:80/podium/default.aspx?t=117333 to http://www.ucc.on.ca/podium/default.aspx?t=117333
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101022063154/http://www.waconline.org:80/WAC/About.html to http://www.waconline.org/WAC/About.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081208061519/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060825.wxboat26/BNStory/National/home?pageRequested=all to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060825.wxboat26/BNStory/National/home/?pageRequested=all
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110706193819/http://www.ucc.on.ca/podium/default.aspx?t=112946 to http://www.ucc.on.ca/podium/default.aspx?t=112946
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101022003918/http://www.ucc.on.ca:80/podium/default.aspx?t=113001 to http://www.ucc.on.ca/podium/default.aspx?t=113001&rc=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101022003918/http://www.ucc.on.ca:80/podium/default.aspx?t=113001 to http://www.ucc.on.ca/podium/default.aspx?t=113001&rc=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101022003918/http://www.ucc.on.ca:80/podium/default.aspx?t=113001 to http://www.ucc.on.ca/podium/default.aspx?t=113001
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100914015426/http://www.ucc.on.ca:80/podium/default.aspx?t=113020 to http://www.ucc.on.ca/podium/default.aspx?t=113020
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110706193600/http://www.ucc.on.ca/podium/default.aspx?t=112996 to http://www.ucc.on.ca/podium/default.aspx?t=112996

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Upper Canada College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100821103912/http://www.ucc.on.ca:80/whyucc to http://www.ucc.on.ca/whyucc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Past or Present Tense in the English Translation of the Latin School Motto: Palman qui meruit ferat?

"Palman qui meruit ferat" is the motto on the crest of Upper Canada College (UCC) and University of Southern California (USC). Discrepancy exists between how each school translates the Latin phrase into English. UCC translates it in the male gender pronoun and past tense as "Let he who merited the palm bear it." USC translates it in both gender pronoun and present tense as, "Let whoever earns the palm bear it." An edit to USC stating this discrepancy has been written by this author, who was a Seaton's House graduate in 1983. I studied under a Latin Scholar, 1979 ,. I would recommend that scholar be consulted to concur, reach consensus, or quorum among scholars as to the accurate English translation of the Latin phrase "Palman qui meruit ferat". The author would also request a monetary honorarium for this effort to reach the correct English translation of each school's respective motto. Author's email: reganfraser@yahoo.com ReganFraser (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Upper Canada College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930023856/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2FArticleNews%2FTPStory%2FLAC%2F20040911%2FUCC11%2FTPEducation%2F&ord=1147050691511&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2FArticleNews%2FTPStory%2FLAC%2F20040911%2FUCC11%2FTPEducation%2F&ord=1147050691511&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930075512/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2FArticleNews%2FTPStory%2FLAC%2F20031231%2FUCC31%2FNational%2FIdx&ord=2488099&brand=theglobeandmail&redirect_reason=2&denial_reasons=none&force_login=false to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2FArticleNews%2FTPStory%2FLAC%2F20031231%2FUCC31%2FNational%2FIdx&ord=2488099&brand=theglobeandmail&redirect_reason=2&denial_reasons=none&force_login=false
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2FArticleNews%2FTPStory%2FLAC%2F20051206%2FHERBERT06%2FTPEducation%2F&ord=1167935787297&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1110471318570_105880518?hub=Canada
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930081406/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM.20050701.wleacock0701%2FBNStory%2FNational%2F&ord=4581924&brand=theglobeandmail&redirect_reason=2&denial_reasons=none&force_login=false to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM.20050701.wleacock0701%2FBNStory%2FNational%2F&ord=4581924&brand=theglobeandmail&redirect_reason=2&denial_reasons=none&force_login=false
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pathcom.com/~jfitzg/oldboys_review_ted_schmidt.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ucc.on.ca/whyucc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)