Jump to content

Talk:Upper Canada College

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.208.54.226 (talk) at 23:23, 23 February 2007 (→‎G2bambino: Stop Hiding UCC's Dirty Laundry). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:CanEd See also: Talk:Upper Canada College/Archive 1, Talk:Upper Canada College/Archive 2

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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."

"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."

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
-- 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)[reply]
-- 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? 66.208.54.226 23:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Upper_Canada_College&oldid=110450983"