Talk:Scarborough, Ontario/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Jim Carrey

I do believe that Jim Carrey is from Barrie, Ontario. --coldacid 14:46, 2004 May 3 (UTC)

 Never me mind. --coldacid 14:47, 2004 May 3 (UTC)

Jim Carrey is from Newmarket.

Well yes he may not have been born in Scarborugh but most of his youth was spent here. I was taught by teachers who had taught him before he dropped out of school in grade 10. His family was going through hard times and i believed they lived in a trailer.

Scarborough in the news

I'm not sure that this new section doesn't break the rule about information becoming dated too quickly. I agree that the Guantánamo detentions are news now, but what will they be a few years from now? Perhaps this information belongs in another article. ———Kelisi 2005/2/10

• Since the informataion on here changes daily, this should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dscarborough (talk • contribs) 08:22, May 29, 2006.

Demographics

What percentage of Scarborough residents are white, and what percentage are visible minorities? The article tells us what percentage of the minority population is Chinese, black, etc., but when it doesn't tell us how many minorities there actually are, those percentages aren't very helpful. Funnyhat 04:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the number of significant digits in the demgraphics information, as well as the number, since it doesn't matched the linked census. As well, Wikipedians are notorious for failing to realise that although First Nations aren't white, they're also not visible minorities in Canada, so (Population) - (Visible Minorities) gives a number which is actually greater than the number of white people (The 2001 census has First Nations at 0.4%, but when we claim that Scarborough is 54.52% non-white, the 0.4% is then important. WilyD 13:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The referencing of shops and intensity of restaurants on Lawrence and Eglinton, etc are totally inaccurate. There are more roti shops in Don Mills, and more jerk shops on Eglinton West. So Malvern is in Scarborough, big deal. Why doesn't the NOrth York site reference, Jamestown, Jane and Finch and the newest murder central, Don Mills. The selective references to Scarborough borders on a racial obsession. Scarborough is sligghtly more multiculutral that North York for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.150.39 (talk • contribs) 07:26, May 29, 2006

There is nothing stopping you from updating the North York, Ontario article. --Atrian 14:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The race based fixation is somewhat troubling especially with the bias and pejorative in the language. Much of this stuff is trying to portray itself as an absolute truth, yet, to state Kingston Rd, or Eglinton Ave. East has a high concentration of specific restaurants is not true. The amended language hopefully finds a middle ground. - DS

Sounds good to me. I also amended the language on the Drugs section. I am just summarizing what the Globe article said. There is no need to obscure this point. --Atrian 22:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this section is relevant. Frankly, grow houses are just as much an issue, if not moreso, in the 905 region and in Alberta's suburbs, both of which are more affluent regions. Drug production is also a hot issue for Markham residents, but the affluence of the area seems to detract from that fact. -IFL (text moved to Perception vs. Reality)

IFL - thanks for the input. I've also felt that many of the race based and crime based biases (see use of nuanced language in prior versions) were trying to portray an image of Scarborough based on two or three people's own experience. I agree as well that the 'current event' topics, and anectdotal notations serve no purpose and is bent on insinuating issues like 'grow houses' may only be relevant to Scarborough, when in fact many areas of this city has huge problems in this area, and bigger problems to issues like high concentration of molesters etc in the former city of York, etc... Thanks for your input and I hope you stick around and bring more reasoned voices to this page. Dscarborough 17:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Dscarborough, while you're right to rag on the Scarborough in the News section, it's crap for a somewhat different reason - it's highly transient, has no real lasting significance, and thus is essentially unencyclopaedic. As for earlier versions - articles usually start out poorly referenced, it's not much to worry about, but always something to improve. The issues in other cities really aren't important for the Scarborough article - if Scaroborough and North York burn to the ground tonight, it would make sense to include it in this article, even though it'd also be true of North York - et cetera. Some of the end of the demographics section can really be cleaned up, but overall it seems okay. But if you want to do something about Scarborough in the News, that's probly worthwhile. Got any arguments about what to do and why? WilyD 18:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

WilyD, I take it you agree that the 'Scarborough in the news' section is totally irrelevant and should be removed. I agree totally. I don't think it needs to be replaced with anything, just taken out. Dscarborough 19:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you create a separate discussion item here about removing the News section and invite other editors to comment, ie. ask them to support or oppose, sort of like an informal deletion forum. Based on that discussion I will go with the majority opinion. I would suggest an invitation to comment on the Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board. --Atrian 19:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is this 2005 Census?

The last one I found from StatsCan is 2001. — Flag of Scarborough, ON, Canada  UTSRelativity (Talk)  03:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe because Scarborough has been amalgomated with Toronto, it no longer is a CDA/CMA. Just my guess --BCKILLa 08:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually there isn't going to be a census 2005, the census is taken every 5 years, so 2006 is the next one. --BCKILLa 08:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

2006 census

Scarborough's population isn't independently reported by the Canadian Census anymore...2006 census figure is calculated by summing all of Scarborough's component census tracts. Marathone 09:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Scarboroughites?

I am not sure of the correct appellation for people from Scarborough. I have only referred to them as Scarberians but that doesn't seem right. Scarbotians? Scarboroughans? Scarbians? What's the right term (or is there one)... Atrian 19:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

They're universally refered to as Scarberians, so I can't imagine anything else is "correct". WilyD 13:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Scarberians is the only one I have ever heard of until someone made some up on Wikipedia.  Flag of Scarborough, ON, Canada  UTSRelativity (Talk)  03:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely right. But Scarberian is like Newfie -- somewhat pejorative. Atrian has a point; back in the day when Scarborough was its own city, there must have been a name for a resident of Scarborough, that at the very least some of the municipal politicians used, even if it was not commonly known outside Scarbrough (and possibly inside Scarborough). Skeezix1000 12:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so no one has ever heard any other term used? And some of us (at least me) are Scarberians? We all seem to accept the term as universal, so I'll suggest we leave it unless we find actual evidence its perjoritive, and that evidence will (presumably) fill us in on the "proper" term. I'll try to survey some other Scarberians (in a non-citable way) to get a handle on it. WilyD 15:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I always understood the term (Scarberia) to be a portmanteau of Scarborough and Siberia, and a put-down of Scarborough by downtown Torontonians. Unless I am wrong on that (and someone correct me if I am), then I don't think there is any doubt that the term was originally quite pejorative. I guess the question, as I mentioned below, is whether calling someone a Scarberian remains pejorative. Skeezix1000 16:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, after talking to a half dozen Scarberians, not a single one could suggest a term other than "Scarberians" for the natives of Scarborough, and none thought it was offensive. I'm going to stick with the suggestion we use Scaberians unless a citable source can be found suggesting Scarberian is offensive.WilyD 14:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Although I don't doubt the conclusions you reached, as you know it is key to Wikipedia that we rely on citable and verifiable facts, and not on original research. Although helpful, your anecdotal evidence is by no means determinative. Interestingly, the Canadian slang article defines Scarberia as "Scarborough, a suburban part of Toronto, a derogatory reference to its desolation". Having said all that, I wasn't suggesting that we make any change yet; as stated below, I have simply raised the issue in order to allow for a consensus to develop over time. I just think it would be helpful to have the opinions of a number of editors before we settle into using a term that originated as an insult. I don't actually have a real problem with the use of the term -- I just think some thought should be given to the issue. Skeezix1000 15:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, and some citable source would be nice - I haven't been able to find one, and seeming no one else has either. It is, of course, entirely possible that Scarberian and Scarberia are unrelated. An unlikely coincidence, but I'm not sure we have any evidence that they are connected, other than it "seems natural". FWIW, my suspicion is that the Canadian slang article greatly overstates the derogitoriness of Scarberia.WilyD 16:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• I just noticed that the topic heading in the article was changed to "Scarberians". I'm a little uncomfortable using that term -- my own view is that it is a derogatory term. But what is the consensus? Is it pejorative? Or is it one of those terms that has been around so long, it has lost its negative connotations (and may even be used with pride)? Or is it one of those words that some consider to be derogatory only when used by a non-member of the group (in this case, by a "non-Scarberian")? I'm neither from nor a resident of Scarborough, so I defer to those with the first hand knowledge. Skeezix1000 12:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I just read the article on Scarborough in England. There is a similar section entitled "Famous residents and ex-residents". I think something similar could be used here, say "Notable residents and natives" for example. That would be a relatively neutral heading without using the slang term that could be interpreted as an insult or a compliment. --Atrian 02:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I am a resident of Scarborough, and I have never considered Scarberian as offensive. If you want a citable source try searching for "Scarberian site:thestar.com" on Google. Unfortunately, you will also find Scarberia in the match.  Flag of Scarborough, ON, Canada  UTSRelativity (Talk)  19:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Scarborough in the News

To user 199.212.26.244 please stop removing the Scarborough in the News section. If you want to remove it, place a discussion item on this page and let the editting community decide whether it is still relevant. Atrian 23:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this section should be deleted. While the facts presented may be true, if the person who had researched the information had bothered to do a little more investigation, he would have seen that Scarborough doesn't face any more challenges in terms of drugs or violence than any other parts of Toronto. The Jane and Finch neighbourhood in North York, Ontario has been riddled with drug and violence problems for years, but the details are not provided in that section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_and_Finch Further, there are many positive news worthy things happening in Scarborough that should be presented. Since the Scarborough in the News section is not up-to-date or even close to being complete, it should just be deleted. kmtor, May 3, 2006

I agree that 'Scarborough in the News' should be deleted. If someone wants to start gathering news about different neighbourhoods in Toronto, fine, but it should be consistently applied to all neighbourhoods. Basho 15:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. News sections tend to get dated quickly. Also, none of the other former parts of Toronto such as North York and Etobicoke have News sections. Maybe the section could be rewritten as a Local Issues section. Atrian 15:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Toronto actually has 23 murders so far on the link (the other 7 are in other parts of the GTA - which is not Toronto). Of which 4 are in Scarborough, you might be confusing the East York murders as being in Scarborough. The in the news section is a bit of a tiresome angle to get your bias in. But, I'll be here to catch any factual inaccuracies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.158.150.39 (talk • contribs) 08:07, May 29, 2006.

Nicknames

I changed this paragraph around to limit people adding to it ad nauseum. I don't think it serves anyone's purpose to list whatever nicknames are given regardless of their general use or popularity. Also it gives a bad impression of Scarborough which is on average a quiet bedroom community. If anyone knows of any good nicknames for Scarborough I'd like to hear them. Atrian 00:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the most common is Scarlem - though when I'm being eloquent, I like to say "The poor man's Mississauga." Seriously, Scarberia and Scarlem are by far the two most popular. WilyD 03:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Grow up. I live here and totally resent these nicknames. You don't own it,and you're not going to smear me and my community. Poor man's mississauga eh. Well why don't i go to the Pickering page and start adding that it's schools are known for their race riots. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dscarborough (talk • contribs) .

Hey Dscarborough, this is getting old. You're edits are just obfuscating the true situation in Scarborough. Your rose-tinted viewpoint is not welcome in Wikipedia. --Atrian 13:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

True situation? Please. I find your references to Scarlem and Scarlanka incredibly racist and obscene. It is a very bigoted pejorative. If calling North York 'Jewtown' not acceptable, then the same holds true here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.55.249 (talk • contribs) .

The current list of nicknames is a lot less than it used to be. It was toned down from the original list. Unfortunately the names exist and obscuring them by deleting the text won't make them disappear. Perhaps you could expand on my comments about why they exist in the first place. --Atrian 22:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

How about we just tell it for what it is. A racist name calling based on ignorance. Akin to calling North York Jewville, or Parkdale 'Crackdale' or Leaside 'Whiteside'. All very inappropriate.

I've taken this out as this serves no purpose and smacks of a racist and POV agenda. That POV may be held my some, but not all fair minded folks. It is highly offensive. And i must reitierate, if citing North York as Jewtown, or Woodbridge as Wopbridge is offensive, then surely these nicnames of Scarlem and Scarlanka is too. Dscarborough 13:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not keep putting in racist nicknames. This in violation of the Wikipedia policy of NPOV and being free from Bias. Bias includes most ism's which include racism, regionalism and nationalism. Dscarborough 15:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but including racist nicknames is perfectly neutral point of view where such nicknames exist. Encyclopaedias don't make value judgements about whether racist nicknames are good or bad, they merely report that they exist - that is what neutral point of view means. And while some may be quite obscure, others (Asiancourt, Scarlem) are certainly not, and worthy of inclusion. All of us Scarberians know such names exist. 70.49.58.102 13:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Oops, I mean WilyD 13:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The cited nicknames are not only obscure and only probably relevant to some local intersection of people. Having lived in and out of Scarborough for many years, I've not heard of most of these. In fact the obscureness of a lot of these nicknames add little to a page dedicated to a population bigger than most cities in Canada is pointless. I agree Scarberia is relevant as it is part of the Scarborough identity - good and bad. Dscarborough 11:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

DScarborough, please read NPOV and Citations to understand why your edits are counter-productive and unsupportable under the intent, design and policies of Wikipedia. I'm sure you have the best of intentions, but your most recent edit has degraded the article, and that's something we all want to avoid in the future. WilyD 11:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry WilyD, but these nicknames are racist and offensive, and have add no value. Dscarborough 11:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Deep, while they may be racist, and they may be offensive, that's irrelevent to wikipedia. See, for example Fuck,Shit,Gook and Hitler. See Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not, specifically Wikipedia is not Censored and Wikipedia is not a soapbox for tha already official policies on issues like this. WilyD 13:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I disagree (on the value point). Perhaps you're unclear on the concept. Please review the article on racism before acting so perfunctorily. --Atrian 12:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry once again Atrian, but this violated NPOV, and is deemed to be incredibly biased. I've spoken with several people on this. If you would like, I could invite a whole group of people to add to this online. I can cite racist nicknames too to justify a whole group of people, but that would be unacceptable as it violates bias free. Just because you can cite something does not justify its use. From Wikipedia on bias : "NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology. One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not-accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas. Types of bias include:

Ethnic or racial bias, including racism, nationalism and regionalism." I find these descriptors as incredibly biased and racist. Please save racism for the racism page.

Dscarborough 13:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

People from Scarborough

I am wondering if there should be a new category by this name. This would solve the problem of the Notabl Scarberians list getting out of hand. There is already a category called Category:People_from_Brampton,_Ontario and Category:Torontonians. Why not Category:People from Scarborough? I hesitate to call it Category:Scarberians, some people might object. :) Atrian 14:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If there is already Category:Torontonians, then I believe that having a category for Scarberians would be category clutter. I don't think the notable Scarberians list is getting out of control, although it might look tidier in two columns. --Skeezix1000 11:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Perception vs. Reality

That sounds fine to me. I have to admit, the first time I saw this page, I was shocked at some of the points made about Scarborough. I'm starting to understand that you are trying to do a good job, and I take it you have others things to do as well. Misunderstanding can create havoc, hopefully this will get better. I suggest we take the Scarborough in the news section as this seems to be not in agreement with Wikipedia's policy of information that gets stale dated.

I take it you mean remove the News section. That might be OK but what do you replace it with? There is definitely something happening in Scarborough which may not be apparent in other parts of the city. Maybe a new paragraph or section could be written that encompasses the trends in crime and population. P.S. could you please sign your discussion points, easy to do, the template for signing is just 4 tilde characters (~). --Atrian 16:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you think is happening that is different in Scarborough with respect to crime and population trends? I've spoken with a police stat analyst that names the three safest places in the city in order as 1. North East Scarborough, 2. Guildwood Village in south Scarborough, and 3. anywhere off of Yonge St. Also, Scarborough's populataion is growing faster than any other area in the city that is due to large green and infill projects due to large tracts of land being converted to residential. A recent article in The Mirror, quotes a police rep as saying 'crime has fallen off a cliff in Malvern since the gang there was taken out.' Sticking with Malvern for a second, house prices are starting to go past $500,000 in Malvern (mls area E11). I think you are getting your reality and perception mixed as the media headlines seem to target Scarborough, but not say North York. For example when the gang in Etobicoke was taken down, all you heard was Rexdale and Jamestown, but not Etobicoke. Also, East York has a huge crime rate and murder rate for it's population. As well, 42 division which is North Scarborough, from Vic Park to Pickering and the 401 to Steeles is about the third safest divison on a per capita basis. Up untill this year, there were only two police divisions serving Scarborough, which is 25% of the population. Don Mills for exapmle has had several murders in the past two years. But you would never know that as the media reports streets and not North York. I totally disagree with trying to play trends and interpret it, when much of the miesperceptoin is driven by the way media reports. I must say again, there seems to be a racialized fixation that is very troubling. When you look at other areas of the city, say except certain white havens like Leaside etc., much of the city is trending together. Dscarborough 17:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you should read this link... http://search.insidetoronto.ca type in Malvern + editorial... " Malvern the place to be this weekend Section: editorial Much like the rest of Scarborough, the Malvern community's reputation doesn't match its reality. And this coming weekend is a wonderful example of all the great things going on in the community. On Saturday, there's Malvern in Motion at Lester B. Pearson Collegiate Institute, a giant community yard sale just down the road at Mother Teresa Catholic Secondary School and ongoing sports activities at the Malvern Recreation Complex, McLevin Park and the new Nike Grind facility beside Mother Teresa. Over the past couple of years, Malvern has reclaimed its status as a safe, happy and healthy community - just like the majority of other neighbourhoods in Scarborough. That's the reality, but all of us who live in Scarborough know that the perception doesn't bear much resemblance to the truth. That point was made abundantly clear a week ago as we celebrated the inaugural inductees into the Scarborough Walk of Fame. It was a great day for Scarborough to honour its own and put to rest the many myths that surround us. Published: 05/25/06 12:33:00" This was the editiorial from a recent Scarborough Mirror. The Scarborough Mirror is not pro Scarborough, but like many residents are quite frankly tired of the demonization and creation of a false reality upon its resdients. Dscarborough 17:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately this new text violates copyright (see policy on Wikipedia:Copyright violation) so I am removing it. The text is also very POV (see policy on Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View). However, you are thinking along the right lines. I propose to create a new section entitled Trends: Perception vs. Reality. In this new section I would like to comment on how trends in Canadian society are affecting Scarborough. I would like to use it to comment not only on crime but also on changing demographics.

This section can also debunk myths surrounding crime. For example, if you analyze Toronto murders by location over a 20 year span (for example) you will likely find no particular pattern. There may be yearly variations such as 2005 but on average murders can occur anywhere in Toronto, not just any particular place. I read a report on this about 10 years ago. Maybe your police analyst buddy can provide current statistics.

The grow-op situation appears to be afflict Scarborough more than other parts of the city but Scarborough is by no mean unique in this respect. Another issue is Canadian immigration policy that has a big impact on the GTA. It would be interesting to find out the reasons why there seems to be a large influx of them into Scarborough (more apartments available? lower rent?).

Anyways, a section like this could replace the News section. I will give it some thought. --Atrian 03:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how a section titled Perception vs. Reality is not extreme POV. Because who's perception and who's realtiy would this discussion be on. This is highly subjective. Being a numbers person, I'm aware of how any statistic could be used to tell any story. The trends you are speaking of perhaps deserves it's own space and page, that is not affiliated with any particular community, but citing in its body examples of many communities that are trending at a faster rate than other parts of the GTA in particular, and large GA's of many large Cdn. cities. I totally disagree that the proposed new section be added to Scarborough. Is the community descriptor not meant to be somewhat static with periodic updates? The angle you are seeking is one that is POV as well, and also in a state of constant change, and thereby should be a new creation without a link to specific communities. Also, with respect to crime in Toronto, most Canadians would be shocked to know it is one of the safest places to be (on a per capita basis - which really needs no justification, but people being what they are...) So i think debunking myths and Perception vs. Realtiy with respect to GTA Communities would be a better forum to discuss this broader topic, where all GTA communities can be used in a comparitive manner that would increase more users participation which would be a good way to reduce POV and help self edit accuracy in to a greater extent. To subject one community to this, really serves no purpose, and in fact reinforces biases and POV. Also, I agree the News section should be eliminated because, this seems to be a violation of Wikipedia, and any one of a number of articles could be submitted which is POV. There seems ot be an overlord apporach that you convey (not meant to be insulting, but simply stating the manner in which some typed text conveys thoughts) and the implicit manner in which you say 'I will give it some thought' gives the impression you control the news content and decisions about this page. Dscarborough 12:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Dscarborough, you seem to be on a crusade to make Scarborough seem less culturally relevant in Toronto, as well as a crime free Utopia (ha, I live here, and even I can't deny the crime). I will fix your undervalued figures for foreign born population later (since its 4:30 in the morning), but for now lets stick to the inacuracies in the edits done in the crime section. Re-check your own source.. the toronto star link Murders-2006. Scarbrough had 9 of 25 murders this year. The murder on Chester Le was a triple homicide, but the map fails to identify this because they are in the same location (technology isnt perfect, especially beta maps on google). As well Dentonia park is defientely Scarborough, being EAST of Victoria Park, there were two murders in the area you probably missed as well. This is 36% of Toronto's murders. In the last census (2001) Scarborough had 593,297 people. Toronto had 2,481,494 people. That gives Scarborough almost 24% of the population. That pretty much sums up my post. I'm not trying to make it look like hole in the earth, just being realistic.

Actually, the murders in Dentonia Park are on the west side of Victoria Park, and are clearly sited in newsreports as being in East York. Also, you are taking the two Markham murders and putting it in with Scarborough. The Star would have linked double and triple, i'm not sure why it only classifies as single, but we are using police information and classification, not yours. Please go ahead and fix factual information. Who cares if Scarborough is trending faster than the rest of the city. Many other places (Brampton, Markham, other places in Toronto are on par with Scarborough or moving at a faster rate.) It seems that race fixation si a big thing with some here. If that makes people happy go for it I suppose, but please bear in mind the Wikipedia rules with respect to Bias. I'm on no mission, the previous entries seem to be in violation of numerous Wikipedia standards, from NPOV to bias, to stale dated information. The news section is in clear violation of this. Please sign your name so at least I know who we are speaking of. Also with respect to crime, 42 division (north Scarborough) is among the safest in the city. The problems seem to be in 41 and 43 divisions, but seem to be getting better. I recently spoke with Chief Blair, who lives just south of Malvern in Seven Oaks, and he has put 100 more officers into Scarborough since the start of this year. I hope that makes you feel safer living in Scarborough. ser:Dscarborough|Dscarborough]] 12:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Homicides 5, 6, and 7 were Shao-Sang Liang, Vivian Yuen-Yee Chau, and Ian Chau repectively, all located at 143 Chester Le Blvd. Once again RE-CHECK you OWN source. I will concede on the homicides which were reported at Dentonia Park. Dentonia Golf Course Park is in Scarborough and Dentonia Parkette is off of Dawes Rd. in East York. I'm not sure exactly which Dentonia Park Chan-Ung Park was murdered but the Toronto Star map clearly marks it in Scarborough, although I have not included him in my total of 7. As far as the race fixation goes this is incorrect. Many people from Scarborough are proud of the fact that they make up what is likely the most diverse population in the world. ---scarboroughcritic@gmail.com

Yes, I do stand corrected. There are 6 out of 26 homicides are in Scarborough. Of the 6, 4 are domestic related, including the triple slaying of a wife and two children. This shows the gun violence and randomness is not pervalent as say, Etobicoke or North York, or even York Region for that matter where just last night there was a triple drive by shooting. I believe these constant updates add little to the Wikipedia format and the Current News section should be deleted. Dscarborough 12:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandal Accusations

Vandal? Please. At no time have I used reasearch in a maligned way. Scarborough is incredibly diverse and proudly so. The lanuage and vocabulary in the pages were citing racist nicknames which is against Wikipedia policy on bias. For an apparent defender of Scarborough, the page came across as hateful and almost racist. The endless list of nicknames can't help but make one think of a grade nine boys club coming up with irrelevant and juvenille nicknames (ie. M&L - for Midland and Lawrence to cite but one example). As far as crime free, Scarborough is on neither end of the spectrum (as are most places in the GTA)and will endure periodic episodes, when smoothed out in a long term trend, is neither here nor there. Given it's size it is bound to have its share of problems. Having said that, the non static updates are again in violation of Wikipedia (enclopedic) format of information. Current news and daily updated sectional information is not static, and forms no basis for encyclopedic format of information. Also, the citing of murders came directly from the Toronto Star. The classification of certain deaths may not be classified as murder. Infaticide may or may not be classified that way, and MAY be the reason it is not counted as multiple homicide- something to verify with the police. Regardless, this statistic is pointless as it is again in violation of Wikipedia's policy on non static information - which the current news clearly violates. And by the way, you should sign your name if you are going to accuse people. Dscarborough 13:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Dscarbrough is a VANDAL! He is constantly attempting to use bogus unresearched statistics to make Scarborough seem whiter and more crime-free. I am no longer going to babysit this page to correct the information he includes. Is there something that can be done about this guy? (See the bottom of this page for details!)

Nice....a whole box for someone who is opposed to the racist biased views that cites people of colour in Scarborough as them, and subjected to ridicule. Dscarborough 16:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, we can't delete comments - once they're here, the best bet is just to stick 'em in a box and ignore 'em. WilyD 16:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I must say that this page is so much better than it was a few weeks ago. The news sections that become dated quickly have been removed. The addition of more pictures brings it in line with other articles on Wikipedia. Lastly, the text is much less class and race biased. Why is it that crime only become systemic when it is perpetrated by the poor or coloured? Does anyone ever talk about Western Europe's propensity to produce child molesters and kidnappers? Why not discuss "Ginos" and "Ginas" in the culture section of an article on Woodbridge or Vaughan? The article should not present Scarborough as a crime-free Utopia, but it should not unfairly subject the neighbourhood to more rigourous scrutiny than would be applied to other cities, towns, or locations. IFL

The nicknames issue

In light of recent edits to this article regarding nicknames, I'd like to interject and offer an opinion. First, the existence of a nickname, and its veracity, is of course important. If something cannot be verified, or is made up by school kids one day, then it shouldn't be included in the article. Second, the fact that the existence of a nickname offends one's sensibilities is irrelevant; it is not the goal of Wikipedia to ensure that any individual does not take offence to any particular item or phrase in any article - we'd be deleting a vast amount of information if we tried to do this; Wikipedia will continue to include content that may be offensive, so long as it is verifiable and encyclopedic. Third, the existence of a nickname is not in itself sufficient for inclusion in the article; it must be documented elsewhere, outside of blogs and online fora, for it to deserve mention here. Please provide incontrovertible proof to support the inclusion of a nickname, or any other fact that warrants it.

So, let's take a look at some nicknames for Scarborough:

• Scarberia - this is well known and documented; it should be included
• Scarlem - also well known and documented; it should be included
• Scarlanka - this is recent, with few reliable sources; google gets 426 hits, of which some are duplicates, and most are worthless; the link provided in this article currently is of marginal quality in my opinion
• Scarblackistan - this seems to meet the "invented in school one day" criteria
• Scarbados - ditto
• Scompton - not documented; fewer online links than Scarlanka
• Scarbage - not documented; fewer online links than Scarlanka
• SARSborough - don't know about this one - nearly 4000 google hits, but most seem to be usernames/logins or team names for recreational sports leagues
• Scarcity - some mention, but not enough verifiable info
• Scarghetto - same thing as SARSborough

Only two currently fit the criteria for inclusion; if someone can find good references for any other nickname, especially from newspapers or magazines, then they should be considered for inclusion too. Once again, whether any individual takes offense to this is irrelevant; Wikipedia is about presenting verifiable information in a neutral manner. Trying to limit the inclusion of such information because one is personally offended by it is called censorship.

Aside: it was suggested above that including Scarlanka is akin to equating North York as Jewville; this is clearly not the case, since the latter nets only two google hits, indicating that essentially nobody makes such reference to North York. Crackdale, on the other hand, is used about as frequently as Scarlanka, so if one is included, so should the other, so long as verifiable sources are cited. Mindmatrix 15:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Mindmatrix - I agree that a long list of obscure names is undesirable. I choose the current two roughly based on the criteria of What could I find decent citations for? - the Scar Lanka one was a little more marginal I agree, but I figured (roughly) that two was a good number of illustrative examples. I have no real qualifiers as to which example(s) ought to be chosen, except that Scarlem is the most widely used and recognised, and ought to be included. As an ex-Scarberian, I can say that in the field I've heard Scarberia & Scarlem extensively, with Scar Lanka and SARSborough on a few occasions, and Scompton on a singular occasion. I've never heard of any of the others in real life, but I'm hestitant to qualify them with anything but 'unknown validity'. Even if the whole list is true, listing out every name Scarborough has ever been called is pretty goofy and would probly constitute undue emphasis. My suspicion is that SARSborough was a passing fad related to the SARS outbreak in Toronto, and would no longer hold much currency, but I don't know this. Overall, what do you suggest? Scarberia doesn't seem the fit the kind of name the rest of this sort of thing constitutes. A single example seems pretty weak, but if Scarlem is all we can include as well documented and widely used, so be it. WilyD 16:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The article for Toronto started out with a short list of nicknames, which grew over time. A short while ago, I created the article Toronto's name (which could use some serious work) because there was sufficient info to split it off. Likewise, what we include here will determine how we approach the issue. I'm certain there are sufficient reliable sources for some of the nicknames, it's just a matter of finding them, and documenting them appropriately. There should be no specific limit (minimum or maximum); we should be guided by verifiability instead. Mindmatrix 17:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This wrangle over Scarborough nicknames has being going on for awhile and I'd like to see it end. Thanks for adding another reasoned voice to the discussion.

As per the current discussion I agree that a list of little used nicknames serves little purpose. Mentioning just the most popular seems to be a good compromise. By the way, 'Crackdale' is mentioned on the Parkdale article although it is uncited. I also saved an old edit (previously deleted, June 2). It was added without references:

Scarborough has also acquired several aliases given from local residents and authority. East end of Scarborough is known for being called Scartown, and some well known rappers are called Scarrborough Bandits or Borough Bandits for short. Due to multiple government housing projects in the area, Scarborough has also gained the nickname The Boroughs.

Different sections in Scarborough also have their own nicknames that go with their reputations. The intersection of Midland Ave and Lawrence Ave is called MnL, and the apartments there are called White Block, Brown, Block 13 and Palace. Other well known places are Jane and Finch, C-Block, WSR, and Y-Block.

I came across another phrase, Scarborough suitcase, referring to a 12-pack of beer. This is referenced fairly widely (I can get citings from The Star and Eye Magazine. This might also be worth including in this section. --Atrian 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I came across that one too; not sure if it deserves mention, but if so, maybe in a culture or trivia section, probably the latter. Heck, there's a website with that name, and it even has a list of nicknames, though it is not particularly comprehensive. Mindmatrix 17:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Scarlanka and Scarlem could also be said to be the domain of white racists using it as a hit too. No evidence, but a reasonable mind would think there is ulterior motives to the insistence of offensive nicknames, which is not bias free by the way. Dscarborough 16:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Scarlanka and Scarlem may be the domain of white racists, I don't know. What I do know is that the claimsthat Scarlem and Scarlanka are racist remain as irrelevent now as they were the first time they were articulated. Wikipedia freely admits offensive content. See, for example Fuck,Shit,Gook and Hitler. See Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not, specifically Wikipedia is not Censored and Wikipedia is not a soapbox for tha already official policies on issues like this. I'll fix the page, and make a note to Dscarborough that if he reverts the page, he'll be in violation of the three reverts rule. WilyD 16:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no ulterior motive. Wikipedia is a tool to document verifiable information, without taking a position in the matter. Since you are a relatively new user, I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you simply were unaware of this. However, you do not get to dictate or impose your personal beliefs here. Policy is determined and set through consensus of the wikipedia community. If you're not comfortable with that, it's unfortunate, but you'll have to deal with it. Wikipedia is not designed to be "politically correct", which is why articles such as List of ethnic slurs can exist. This does not imply support for the content presented to the reader, but rather is meant to inform the reader. Wikipedia does not advocate any specific position in this matter, other than the freedom of information. Mindmatrix 17:48, 12 June

2006 (UTC)

Great. We now intelectulize racism. Why don't we stick to just Scarlem, as you indicated above Scarlanka is dubious and a continuation of the here today nazi schoolboy made up nicknames. One other side note, I notice that there really are only three of you who contribute significantly to this page. Googling your user id is kind of revealing, especially some of the apparent racism used by others in their other forums. Please go ahead and google yourself. I will be in contact with Wikipedia and other like minded folks to come on over here and help edit the racists out. If you are offended by this, I guess you have just self identified yourself. If you are not, welcome to the land of fair minded users. Dscarborough 12:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Dscarborough, the assertion that Scarlem, Scarlanka and the like are racist remains undemonstrated. After investigating it last night, it seemed to me (WARNING:ORIGINAL RESEARCH) that the contain the same racial content as a name like Chinatown or Little India. The information content of Scarlanka seems to be that Scarborough has a large number of Sri Lankans - hardly a racist statement, hardly a false statement. Google doesn't seem to show that the usage is by individuals or groups we'd normally consider racist, AFAIK, it's mostly young people, with DJ Jelo's Scarlem Sessions the single most common source. As for racists, I'm not convinced any are present here, but any that are are welcome to continue editing as long as their edits conform to a neutral point of view - their opinions need not. Dscarborough, you may note that the idea Racism is bad is one that I share, but it's hardly a neutral point of view - and any mention of it in the article should reflect that. Additionally, since many people believe racism is bad, you may wish to refrain from personal attacks. I freely admit that I use Seti@Home, HabboHotel, Ogame, Wikipedia, BaseballThinkFactory and the Wiktionary with the username WilyD. I would guess Seti is the most racist thereof, given its overt planetary origin bias. ;) WilyD 16:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between discussing something and supporting it. Racist people have existed throughout history (this isn't restricted to white people, by the way), which is why Nazis or the KKK came about (see Category:Racism for more). The fact that Wikipedia has an article about each of them doesn't imply support. What we're doing is documenting the culture. Writing "Some people call it Scarlem." is akin to writing "Some people were Nazis." There's no harm in that. Rather, we should work to describe why that's the case. Let's document history.

I will agree with you that some people use the terms in a disparaging way, but I also agree with WilyD that the term is most likely the result of a simple observation, made in goodwill, about the changing demographics of the city, and is the more widespread usage of the term. Most people are not racist. Mindmatrix 19:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following: and Scarlanka[1] since it was under dispute, and the quality of the reference was disparaged. To be honest, I felt East Metro Youth Services was a fairly reasonable citation, and choose Scarlanka as a second example because I felt two examples worked best pedagogically, and because I felt it was the most respectable citation I could find for a name apart from Scarlem. However, I've been swayed by Mindmaster's argument that my pedagogical mindset was misguided, as well as the widespread criticism of the citation. WilyD 16:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have references for Scarlanka, but here are a few for Scarlem from the Toronto Star. That list goes back to 1995, with search criteria starting from 1985 to present. The Globe and Mail archives go back to 2002, and contain no references. I'll try to search on Sun and National Post papers too. Mindmatrix 20:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Mindmatrix, I employed the one "street talk" article as a citation as well. The Toronto Star is Canada's most popular newspaper (in terms of sales numbers" and thus I believe it's a very good citation.WilyD 12:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully this nickname issue is coming to an end. I've changed the text to more NPOV reading on the 'Scar'lem nickname. By the way, The Toronto Star reference with respect to the Walk of Fame article and 'Scarlem' resulted in a rebuke to the writer and an apology issued several days later. You may want to contact The Star's ombudsman office at 416 8694949 for confirmation. Dscarborough 12:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Dscarborough, if you can find the angry letter & apology, that'd be an excellent citation for a mention that some people find the name Scarlem offensive. As for the edits, there's a number of problems. The use of convienent is POV, and has to go. Additionally, such nicknames all contain allusions to places that somehow resemble Scarborough.WilyD 12:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

WilyD, every place in Canada has some allusion to those references. Scarborough is not Harlem, maybe a few parts, as there are many white enclaves in Scarborough too, or Chinese or whatever. The demograpich sharing is one's opinion, as the facts from statistics Canada, or neighbourhood profiles from the city of Toronto website would also refute the many sterotypes you seem bent on. I will go ahead and edit this again to "Scarborough has also acquired a number of nicknames related to the diversity the area. Such nicknames are typically a combination of the perfix 'Scar' and another region, nation, or ethnicity." I don't see how this is any way POV. Let me know if I need to contact Wikipedia to resolve this. Thanks. Dscarborough 13:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not too bad now - I think there's still a missing articulation of the idea that there's some association of the other location is Scarborough in the user's mind - i.e., Scar Lanka is plausible because it there is a significant Sri Lankan presence in Scarborough, while Scaukland doesn't seem very plausible due to the perceived lack of New Zealanders in Scarborough. I'm not sure what you mean by contact Wikipedia about this - we're all following the normal dispute resolution procedure right now, and everyone is editing in good faith, so any administrator is likely to say something to the effect of Seems like you've got everything under control, good work.

As for the Stereotypes, they may well be false (though I'm hestitant to conclude the idea that There are lots of Sri Lankans in Scarborough is false, especially given that I attended high school at Woburn), but that isn't really relevent. If the stereotype is perceived to be true, then it might easily be incorporated into such a nickname. As for seeming bent on, I've noted many times on this talk page that I don't care about the truth of the stereotypes with respect to nicknames (why would I?). The actual demographic data is in the article for any reader who wants it - what more could be useful? WilyD 13:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I travel the southern Ontario region extensively and been to all the provinces except the maritimes. In many instances, a lot of the big cities are much different than ROC. However, when looking at Scarborough, it is no less different than many areas of the GTA. Mississauga, Brampton, Markham are probably just as diverse as Scarborough (wait for the '06 census). If anytthing, Scarborough may be on the leading edge of it. In fact, as a percentage total, Markham probably has more Sri Lankans than Scarborough, it certainly does Chinese. The fact of the matter is, we are who we are, and though that is part of the makeup of cities, there seems to be a certain emphasis on 'us' and 'them' in this forum, which to me smacks of race based bias, and a fixation on juvenille name calling that is best left to high school, and addresses nothing on the positive cultural, economic (and negative) parameters that forms a city, except to those who may be seeking whiter pastures, to which extent Scarborough is already known as incredibly diverse, which therefore adds very little to the statistics so clearly defining the city at the top of the article page. Dscarborough 13:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, but what you're arguing here is that Scarborough should not be called Scarlem, not that Scarborough is not called Scarlem. As far as I can tell, there's zero presence of us versus them in this forum. While The Reality of Scarborough should indeed form the bulk of the article, The Perception of Scarborough is encyclopaedic where documentable, and thus a relevent point for inclusion. Wikipedia is not paper and we can include facts but they're interesting or even just to add flavour to the article - while an article focused on the issue would be right goofy, a short mention is worthwhile. But overall, it remains that even if such namecalling is goofy, racist or juvenile (which it may or may not be), documenting that people are sometimes goofy is a valid use of Wikipeda.WilyD 14:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that Scarborough is called Scarlem. The only people who tend to use that term would be considered racist at worst and ignorant at best. 'Scar' is a convenient prefix for the name calling'du jour' crowd. Adding flavour is clearly bias, and that has been the flavour of this page. Also, goofy, racist and juvenille, which it is, renders Wikipedia, goofy and juvenille, thereby rendering its validity and usefulness. Dscarborough 17:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

But none of those claims are true. The evidence indicates that the people who use it aren't racist, anymore than the people who call Pape & Danforth Greektown are racist, or the people who call my neighbourhood Little India are racist. Adding flavour is definitely not bias, and is a requirement of any ideal article - a good article should be engaging. Saying You should call Scarborough Scarlem, because then you'll be cool would be a biased NPOV statement. Some people call Scarborough Scarlem is neutral, true and unbiased. If undue weight is given to the issue in the article, that could represet a bias, but a couple of sentences cannot reasonably be construed at undue weight. Documenting juvenile, racist or otherwise goofy behaviour is perfectly encyclopaedic and widespread in Wikipedia. The fact that Wikipedia goes the extra mile in its articles above and beyond what's possible with a paper encyclopaedia is what makes it great. WilyD 17:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's agree to disagree on this. I could have every ethnic group/charity/organization in here within a week deleting this page on a daily basis from a hundred sources. It's not a threat. It's a refleciton of the very disgust and revulsion people feel towards these specifically racist monikers. Let's not try to pretend it's on par with Greektown or anything like that. We all know 'codes' and we know what these mean. For example we could go into West Rouge neighbourhoods and find nary a Sri Lankan, would we call Scarborough, Scracker? I don't think so.... that would be just as offensive. One other thing, saying some people Scarborugh Scarlem is neutral, is a big fat lie. Scarlem is used to demonize an entire area, whereas it has less black people than North York or York. It is a racist moniker to attack all people of colour. And it used by a few who could be classified as racist. Please walk up to the next black person or Sri Lankan and tell them welcome to Scarlem or Scar Lanka. What do you think would happen? Dscarborough 19:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, we disagree on this point. So, the correct action is to merely dispassionately list the situation without judgement of the usage. We all agree that Scarlem is used to refer to Scarborough, this Some people use the term Scarlem to refer to Scarborough is a fact. We do not all agree that the term is racist or employed primarily or exclusively by racists, so the statement Scarlem is a specifically racist moniker is an opinion. I genuinely believe that Scarlem is primarily used by Scarberians in a positive sense - both from my personal experience as a Scarberian, and from the occasions of its usage I found with a google search. So condemning Scarlem as a racist term, or saying its used primarily or exclusively be racists, remains your opinion - one I have little doubt has a substantial following, but also has considerable opposition. We can present opinions in the article, as long as they're presented as such, that remains objective and a neutral point of view. I have no problem with a statement to the effect of Some people find the use of the term Scarlem to be racist and offensive. I do have a problem with a statement to the effect of Scarlem is a racist and offensive term, because that is a disputed opinion. Even better would be some person or group of people (such as your earlier mentioned Toronto Star letter+apology) that could be cited to this effect. WilyD 20:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's not dispassionately list the item. Let's not list it period. If i see it listed, I will forward this to a whole network of people who will make it their point to delete this entire page. I would merely point it out to them, and it would spread. I think your youthful enthusiasm may be blinding you to the offense these terms register. I could emaild this page to a dozen organizations from SCAN (Scarborough Civic Action Networ) to Tropicana to many others I personally know, and this page would be delted on the hour by a whole hosts of offended people. I don't think that is what either of us wants.... Dscarborough 20:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I hereby openly proclaim my recognition of the fact that some people find Scarlem offensive. I've no doubt some people find it right offensive. However, I must refer you to Wikipedia is not censored as an official policy of Wikipedia, and one that's non-negiotiable. I must admit, I'm a little confused by this post. It certainly seems that great improvement has been made to the nicknames section in the last couple days, and that it's quite close to where it ought to be -- and that a lot of the remaining debates revolves around semantics and presentation, not content. If you genuinely feel a resolution is not workable with the editors currently paying significant attention to the article, then I urge to contact someone through Request for Comment in order that the article be worked out properly. I continue to believe that the issue can be resolved here, by the current editors, but I am sometimes mistaken.WilyD 21:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If this page is swarmed by anonymous editors intent on vandalizing the article, an administrator (like me) will protect the page from editing. Don't make such threats against Wikipedia - they're counter-productive, and likely to result in fewer people taking you seriously. As has been stated previously, any piece of information that is encyclopedic and verifiable is appropriate for inclusion. In this case, failing to mention that there are people who use the term Scarlem (which is documented) equates to censorship, and moreover is a form of bias, since it tries to portray the racists who use the term, in a more favourable light. Why would you want to do this? (Note: I am not saying that all people who use the term are racists; rather, that there are people who are racist that use the term.) Just as we have information about the term Newfie or Tehranto, so too will we have information about Scarlem and any other verifiably encyclopedic term. As stated above, what is wrong with writing Some people find the use of the term Scarlem to be racist and offensive? It indicates that some people take issue with the term, which is what you're saying, no?

Again, the issue of including the term Scarlem is resolved; the current issue is how to present the information in a neutral fashion. As WilyD mentioned, if you find this problematic, you may raise it in any number of dispute resolution fora here on Wikipedia. They exist for a reason. You're more than welcome to invite other people to Wikipedia to edit the article, but keep in mind that any POV-pushing is unwelcome. The discussion here has gone well so far, let's not lose all the progress we've made. Mindmatrix 14:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, in that same vein, scracker is not verifiable. A google search for the term returned a few thousand hits, and limiting the search to Scarborough or West Rouge nets all of one result, which has nothing to do with what you suggest. Again, the point is verifiability - the term has to exist, and it must be documented somewhere outside the scope of blogs and online fora. This means newspapers, magazines, research journals etc. As you'll note, I used the very same criteria in the long list I published up above. Mindmatrix 15:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I implied a threat. I clearly said I was not issuing a threat, but documenting the extent to which people feel this is a biased and racist term. I can't even believ the term Scracrker existed. I made it up in a flash trying to make a point. I think all these nicknames just goes to show how stupid, dumb and juveille it is and lends nothing of value to what Scarborugh is. If the only people reading this article were 20something (and 40somenthing) techno geeks it might not reverberate the way it does, but since a wider readership is there, this just makes no sense. Dscarborough 16:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll take your word that no threat was actually implied. One of the social aspects of Wikipedia, after all, is to assume good faith. I think that the existence of the names demonstrates there are cultural and social issues that arise from diversity, some because of ignorance or discomfort, others in humour or friendliness. Again, we understand that there is an implied or perceived racist tone to some of the nicknames; we don't dispute that some people are offended by the terms. We're simply reporting the issue impartially, backed by reliable sources. If you could find the apology from the Toronto Star about the Walk of Fame article you mentioned, that would make a great addition to the article. I searched, but could find only the article, but did incorporate some of the info I found. Mindmatrix 02:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Jim Coyle article reporting on the after event is better. The Christian Cotoreno article you cite is the one that led to an apology from The Star a few days later. I will try to find the article and apology later, but I will go ahead and delete the reference as it is totally inapropriate and unfree from bias. Over the next several weeks I will invite others to join this forum and to sign up so a mutlitude of views can be heard. Dscarborough 12:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, some angry letter would be a better citation for some people finding the usage offensive - but it is the case that the Star is a pretty reputable source - it is the most widely distributed newspaper in Canada. WilyD 13:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that an editorial from The Mirror is POV, and the biased writing of a hack reporter is not? I could go cite the Jim Coyle (whom by the way is a much respected writer, vs. the hackness of Cotoroeno) article and there could be endless citaions on both sides of the ledger which adds no value, and the article becomes a blog for intents. Also, widely distributed or most liked does not mean correct. The ensuing apology from The Star nullifies the cited article. For a paper to issue an apology due to an article speaks volumes. Dscarborough 13:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone claimed that the Mirror is an unreputable source? I know I have not - as for POV, I'm not sure your understanding of it is exactly correct. Biased citations are fine in certain contexts - for example, it would be perfectly fine to cite Mein Kempf for the claim that Hitler hated Jews, though no one would claim Mein Kempf to be remotely neutral. As for correctness, you'll also find the ultimate arbitrator of Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. So Canada's most widely read newspaper is pretty reputable. As for the apology, it depends - if the apology says Scarlem is offensive, and I shouldn't have used it, then it's clear that does not nullify the citation whatsoever. If the apology says Sorry, we meant to say SARSborough, then it would easily and effectively nullify that citation. WilyD 14:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, actually Atrian who removed the text and judged The Mirror editorial extreme POV, whereas it could be shortened the way you cited the article. See in the Perception vs. Reality writing above. This is what i find amusing...a few people making judgement on what POV is POV or NPOV is basically what is convenient truth for some. And if a few of you share the same views, it is documented as legitimate. What happens if I have a hundred people who share my views and you only come up with 10. Is that fair? I dont' think it is. I think the page the way it is right now is bearable, not the best, but bearable, and in fact light years from where it was. Enjoy the weather, get out there and have some fun. Dscarborough 15:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Dscarborough, I can't speak to the actions of others - as for your second point, please see Wikipedia is not a democracy. Roughly speaking, if we're all honest, we can all agree on what is or isn't neutral point of view, based on a single, simple question: Is the statement disputed?. To use some examples:

• Some people use the nickname Scarlem for Scarborough. - we all agree this statement is true. Furthermore, we have reasonable quality citations backing it up. No problem.
• The people who use Scarlem to refer to Scarborough are racist - we don't all agree this statement is true. Thus, to phrase it as such does not represent neutral point of view, but would be to take one side in a debate. If however, we say
  • Some believe the use of Scarlem to refer to Scarborough is racist - we all agree this is true. Thus, this statement provides a more neutral point of view, though our article is now becoming disappointingly vague. Better would be:
    • MPP Mary-Anne Chambers who represents Scarborough East in the provincial parliment has said "The use of Scarlem is pejoritive and unacceptable ((I have no idea if she's ever made such a statement, it is solely a hypothetical example)).

Roughly speaking, what is or is not NPOV is something we can all agree upon if we're honest. But we'll make mistakes - because something might seem obvious to us, we may fail to realise that others will considered biased or rediculous. WilyD 16:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Scarborough in the News: Keep or Delete

You are invited to comment on whether to retain or delete the News section of this article. Please indicate Keep or Delete and your reasons. Thanks, --Atrian 23:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The result of this discussion is that the section Scarborough in the News will be removed and the content will be deleted or moved to other sections. Thanks to all who participated. --Atrian 16:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Unencyclopedic, difficult to maintain. It's better to incorporate the facts into other sections. --Usgnus 23:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete for mostly the same - if an event is important enough to be recorded, it doesn't need an in the news segment, otherwise it's fairly unencyclopaedic. Difficult to maintain is also applicable - most things that need to be kept up to date indefinitely should be avoided. WilyD 00:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I think it adds colour to an otherwise drab article on a drab urban place. --Bombycil 16:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I never thought it added much, and it has always been controversial. --Skeezix1000 16:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I think Bombcil says it best. The in the news section is used to justify ignorance and biases. Adds colour to a drab urban place? Well, there is a whole essay waiting on that, but, I'll skip the juvenille discussion and maintain that beyond controversial, it plays very much to POV and adds nothing of significance to encyclopedic format. Dscarborough 01:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I'd say merge the growth information into the demographics section, create a Culture section to which may be added info about the sports complex and the Walk of Fame, and flesh out a city issues section, which would mention topics like crime and drugs, but in a far more encyclopedic manner than what's currently present in the article. The News section itself should go. Mindmatrix 13:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and merged the growth rate information into the demographics section, and tidied that up a little. The Walk of Fame section I may get around to dealing with too - there may be redeemable information in there. I'm still not convinced about the rest though - in six months, will it still be relevent? WilyD 12:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I also went ahead and merged a bunch of content from various sections into a new section I've whimsically named Culture. I've stuck Culture where I believe it belongs, however I'm open to change overall. Most of the paragraphs I've moved are largely or entirely unchanged, but I rearranged some phrasing and possibly modified the content slightly - please look and comment! WilyD 18:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I believe the Recent Developments section falls under the same general criticism as the Scaroborough in the News section is guilty of - Unencyclopaedic, difficult to maintain, et cetera. WilyD 17:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be merged with the History section. It may be recent but it is history. --128.100.123.161 17:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay I gathered there's a concensus that something needed to be done about the section Scarborough in the News, so I went ahead with MindMatrix's suggestions that I concurred with, and moved the growth data into demographics, and moved the Walk of Fame information into a new section: Culture. I also plucked a few segments from other sections and merged them into Culture where I felt appropriate.

As a related cleanup, I merged the Census section with the Demographics section since they were almost duplicating each other, and dropped the Recent Developments down to the bottom alongside Scarborough in the News.

I'm vaguely convinced all of the stuff remaining in Current Developments and Scarborough in the News is stuff that ought to be deleted under Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly and the general events that are only here because they're recent essentially means they're unencyclopaedic criteria discussed above. However, this may be a contenious statement so I'm leaving the material in for the time being. Please comment. WilyD 19:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Recent Developments and Scarborough in the News should be removed but much of the content can be moved to other sections. User:Usgnus has created a Transportation section and has moved the remaining text to History. I liked Mindmatrix' idea about creating a City issues section, that could house the crime data and the development text. --Atrian 22:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The Transportation section is not bad (though it probly needs to be expanded), and with the rephrasing the Zoo in history is okay (although I suspect it fits better in culture, as the Zoo's existence is important, but it's opening likely isn't. The last paragraph of History remains terrible, and at the very least, needs to be made encyclopaedic, though I'm not sure this is possible, given the nature of the content. I'm still thinking about it though. WilyD 22:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm really impressed by how this turned out. We should've nominated this article as Canadian Collaboration of the month! --Atrian 15:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sports Complex

I moved the paragraph into the Culture section because it will always be part of the article (until it's replaced). Maybe if a Sports section gets created, it can be moved again. --Usgnus 20:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent Improvements

In light of recent improvements, I'm inclined to push for a few more - to that end, I've added a to-do list to the top of the page. I added photos as a priority. I should be able to obtain my father's old digital camera either saturday or sunday, and take a few photos to spruce up the page. I'd like to open the floor to requests in this regard - what kind of photos might help improve the article? I'll get the ball rolling, please add to the list here, and I'll see what I can do:

1. Scarborough Bluffs, from the beach. WilyD 16:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
2. A river valley, either Rouge River (probly on Kirkhams, where there's a great place for a shot, or Highland Creek (probly from the Ellesmere bridge) WilyD 16:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Scarborough is not just about scenery, it is also a diverse urban place. How about an photo on some urban aspect? --Atrian 16:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Something for history - anyone know a good place for that kind of shot? The Old Scott House? WilyD 16:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks WilyD 16:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Not Just Scenery per Atrian Scarborough Town Centre? Random Generic Sidestreet? Group of apartment towers (Tuxedo Court?) Specific suggestions are probly better WilyD 16:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to do this with an eye towards applying for a peer review and so on. WilyD 16:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Since I'm no tech guru (more like a transistor radio), I'd like to applaud the efforts and the changes taking place. I haven't had much chance to read the entirety of the changes, but did want to quickly state that the presentation, format and content of the new and improved page is more rounded, professional, thorough, and an excellent platform for going forward. Excellent work generally, and the direction the article is going on is one that deserves applause when viewed from where it was a mere month or two ago. Though I do cringe as a snapshot of Tuxedo Court is not representative. I think a snapshot of some non descript 'Scarborough condo or apartment' is more representative. There are vast neighbourhoods in the north, east and sout Scarborough that are leafy, quiet, natural, that is the lesser known, but abundant that should be hilited too, and not just the mundane apartments sprinkled through the city. Kindest Regards Dscarborough 17:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I choose Tuxedo court mostly because it's very urban looking and I know it pretty well - I can go for something else. If I'm going to Kirkhams, there's a nice townhouse complex on Generation Blvd. I could go for something like that, or just houses on some suburban street - but I think if anyone has distinctive looking suggestions, those are probly best. WilyD 17:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

One other item I think should be added that is very important, is the ecological importance of the Rouge Valley system. The Friends of the Rouge Watershed (frw.ca), have many many pictures, and documented projects of the ecological importance of this valley. The geograpy section should probably have extensive referencing to two important eco aspects of the area known throughout Canada, The Bluffs, and the Rouge Valley. Dscarborough 17:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well there's already an article on the Rouge River - so perhaps that's a better place for a lot of that content? Anyways, I think I really want to get a picture from Kirkham Road bridge facing North-West - if you've been there, you'll know that's a great shot of the Rouge. I don't think we can justify more than a single picture of the Rouge for the Scarborough page. WilyD 17:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to encourage everyone to add to the to do list anything they feel needs to be worked on WilyD 18:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about what seems like endless editing on the geography page. There was a very good article relating to the green-nest of Scarborough. A self imposed banishment to the sandbox will hopefully get me up to speed on linking etc. Dscarborough 14:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oldest school

Agincourt CI and RH King Academy both claim to be the oldest school in Scarborough. Agincourt opened in 1915 as a continuation school and R.H. King opened in 1922 as a high school. I compromised and called ACI the oldest school and RH King as the longest serving high school. If anyone knows what a continuation school was this might clear things up. Either way I gave a citiation for this and removed the marker. --Atrian 21:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've also seen and heard references to Hillside P.S. as the oldest school in Scarborough, and I believe (wrongly?) that it opened in the 1800s, so I assumed that the way I mod'd it was more reflective of what was trying to be said. WilyD 22:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Agincourt's web site specifically uses the qualifier Secondary[2], so I'm inclined to believe I interpreted it correctly. WilyD 22:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Quote from RH King's website "On November 11, 1922, the doors in the arches opened for the first time to admit the students of Scarborough High School, the only high school in the Township at that time." If it was the only high school in Scarborough at the time what was Agincourt CI being used as? It does say in the Township so maybe they were in different townships? --Atrian 22:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the way I construe it is that R.H. King is the oldest high school that has continuously been a highschool in Scarborough, whilst Agincourt is the oldest school in Scarborough that is currently a high school (and here presumably, Hillside is the oldest school in Scarborough). Does that seem like a reasonable interpretation of what has transpired? In any event, since both schools lay claim to the title Oldest Secondary School in Scarborough, I propose we just explain their history, that they each claim the title, and let the reader figure out the truth. Seem reasonable? WilyD 22:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for Feedback

I listed this article at Request for Feedback WP:RFF#Scarborough.2C_Ontario in light of recent improvements, but the feedback it's generated is pretty - light. WilyD 19:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

WilyD, there are many scientific, technology and financial hubs in Scarborough that are not evident. Novopharm is among one of many scientific locations; TD SOC (Scarborough Operational Centre unnamed is a massive building in the Town Centre location at Progress that houses most of TD's computer personnel...I can go on and on...also my last post about four golf course...check that, I forgot about Hunt Club which is also private.

As well Scarborough being a 'commmon' desatination for new immigrants does a disserviece to Brampton, Peel and Markham, it should be edited out. Also Scarborough is home to heavily concentrated white neighbourhoods from Cliffside, Guildwood, Rouge Beach etc., etc....

Okay, well you'll need to find citable sources for this kind of thing - the claim I made is reasonably well referenced - it cannot be removed to replace with gut impressions. WilyD 16:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that it's the only such destination, but the population is predominately foreign born (per the 2001 Census). The issue of Brampton, Peel, whomever is not relevent here - if would be an appropriate objection if Scarborough was not distinguishable from the average in this respect, but it easily is (see my census comments) so it is verifiably a common destination for new immigrants - there's no reason to believe (and one would be hard pressed to conclude from the statement) that it's the only such community in Canada. WilyD 16:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

For example, see today's featured article: Hurricane Mitch, which begins with Hurrican Mitch was one of the strongest and deadliest Atlantic Hurricanes ever observed. A few other Hurricanes may have been stronger or deadlier, and a few the same - this isn't a big deal. WilyD 18:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me the fixation on race is hyper in here for some reason. I mentioned the five golf clubs of which three are private and I see no adding of that. Would you object to me adding an Amenities section?Dscarborough 00:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC) One other item, I would suggest Demographics not be the number 2 item, but should be below more permanent items such as Geography, Culture and Economy. Dscarborough 00:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a re-ordering of the sections, but I will note that Toronto is ordered very similiarly to Scarborough, which is the model I was patterning after. However, New York City has demographics 5th, Montreal 4th,Vancouver 3rd, London 6th, Paris 5t and Tokyo 4th, so there's no real general pattern.

As for an Amenities section for golf courses - I think that kind of thing belongs in culture, not really in its own section. WilyD 00:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the economy section is now back to almost exactly where it started. WilyD 00:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Schools

The list of schools are incomplete.

I know there are more but the only one I can remember right now is Sir John A. Macdonald Collegiate Institute. There's also Steven Leacock.

Also, Jim Carrey was born at Jackson's Point, Ontario. A little bit north from Barrie, at the edge of Lake Simcoe. But later he moved to Scarborough.

• Yeah, we know about Carrey - the category is "residents" or something. If you want to add to the article, please feel free, with respect to highschools. WilyD 00:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Scarborough: Not a 'suburb'

Scarborough is a former suburb of the Old Toronto borough. Today it is usually known as a city, borough or district, especially after the Megacity merger. I changed suburb to borough (at the top of the page) as it should be called. --74.116.213.216 02:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move opposed Part Deux 10:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Scarborough, Ontario → Scarborough — The place in Ontario has a population of 600,000; the place in England has a population of 50,000 Fishhead64 22:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose move to singular city title but support redirect once Scarborough, North Yorkshire is moved. My reasons are explained on that page. 205.157.110.11 22:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose depends where you live as to which one you are expecting to get to. If anything Scarborough should be a dab page pointing to both entries. Keith D 23:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose - This article is fine where it is. If anything, Scarborough should be the dab page. PC78 02:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose - Move dab page to Scarborough, leave this one. --Bobblehead 04:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose - size does not mean overwhelming importance. Do not move this page. -- Beardo 06:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose - Scarborough, Ontario is now just part of Toronto, and indeed having 'The Scarborough name is still used by most local residents' on its wikipedia page does suggest that calling that area Scarborough may be a more local thing or old fashioned as the 'still' part implies. It is named after Scarborough, England. Stev17 10:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose - Scarborough should be the dab page. -- SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 20:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose - Scarborough should be the disambiguous page, not the page for the city in Ontario. Royalbroil ^T : C 04:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Move Scarborough (disambiguation) to Scarborough. Vegaswikian 06:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose as per Vegaswikian. --TinMan 07:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose - I think you're losing this fight. ;) Patstuart^talk|edits 09:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

    Not really - I'm happy with a redirect to a dab page, actually. Fishhead64 17:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

12. Oppose, mainly because Scarborough is now part of Toronto. Were it still a separate city, I would reconsider that vote. But I also oppose moving Scarborough (disambiguation) to Scarborough, b/c frankly Scarborough should point to the larger city and the current dab statement at the top of Scarborough, Ontario works fine. There should be a separate vote on moving Scarborough (disambiguation). Never mind - I agree with moving Scarborough (disambiguation) -- just ignore my comment, I misunderstood the context. Skeezix1000 19:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose The place in England is the original and the place in Ontario is just a suburb of Toronto. Sumahoy 21:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• Please see my comments at Scarborough. Fishhead64 22:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Scarborough as a disambig probably makes the most sense WilyD 16:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Perception vs. reality

Why are we ignoring the very real perception of Scarborough among Toronto residents? Despite the fact that a large amount of crime takes place in North York (Jane and Finch) or in Rexdale (see the article on Etobicoke), Scarborough is still seen as a dangerous neighbourhood in Toronto. Is addressing reality considered adopting a non-neutral POV? Will including only a level of description found in a tourist brochure help to reduce Scarborough's crime rate? 74.102.36.27 05:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well ignorance is not idyllic. 42 Division on a per capita basis is by far the safest division in the entire city. This is north east Scarborough. The police themselves have indicated east of Victoria Park is the safest part of the city on a per capita basis. You may want to ask any Scarborough councillor about this. Scarborough is about 30 to 35% of the geographic land mass of the city and holds over 25% of the population, yet only has 3 police divisions which skews the numbers. Also, the media has recently ceased from using 'Scarborough' as a descriptor of crime location. I would suggest the gap in reality versus perception is totally true, and if anything the 'safety of Scarborough' is factual, and the perception is one that was media driven. If every crime in Rexdale was described as Etobicoke, or if every Jane/Finch shooting was described as North York, the same gap in perception versus reality would exist. UTC, Scarborough's crime rate is low were you to go take a look at the divison stats. Idyllic 17:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

B class

The article meets the following five criteria:

1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited.
2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies.
3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.
4. It is free from major grammatical errors.
5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.

May be assigned by any reviewer SriMesh | talk 05:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)