Talk:Upper Canada College/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

UCC Canada's premier school.

69.194.224.121:

Please identify your source that proves that UCC /is/ Canada's leading private school. I don't know how familiar you are with Canadian private schools but I am sure many would argue that schools like UTS, TCS, Ashbury, and Appleby (and those are just schools in Ontario) can compete with (and beat UCC) on many fronts. So, again, please substantiate your claim, otherwise I don't see what is being served (other than perhaps UCC recruitment interests) by insisted on the distinction between "one of Canada's leading..." and "Canada's leading". Carruthers 03:06, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I find the Group of Seven and real estate holding claims rather suspicious. One wonders how a school could justify the security risk/insurance costs of housing an art collection worth $x00 Million. Also, if this mysterious real estate in New York, London, etc. is not being used for operational purposes it would be included in the $30 mil endowment figure and it has rather difficult to see how this is possible. Also, I note that these claims continue to be made by anon posters. Can anyone confirm these two claims? Carruthers 16:13, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

UCC does have landholdings apart from the Toronto campus, namely their wooded science school in Norval, just outside of Georgetown, Ontario (181 hectares, not 680). They also do have a collection of Group of Seven paintings, of which the principal has 12 in his office (and presumably others elsewhere in the school). As for the rest of it, I was not able to verify any of that information. Maybe someone could contact the school to confirm? Darkcore 18:03, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I found the same information through a Google search as you mentioned above. I know of the Norval property but because they use if for operational purposes it would not be reported as part of the endowment. On the other hand properties generating revenue elsewhere would. On the issue of the Go7 paintings would anyone think it unfair to change the statement to "a large collection of original Group of Seven works" or something similar? It seems difficult to objectively define what "the largest collection" of anything would be (total value, number of pieces, or aggregate size of pieces?). Carruthers 18:12, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Norval property does generate some revenue. My private school (which will go unnamed) rented the property from UCC in order to run some of its class-specific activities and I know that other schools did the same thing. As for the Go7 paintings, the McMichael Art Gallery in Kleinburg, Ontario houses the largest collection of their paintings in terms of numbers. Darkcore 18:37, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I believe UCC was ranked the as the third best private school in Canada, after Ashbury and a school in Vancouver whose name slips my mind. That report is several years old however. Regardless, your phrasing is preferable. I'm not sure about real estate other than Norval, but they certainly do have a large collection of Art. Somebody needs to get up there and count the sports fields though. I can only think of 9 (as opposed to the 12 previously listed) and that's only if you split up the big ones. The number of tennis courts were also wrong. --Caliper 21:55, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To which report are you referring, Caliper? I've never seen a comprehensive ranking of Canadian private schools before. I know the Fraser Institute has a ranking of Canadian secondary schools, but that includes public and separate schools. Darkcore 22:51, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's quite possible that that was it, and I just assumed that it was private schools. I didn't see the actual report; it was referenced in a UCC information booklet 5 years ago when I was applying to secondary schools. It's funny that rankings are so important... if you want go into humanities or languages, the school you want to go to probably wasn't even listed in the top 20. --Caliper 00:59, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

While BSS is a located a few blocks from UCC, I was always told during the duration of my time at the College that Branksome Hall (located to the East, on Mount Pleasant) was UCC's sister school.

This Globe article names BSS as UCC's sister school: [1] Darkcore 14:52, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wow, so many UCC old boys.... --Madchester 03:15, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sources:

"Upper Canada College, the most exclusive private school in the country." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040911/UCC11/TPEducation/

"Upper Canada College, the province’s oldest independent school, will celebrate 175 years as what many consider the foremost private academy for boys in Canada." http://www.ourkids.net/school/artcl2004_ucc175years.shtml

"(he) attended Canada's most elite and prestigious school: Toronto's Upper Canada College." http://www.thespiannet.com/actors/F/fraser_brendan/index.shtml

"A sexual-abuse scandal that has engulfed Canada's most prestigious private school, Upper Canada College." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2FArticleNews%2FTPStory%2FLAC%2F20031231%2FUCC31%2FNational%2FIdx&ord=2488099&brand=theglobeandmail&redirect_reason=2&denial_reasons=none&force_login=false

"sending your son to Upper Canada College, the most prestigious boys' school in the country..." http://www.moneysense.ca/planning/education_planning/article.jsp?content=20031107_143425_800

Gents,

I am a student at the school and so I can clear much of this up for you. Before coming here, having spoken to principals of other Canadian schools which we new, and alumni of the school, the school is widely considered among those familiar with it and it's reputation for being an elite playground, as being the best private school in Canada. There are several reasons for this, and not only the press coverage the school receives:

1) It is the oldest 2) It has the largest endowment 3) It dominates in sports

etc..

I could ask the school's archives, press office, etc. for validation of much of what is on this site..

The Principal's office does indeed have 12 Go7 paintings in his office. Other paintings from Go7 are displayed in other prominent areas in the school, such as the Colborne room which is a Victorian-style room for state-type entertaining and meetings as well, attached to the Upper Dining Hall. With respect to Norval, it is used on a regular basis. My orientation to the school was a day at the property, for example, and the younger years spend staggered weeks there later in the year as their academic programs are not as rigorous as ours. Granted, some of the numbers may be exaggerated, such as the number of fields. There is the football field, the cricket pitch, the baseball diamond, Commons field, New field, Lord's field, and the Prep school field. That is only 7, but I don't know how they further split the fields, as many of them are multi-purpose, soo.. Also, I would be careful about questioning holdings like art and such of the school. These are difficult to quantify. I can tell you however that the school does have a large possession of this type of thing, for example, outside Laidlaw Hall is a folded flag that flew at the World Trade Center.

Regarding the "3rd best" report, I have heard that the school's result in the IB are within the top three year after year. The IB average is down one point from last year, however. Also, I can positively tell you that BSS is UCC's sister school. It says it in the BSS handbook, and is well-known by the students here. Relations have been strained recently, yes, but that does not change anything. We do by far more with BSS than any other school. 25 BSS girls came over tonight to play intramural sports with guys from the boarding community (which I am part of.) Travisritch 03:26, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Travisritch, BSS's HISTORICAL brother school is Trinity College School (TCS) in Port Hope, Ontario (TCS is now co-ed). I think it might have to do with religion, as both schools are High Anglican. Writerchick 02:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is not the leading school. To remain neutral, I do not believe that you can say anything is the best. Are we to make an article saying movie A is the best because one magazine said so? There is no agreemence that this school is the best in the country, but there is one that it is one of the leading schools in the country. Kstingily

Well you have already made a mistake. UCC is not the oldest school. I know a school that is older, St. John's-Ravenscourt School. And I know for a fact there is a school even older then SJR, although the name escapes me. Nice try. You cannot justify the bias of saying a school is the best, and this is simply not wiki behaviour. Drop me a line on my talk page. TDS (talk • contribs) 02:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Re-doing the page

After looking at UCC's page and that of other top schools such as Eton College and Harrow School, I suggest we re-do this page in format. We should have an opening paragraph, with a picture on the right as there is now, followed by a table of contents with History, Noted alumni, Customs, etc...I would be able to provide a lot of information as well, and I am going to get a copy of the school's crest from the I.T. department to make a section on as well. What do you think?

Travisritch 18:49, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Travisritch, it may be morth worthwhile to do it in the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Education_in_Canada project standard. TDS (talk • contribs) 02:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Marketing Tone

Some of the content of this piece has a boosterish, marketing-type tone. I am a graduate of the school and am attempting to make the piece more frank and objective. Above all, the entry should be complete, accurate and fair.

I have entered much of the historical information that some boosters would see as negative, but I have also repeatedly removed the childish vandalism that we have seen here in recent days. There are many remarkably positive things about this school - I think these are more than addressed already - but I am trying to balance out the entry with critical viewpoints.

There is a lot of superlative, sales-oriented language in here that I believe detracts from the objectivity of the article.

To the current student - I understand and respect your desire to defend the school from unfair detractors, but this is not a sales or recruitment brochure. Also, to compare UCC with Eton or Harrow is somewhat plausible but a definite stretch.

December 15 - 17:45 - GMT-8

I think that Travisrich's point with the comparison was to show how the formatting of the UCC page is different than that of the other pages of top schools. Also, I agree with your point of how that there is a lot of the sales-oriented language as you put it, however those paragraphs have been there, practically unchanged, for quite a long time. So I agree with what Travisrich proposes above, since it appears to be a major overhaul of the article and to also synchronize the formatting with that of other top schools. And to your idea about balancing the viewpoints, one thing that could be done is to move the paragraph about the lawsuits up to the main part of the article, currently it is easily missed by the reader because of the long alumni list. --Colonel Cow 18:40, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And only about 35 minutes after that comment Darkcore starts redoing the page. Nice job so far Darkcore --Colonel Cow 23:30, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think what has been done so far by Darkcore is fairly good work, however I question the need to eliminate the section on the capital building campaign. Granted some of the tone was consistent with the "marketing tone" of the article; however keeping the major jist that UCC is in the process of a large capital building projected, in paticular as it is the largest capital building programme in the school's history - if not the history of Canadian private/independant school history. Thoughts to consider.

That's hardly significant. If every school article on here listed how many gyms it had, people would want to kill themselves out of boredom. Besides, the only people that would care about any "capital building program" or whatever are current students/staff and alumni. Darkcore 02:54, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Big kudos to Darkcore for vigilance against the (pathetic, homophobic) vandalism and (unctuous) UCC promotion that plague this entry. --Chen24 20:56, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

UCC is not a "private school," it is an "independent school." The major difference in Canada is that a "private school" is defined as a school which operates in the attempt to make a profit for the owners of the school (for example: Mentor College in Mississauga, or many of the Montessori schools in Canada) or in the very least is owned by a single person or a group of persons.

Conversely, an "independent school" operates not to make a profit for any single person or groups of person - they are not owned by anyone but are rather public trusts operated by a Board of Governors/Directors on behalf of a wider community.

To quote from the UCC website: "The College is an independent, non-denominational school for boys, incorporated under an Act of the Legislature of the Province of Ontario, and is administered by a seventeen-member Board of Governors as a public trust." To label it as a "private school" might be viewed as correct by most - as not many people in Canada or elsewhere know the difference - however from a factual basis it is not truthful nor accurate. -Happy Holidays, Jim.

Comments

Well, I see someone has taken it upon themselves to begin editing the article. Perhaps we could add some information about the school's traditions. I agree that the page has (had) a bit of a marketing tone to it, but it's not like your usual marketing then is it? It's all true (save for some hyperbole.) I think the page is missing a lot of it's bulk now though, and some are not going to bother to click on the link to the list of alumni. To leave out graduates such as Ted Rogers and Vincent Massey from the main page would be to ignore a significant part of the school's reputation and history, just because it sounds impressive. Much more could also be added to the history, such as the information about the first lacrosse game played at UCC. The school is also known as a school for sports scouts as well (a graduate of the school is a member of the Canadian National Rowing Team, for example.) We could say a few things about some of the school's traditions, such as "stewards," 16 senior students who operate different parts of student life, ten of these being the head of their house. We could mention that these stewards wear tuxedo-style creme-coloured jackets in formal dress, just as Harrow talks about the different ties or waist-coats that its different posts wear. We could then also list the school's ten houses. We could put up the school's crest (I'll get a good quality copy from I.T.,) and talk about the school's motto: "Palmam ferat qui meruit," which loosely translated from Latin means "those who deserve/earn shall receive." I don't know if anyone else has any ideas, but similar information is provided about other top schools . I just like the graduate want the page to contain a fair viewpoint but feel that important things about the school are being left out. Also, lastly, it's not really that much of a stretch to stack UCC up with Exeter, Harrow, Eton etc., it certainly belongs in that ring in terms of it's historical importance, facilities, results, notable graduates and the impact they have had on the world, not to mention the shared archetype of students studying at the school and the background they tend to have. It would be like saying that Cornell is not Ivy League (even though it is) just because it's not quite Harvard.63.130.194.234 06:32, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The reason I separated out the alumni list was because it was getting too long and unwieldy. This is standard Wikipedia convention. Let's all be mindful of the fact that this is an encyclopedia; it is not free PR for UCC's purposes.

If you want to add something about UCC's history, go ahead. But, boosterish, marketing-style text will be removed. Darkcore 09:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Darkcore, the reason I am only giving suggestions and not making edits is because I am not versed in Wikipedia markup, nor do I intend to spend my time learning it. I have a life to run, as opposed to being a encyclopedic vigilante. To use the fact that anyone can edit an article as a reason for taking it upon yourself to decide what content will be displayed in a specific context amounts to no less a bias than was previously present in the article. I thought we wanted to constructively re-order and trim the article, but you have just butchered it. You should keep in mind that an institutions' eminence depends on the amount of attention paid to it. Anyone who reads the current article that is not familiar with the school would now probably not consider the school very impressive, and excuse me for having that opinion as a current student enjoying all of those gyms that would make people "kill themselves out of boredom." *Sigh*. I have looked at other edits you have made, however, and it appears there is no stopping you. So, trim, chop, cut, hack and flatten away, buddy. I give up.Travisritch 19:03, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There's a difference between Wiki markup and standard convention, but whatever... it's just common sense.

As for UCC's "eminence" - this encyclopedia is not here to boost your school's prestige. If you think that by exaggerating facts and adding UCC rhetoric is going to endear your school to the rest of the world, then you are sadly mistaken. This is an encyclopedia. Deal with it. If you want to make your own little pretty website that talks about how wonderful UCC's gyms are, then have at it - no one is stopping you. But many, many people felt that this article lacked balance and much of the hyperbole and PR needed to be removed. Darkcore 21:19, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My goal was to make it like Eton's page. Plain and simple. It still isn't there, although the format is better. I don't know where this other guy came from to make that comment, and I don't know who the mystery people are that think the article was unbalanced, but basically, I am not pleased with the edits that have been made here. I also don't know why you pay so much attention to UCC's page, you appear to have no connection to the school. I used this page to sell the school's reputation to those interested to know where I was studying. I can no longer do that, and thus I am unhappy. I accept the fact that I can't do anything about it, but, life moves on and I'm not here to start an argument. Do as you please. I'll just enjoy actually having the privilege of attending the school while you write articles about it.Travisritch 06:39, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I really dislike this bickering - so maybe we can cut it out and everyone can work in some sort of unison to making this encyclopedia entry better. I tend to agree with Darkcore that there existed some PR and hyperbole - so I'm happy that, that has been removed. However, I also think that the article has been somewhat torn apart. A discussion about the College's current facilities is warranted, as well as an expanded section of the history of UCC, and while we're at it: If other school's articles can mention capital building projects, than UCC certainly can as well...

Also for the record, Darkcore, (and honestly this is begining to really irk me), UCC is an independent school - NOT a private school. Please stop redoing my edits in regards to that topic, when there is a plethora of information proving that I am correct and you are not. If we want this to be an accurate article, then you also need to understand that your edits are often incorrect.

Anonymous person - I only changed that independent school thing once. I don't know what you're talking about, so calm down.

Travisritch and others: Just because I have no connection to school does not mean that I don't know something about the topic. As I have said time and time again, this is an encyclopedia. It is not here to "sell the school's reputation." I will continue to edit in the name of POV, and if you have a problem with it, too bad. Darkcore 22:41, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A couple more things: the layout is consistent with other schools, with a history section, etc., etc.; the previous layout had no flow whatsoever, and was extremely confusing. Also, Travisritch, you can enjoy the privilege of attending high school while I can be a graduate of a top American prep school and an Ivy League university, making a six-figure salary. Darkcore 22:48, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have complemented you on the layout of the page, I think it's great and I think it's great that you know all of this markup. I certainly don't. Of course, you wouldn't be interested in historical/research/informational services and topics of interest such as top schools and this encyclopedia if you weren't of a certain cultural status anyway. I just merely have a very very different bias because I am currently attending the school and am very proud to do so. So, perhaps we can find the right balance here.Travisritch 00:02, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Recent comments = tacky snobbery. Which contributor attends the most "eminent" high school? Who has the highest salary? Who cares? Wikipedia deserves a real discussion, not a display of feathers, over a page as apparently controversial as this one. Otherwise, Darkcore is doing a pretty good job overall. --Chen24 17:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, the marketing tone is creeping back in. UCC, like its host city, is a notable but not first-tier entity (or barely first-tier if one desperately pushed the point). Despite this, it has more length and detail than Eton, some of which is devoted to the obviously promotional "capital building campaign." This campaign gets as much ink as the sex scandals that plague the school. But which issue gets more ink in Toronto newspapers? UCC fans, have you never heard of countersignaling and understatement? The laundry lists of gyms and swimming pools are thinly-veiled advertisements. If UCC truly floats godlike over the Canadian educational sector, thou dost protest too much. --Chen24 17:26, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Look, *I* don't even care about where I went to school. But I don't appreciate being essentially told that my contributions are somehow not valid because I have no connection with UCC. Current students and alumni of the school are not the only people that are able to contribute to this article. Personally, I find that a lot of the UCC people that have been contributing reek of tacky snobbery more than I ever could. At least I can see my high school in a critical light.

Secondly, this is *hardly* a controversial article. I don't see any controversy here at all. It is just a situation of students and alumni wanting to put their school's best foot forward, and other people (such as myself) wanting to give Wikipedia articles a necessary balance and NPOV. I see a situation where UCC-connected people are desperately trying to add positive material, while other people are trying to give a better, more general picture of the place. Clearly, UCC people are not willing to respect the fact that (a) this is an encyclopedia and not a UCC marketing device, and (b) people who are not or have never been affiliated with UCC can still contribute to this article. Darkcore 18:33, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the Eton page, and check its discussion, there are only 1 or 2 things said there. I would consider this article to be controversial in the sense that there has been much more bickering stretching back for months about some of the things said in the article. Outside of Canada, the school may not have the same fame as the British public schools, but it is just as much a part of Toronto and by extension Canada, as those schools are to their countries. Eton produce Prime Ministers, and UCC produces Lieutenant Governors. Hardly something worth arguing about. Heck, Bill Graham's nephew is in my English class, as well as Lieutenant Governor of Ontario James Bartleman's youngest son, Alain. This is a top-tier place, if not a top-tier educational institution. Anyway - I think this debate is a bit stagnant to be honest with all of you, and I think it has gotten too personal, so, if anyone responds along these grounds, I won't be answering you back.

This whole discussion is getting old and is not going anywhere. I'm growing tired of people's whining and complaining. I'm not going to dignify your "UCC is important too!" comments with a response, because it's old, boring, and stupid. Darkcore 18:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I, for one, don't like the "laundry list" of facilities and I think it needs to be removed. Sounds like something right out of a promotional video. I think one or two phrases (after talking about the fees and the fact that they are the highest of any school in Canada,) about how they fund state-of-the-art facilities, such as the Learning centres, etc, would be ok. THEN move into the information about the archives and the endowment, etc. It won't feel like such a laundry list if it is logically re-ordered.

So now you don't like the "laundry list" when before, you were fighting for this laundry list to be in the article? Now you are complaining just for the sake of complaining. Darkcore 18:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it has no place in the article given how the tone has changed, although I still think a mention of the College's current facilities is warranted. But I'm not going to bother editing it because you will change it, so from now on I'm just going to give my input.

Possible Copyright Stuff...plus a debunk!

http://www.ucc.on.ca/A01000_moreaboutus.html

Take a look: a lot of the text in our Wikipedia article is taken verbatim from the UCC website. I'm new, and not sure what the process with this is. I was extremely impressed with this high-school level writing (despite the fact that I pride my skills at 15), and pleasantly surprised to find that it has been directly plagiarised. This is obviously the most important part of my comment, hence creation of a new comment.

The Canadian Educational Standards Institute stated in June 2003 that "Appleby College has set a benchmark for excellence among the independent schools."[2] Appleby has also published that the CESI chair said "Appleby is the best private school in Canada"-- this is printed on publicly available (even publicly solicited) documentation, which would prove it's veracity.

I'd like you all to take note on the fact that while providing reasons for why UCC is ostensibly the best prep school in Canada, the writers in this discussion cited a) money, b) elitism, c) history, d) sports...I thought a school was meant to be about development, education, etc. Should the schools not be judged by the same principles upon which they were founded? I'm not going to expan on my argument because it's simple enough to understand.

In arguing that the history and prestige of alumni of UCC is not far from that of Eton, we read "Eton produces Prime Ministers, UCC produces lieutenant governors [sic]" Eton has produced 19 Prime Ministers compared to 1 lieutenant-governor from UCC. I would encourage you to look at the articles List of famous Old Etonians born before the 18th century, List of famous Old Etonians born in the 18th century, List of famous Old Etonians born in the 19th century, and List of famous Old Etonians born in the 20th century before you continue with your alumni rationel; however, they're extremely lengthy and stock-full of ornate titles, appointments and positions, so you might get bored.

Can you give any documentation on this supposed $90,000,000 capital campaign?

While I do agree that UCC is an outstanding school with great history in Canada, I have two main points to prove:

• The argument that UCC ranks among the very top in the world is simply silly
• This is no place for shameless promotion and inflation of truth. We are an encylopedia.

Response to: Possible Copyright Stuff...plus a debunk!

Okay, so basically we've gone from an overly pro-UCC bias to a pro-Appleby and anti-UCC one. The above attempt at mentioning a copy right infraction was possibly accurate and I will personally see that if such a copy right infraction has occurred that it is changed as soon as possible.

However in regards to the wild claim by the user that UCC has witnessed "falling standards" is absurd. UCC maintains itself as easily the independent school with the highest academic standards. These standards originate from the usage of the IB programme at the College. The IB - universally accepted - as the most challenging and prestigious of high school programmes in the world, continues to add a much higher standard to the academics of Upper Canada. Moreover, UCC annually ranks as one of the top IB schools - and some would argue, the top school - in the world. This ranking, and the fallout from its prestige, allows UCC to claim extremely high academic standards. Whereas, schools like Appleby, follow academic programmes which are usually locally-run and administered; and therefore receive no exterior mark supervision. Therefore, there allows the ability for mark inflation and blatant favouritism towards certain students. Programmes like the IB which call for a fully externally marked papers, exams and assignments eliminate such a bias.

Now, the issue of Appleby College, a wonderful school and without a doubt one of the leading schools in Canada. However, there exists no evidence which gives any hint that Appleby, has according to the edits of the main article by the above user, “surpassed” UCC. Let’s deal with these quotes:

1) "Appleby College has set a benchmark for excellence among the independent schools." – Let’s point out here the importance of semantics. The quote says “a benchmark” not “the benchmark.” It is extremely vital to point that difference out. Moreover, if you read the CESI reports they sing praises about every single school they report on. If we were to trust the CESI reports, we’d believe that ever private school in Canada is the epicenter of enlightenment.

2) “Appleby is the best private school in Canada.” A fairly wild and nonsensical assertion with no factual base, as is evident by the lack of a source. Well actually, the author cites “Appleby” says as the source (similar, to “Simon says.”). How ironic that a school should in their own publications, as the author is alluding to, that they are “best.” This is like McDonald’s publishing an ad saying that “Our burgers reign supreme.” They don’t. Appleby is a fine school, however if they are the only ones saying they are the best, then I would contend the validity of that source. UCC on the other hand, has a plethora of sources which claim that the College is the most exclusive, prestigious and “best” school in the country.

Now moving on to the second argument presented, the issue of UCC being the best prep. school in the country. The user claims that the entire discussion page of this article has summed up UCC in the following 4 categories: i) money; ii) elitism; iii) history; and iv) sports. (Naturally, he/she forget the significant number of sources, cited above, which clearly state that UCC is the premier school.)

i) Money: Prep. Schools by definition tend to be ranked in regards to how large their endowment is. The trustworthiness of this statement, I’ll admit, might be wrong in theory. However, in practice, it is very much how people view prep. schools and how they are stacked up against each other. Here UCC wins versus Appleby. ii) Elitism: I think it’s fair to say UCC is full of elitist people, because it simply is very synonymous with the elitist members of society. It’s fair to say that when looking at a prep school they do weigh the factor of how elite they are – UCC wins this battle too. iii) History: To be the best prep. school in the country means you need to have an illustrious history. UCC has such a history; most other schools in Canada do not. UCC is a school which has made unbelievable contributions to Canada and the world. It is that history which shows a significant portion of the importance and role of UCC. iv) Sports: I agree it doesn’t play a huge role. However, College teams have always performed, on average, to be the best amongst Canadian independent schools. Moreover, when the College competes internationally, they also do extremely well. If you’re an athlete, looking at the College’s overall athletic record (ie. All teams) it is fair to say that UCC is a powerhouse when compared to any other school – with the possible exception of SMCS.

The user/author asks: “Should the schools not be judged by the same principles upon which they were founded?” The answer to that is an incredible and enthusiastic “yes!” UCC’s founding in 1829 was to be the premier educational institution in the colonies – and to this day, 175 years later, it remains.

UCC Old Boys: This probably had the least sense of any attempted argument by the user. Old Boys of UCC have contributed more to Canada and to the world than graduates of any other single school in Canada and most in the world. Eton College is a tremendous exception in the world – very few institutions and organisations are even within the same planetary orbit as that school. Though: Out of the alumni links to UCC the following is true (though the numbers are most likely higher, but Wikipedia is restricted in access to full information):

- The school has produced at least 4 Lt. Governors of Ontario - 1 Lt. Governor of Manitoba - 1 Governor General of Canada - 5 of the world’s great authors - 6 of Canada’s billionaires - 3 Chief Justices of the Courts in the last 2 decades - 3 current federal cabinet ministers - 4 Presidents or ex-Presidents of the University of Toronto - Numerous business and academic positions.

UCC graduates have made a spectacular and lasting impact on Canada and the world. For being 175 years old the school’s contributions have been extradionaire and leave the other Canadian schools in the metaphorical dust. The list here on Wikipedia does not give a fair sense of the true power and success of Old Boys from UCC.

The last two points won’t even being discussed…because well, they are well established facts that certain people have been trying to fix. However, what you did, in paticular with your rant about the supremacy of Appleby, showed none of the so-called “inflation of truth” that you were apparently such a defender of. All you did was turn the tables from "pro-UCC" to "pro-Appleby."

To conclude: “The health of UCC is very important for the health of the country." – Michael Wilson, Minister of Finance

A fierce debate between two anon posters - that's not going to help us much.

It appears to me that UCC has a difficult time arguing its significance without a real understanding of the College's Old Boys and the things they have done. However, if it wouldn't be in violation of anything, there are huge wall-mounted parchment-looking inscriptions all over the school noting down notable graduates of the school and honours students have won - every Rhodes Scholar, every Victoria Cross, etc. I would be more than happy to make notes of people on these and pass them along for inclusion in the article. If you look at those Eton lists, the criteria for being listed is quite low, even military commandants are included on the list - one could hardly call those of such rank famous. As UCC keeps these records as well, who's to say I/we can't? The school is open to visitors as a historical building in Toronto, so it's not to say that the information is meant to be hidden or copywritten. Would this be of help? Travisritch 18:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Goodness! I never realized that UCC and Appleby were rivals like that...I don't know why, but I always thought that it would be between UCC and another "Little Big Four" school (TCS, SAC, Ridley).

• Writerchick shudders* and hopes that there won't be a BSS/Havergal catfight in the near future 01:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Appleby would be lucky if they could even consider themselves UCC's rivals.

• • January 20th, AC 3 - 2 UCC on your home ice. You were just torched.

Student-to-teacher ratio

"The current student-to-teacher ratio is 1:8."

Are there really 8 teachers for every one student? ;) Somebody who knows the real ratio should fix this. -Frazzydee|✍ 23:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is the offical College published number... (It's clearly a lie, MBB)

I am a student and Ambassador (tour guide) at UCC and I know that the student-to-teacher ratio is 18:1. I've edited it. Travisritch 23:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

UCC Jargon

I recommend removing this section, its far too incomplete (fixing this would make it too exhaustive). It takes away from the professional look of the page, and its general relevance, by giving little that is of any help to anyone looking up UCC. As well, since when is Applby considered a rival?

Cheers, MB

Appleby is not a rival - it was the talk of a mad man! Nevertheless, the jargon should be gone!

I agree, it is just useless.

There has recently been a profileration of the fact that UCC has a wikipedia article. Students have taken to editing it at their leisure, thus resulting in the poor-quality UCC jargon and "houses" sections. I believe they should both be removed or thoroughly changed in format and content. Travisritch 23:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I am removing the Jargon bit; I will copy and paste it in here. It is a poor quality addition to the main page, adding nothing of real value and is far too limited.

UCC students and staff alike often sport a language of their own as is common in many schools. For example:

Steward - A prefect

Red rocket - A message sent by a teacher to a boy's housemaster or advisor notifying incomplete work or failure to complete other academic responsibility (named after the red paper on which these messages were written).

Gating - A detention on Saturday

Year - A grade

House Advisor - Academic counsellor responsible for a few students within a house

Mentor - A senior student who takes care of a new boy for the first few weeks of the term

Prep - The junior school

Remove - The top grade at the Prep

First Dress - The most formal dress, used for special occasions or trips

School Dress - The regular dress, consisting of a dress shirt, house (or school) tie, slacks, and polished dress shoes

Spring Dress - The dress during the summer, consisting of a UCC golf shirt, khakis, and topsliders

Slacker Six-pack - The "easiest" set of courses in the I.B. programme; they include Standard Level Mathematical Studies (the lowest maths course), SL Envrironmental Systems (considered to be the easiest science), SL French, Higher Level English, HL Geography and HL Theatre

Asian six-pack - Essentially, the opposite of the "Slacker Six-pack", the hardest courses in the I.B. programme. The courses include Higher Level Mathematics, Higher Level Physics and Higher Level Chemistry, and a set of standard level courses, usually SL English, SL French and SL Economics. It is named for the fact that it is a science-driven programme.

Houses Issue

I believe, as many also do, (those both working for the site and others in general) that the House's articles are problems, despite the fact they are valuable additions to the UCC site. They should be remade in a more informative, structured and grammatically sound fashion - akin to the Jackson's House article. Until then, I have redirected the latest 3 houses back to the UCC page until they are improved. (The other three houses were redirected by Carruthers a few months back I believe.)

WikiProject Standards

As I have never edited this page, I don't want to barge in here and begin a full scale remodelling of this page. However, I am wondering if there is any support for using the standards set in Canadian Education WikiProject. For examples of this template applied to private schools see Collingwood School and SJR.

Cheers,

TDS (talk • contribs) 02:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Group of Seven paintings

Do we actually have evidence that all of the Group of Seven paintings the school had in its possession have been sold? The only reference to these I can find is a Globe and Mail article which states: "The school has also ordered an appraisal of many of its assets, which include Group of Seven paintings, Canada's first Victoria Cross and Norval, a vast plot of land near Georgetown. Despite this, school officials insist that the school is not in danger of being forced to sell off assets to cover its legal costs." 1 Nowhere can I find a categorical statement that UCC has disposed of any of the paintings, let alone all of them. --gbambino 17:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I found an article which says the school auctioned off "at least one" of the Group of Seven paintings 2. Still nothing about all of them. --gbambino 17:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

70.26.184.193, whether you go to the school or not is irrelevant (and the fact that you think it somehow makes you an expert on the topic of the Gof7 paintings is more than a little arrogant). Currently there is no debate around the fact that the school owned Gof7 paintings, and it is a known fact that "at least one" of the paintings was auctioned. There exists no concrete proof that every one of the paintings has been sold, despite your having been in Grant House (and at least some of the paintings were in the Principal's office, last time I saw them). So, until someone can provide unequivocal evidence that UCC no longer owns a single Gof7 painting, then there's no dispute to the information as it exists in the article. --gbambino 19:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

New userbox

I've created a userbox for UCC students/faculty/staff/Old Boys, available here: Template:User Upper Canada College. Cheers, --Madchester 07:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Table

The format of the table is consistent with a number of other articles on Ontario private/independent schools, namely: Appleby College, Community Hebrew Academy of Toronto, Lakefield College School, St. Clement's School, and Trinity College School. Only one has the format you propose: St. Andrew's College (Aurora, Ontario). Whether you find your proposal more aesthetically pleasing is pretty much a matter of POV, so I think it's best to stick to the most common format to maintain some kind of continuity amongst the articles. Is there a standard for this type of thing anyway?

And, as an aside, UCC has never been a denominational school. --gbambino 17:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It is originally Anglican. Also, the fact that most other private schools in Ontario isn't really consequential - most of those articles are barely anything at all anyway. There is no standard table, no. User Synflame 19:30, 6 February 2006.

UCC was founded as a non-denominational school. It may have had a predominantly Anglican staff in its early years, but Colborne was specific about not associating the College with any one religion. This is one of the reasons why Bishop Strachan (the man, not the school) was so perturbed by the founding of the school.

As for the table, that it follows the form of those on other pages is of matter - Wikipedia is about consistency and standards. In the absence of a standard, we should at least be consistent. Perhaps the table here could set a standard for the other independent school articles, I have no problem with that, but personally I think the present table's format, or something closely resembling it, is superior to the one you proposed (no offence, of course!). As well, tables throughout Wikipedia in general tend to have closed boxes rather than more loose rows separated by floating lines. --gbambino 19:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse the late response, as I have been away. I understand your reasoning, and while I do beleive the one in question is aesthetically superior I will concede to the newest version (as of writing this comment), which I was going to recommened regardless (Ala [[Princeton University[[). User: Synflame 11 February 2006 6:25 (UTC)

Mascot

Is it really the cookie monster? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I've seen pictures of a few football games where there's someone dressed as the Cookie Monster, but as mascots seem to come and go at UCC I'm not sure if it still is. It certainly wasn't when I went there. --gbambino 16:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Guys, it is NOT the Cookie Monster. Let me introduce you to Intellectual Property Law 101. Intellectual Property Law 101? Meet Gbambino and CambridgeBayWeather. CambridgeBayWeather and Gbambino? Meet Intellectual Property Law 101. IPL101 has whispered something in your ears, it is this: "The mascot for UCC is not the Cookie Monster because UCC has not licensed the rights to use the Cookie Monster from Sesame Workshop, a non-profit with world-wide exclusive ownership of the Cookie Monster brand". Next you two will be saying the mascot for UCC is Mickey Mouse....

If you concentrated more on reading and less on building up your sarcasm and condescension skills, you might have noted that I only remember seeing some pictures of a guy dressed in a Cookie Monster costume at some A-Day and other football games. I noted that the mascot may well have changed since then. Also, despite you apparently vast knowledge of copyright law, what else would you call a blue-furred, wide-mouthed, googly-eyed character, other than Cookie Monster? He sure as hell ain't "O RLY OWL," whatever the f*ck that is. I'm removing reference to a mascot until it can be confirmed the school actually has one, and what it is. --gbambino 21:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to know what the O RLY owl is, then, LOL, read the damn Wikipedia article on the topic! Until you do so, I am putting it back as the O RLY owl because you admit youself that you have no idea what the O RLY owl is. If you're not sure what it is, how can you be sure it's not the UCC mascot? Logic FTW. I am glad to hear that finally acknowledged my complete and utter correctness in pointing out the ridiculousness of your assertion that the UCC mascot was the Cookie Monster. At least, we can put that to rest.

I would have read the article if you had provided the right link. Before doing so it appeared you were making up utter nonsense. But, you still haven't provided evidence that it is actually the mascot. I'm not specifically asserting that it isn't (and it seems to contiune to slip over your comprehension that I never did attest to knowing for sure what the mascot is), but frankly, without proof that "O RLY owl" is, I'm removing it from the table until it can be confirmed by other sources. Nothing personal, just trying to be factually accurate. --gbambino 22:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

To the anonymous editor: please review Wikipedia's guidelines on Civility. Sarcasm and condescension ae not a good way of getting your point across. It is more effective to try to work with other editors than to piss them off. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 04:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity section

Re. Barton: I went to UCC from '83 to '94 and don't remember any such comment. Provide a more viable source. As well, provide proof he was heterosexual.

Re. Motek: Remember the guy, but don't remember the essay. You say it's in the '91 Times, but strangely in the article you put '88. I'll check both my copies at home.

Re. photos in yearbook: The presence of predominantly "white" faces in the yearbook photos is not proof of systematic racism at UCC. It may well be the concequence of the fact that upper middle class and upper class Toronto society through those decades was predominantly "white." As well you can't necessarily tell someone's ethnicity just by how they look - do all Jews look different to Anglo-Europeans, or Eastern Europeans? --gbambino 22:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, ROFL, I have no source to prove Barton's heterosexuality. I think most people would at least say that he "passed" as heterosexual, what with his wife and kids and all. I applaud the high editorial standards you have set by insisting on sourcing EVERYTHING. As a result, I have taken the liberty of editing the entire UCC article by deleting anything that is not footnoted. Together, we can build a better, more reliable, more sourced article on UCC. I look forward to our collaboration.

Have anything substantial to contribute? Or do you just have a personal grudge against the school? Regardless, learn to work with more than just base generalizations. Self-improvement is a good thing. --gbambino 22:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Gambino, a lot more makes sense to me. I checked out your bio page. Turns out you're a fan of the Monarchist League of Canada. Which is about a hair breath's away from the KKK as a legally sanctioned whites only hate group. No wonder you don't like hearing about racism at UCC....

Please review the Wikipedia policy on No personal attacks. These comments are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Ground Zero | t 04:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Zero, please refer to Gambino's quote "Unlike many other Canadian independent schools, UCC has a long history of ethnic students since its founding. The first black student enrolled in 1831, the first Jewish student in 1836 and the first aboriginal student in 1840, some graduates from the Ojibway peoples of Upper Canada going on to study at Dartmouth College and Harvard University. [9] Still, despite the inclusion of students from these ethnic groups, UCC maintained a reputation as a "bastion of WASP privilege." [10]:Do you see his use of the the "Still" and "despite"? These are weasel words and threaten the wikigoodness of NPOV, please, you must help us here and correct the bias that Gambino is introducing here by trying to "tone down" or delegitimize the "reputation" of UCC as a "bastion of WASP privilege". His phrasing instructs the reader to take any charge of racism at UCC with a grain of salt. Do you not agree? Can you delete these weasel words plz? Thx !!! :) 05:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing

Yo, Gambino, you're selecting deleting anything unsourced that you do not like. I can play that game to. Watch.

Try reading the sources provided and you'll note that everything in the article already is cited. Keep up your childish antics though, they're highly entertaining. --gbambino 23:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you a white heterosexual male from a middle to upper income family upbringing? Just curious. Please, please, please explain how EVERYTHING is cited in the article. I only saw 19 footnotes and I'm pretty sure that they were NOT backing up everythign written in the article. Are there 30 other footnotes in the article that were invisible to me? If so, how do I "turn them on"? You're not lying and being hypocritical in order to "win the argument" are you? I'd be very disappointed if you were....

Can I ask what exactly it is you want to achieve here? --gbambino 23:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I want to expose that UCC was not a racist-free playground nor even a paragon of diversity nurturing as the current article so hilariously insinuates. You only bother to expound on the positive elements of the school (the long history, its assets, its famous alumni) all the while swarmily ignoring its ugly underbelly. You can try to sabotage the exposure of truth, but you will ultimately fail. I promise you that.

I love how you so transparently ignored the question. So I'll ask it again. Please, please, please explain how EVERYTHING is cited in the article. I only saw 19 footnotes and I'm pretty sure that they were NOT backing up everythign written in the article. Were they? Please answer the question directly. Kthxbye.

Yo, Gambino, Your High Hypocriticalness, please provide the source for the following illustrative tidbits below. Please enjoy by point by point commentary, asking for the source. If you fail to provide sources within 24 hours, I will, JUST LIKE YOU DID TO ME AND OTHERS, start deleting all unsourced sentences. kthxbye.

Pleas review Wikipedia's policy on No presonal attacks. Name-calling, as above, is not appropriate. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 04:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Upper Canada College (UCC) is an all-male elementary and secondary school in Toronto, Canada. (SOURCE PLZ)
  • Not my edit, but www.ucc.on.ca
• It is the oldest independent school in the province of Ontario (SOURCE PLZ)
  • Not my edit, but a simple survey of the dates of schools' founding will give you your answer.
  • Canadian Encyclopedia
• It is the third oldest school in Canada. (SOURCE PLZ)
  • Not my edit, but a simple survey of the dates of schools' founding will give you your answer.
• It is widely considered the leading school in Canada. (SOURCE PLZ) O RLY? YA RLY. NO WAI. SOUNDS LIKE A POV TO ME!
  • Not my edit - and a comment that's constantly being debated here.
• UCC is a non-denominational school administered by a Board of Governors as a public trust. (SOURCE PLZ)
  • Not my edit, but: www.ucc.on.ca
• All of UCC's 1,000 day students and 110 boarders study the International Baccalaureate diploma programme during Grades 11 and 12. (SOURCE PLZ) WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN?
  • Not my edit, but www.ucc.on.ca (and, BTW, can you seriously say you know anything about UCC and not know it operates as an IB school now?)
• The College maintains a traditional link to the Royal Family through HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, who is the College's Official Visitor, and a member of the Board of Governors. (SOURCE PLZ)
  • Not my edit, but www.ucc.on.ca
• The school's current Principal is Dr. James Power. (SOURCE PLZ)
  • Not my edit, but www.ucc.on.ca
• Interim Head of UCC's Preparatory School is Donald Kawasoe. (SOURCE PLZ)
  • Not my edit, but www.ucc.on.ca
• The students are represented by Head Steward Devin Hart, and the Board of Stewards. (SOURCE PLZ)
  • Not my edit, but www.ucc.on.ca
• The College was founded in 1829 by then-Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada, Major-General Sir John Colborne (later , Lord Seaton). (SOURCE PLZ)
• The school was founded in the hopes it would serve as a feeder school to the newly established King's College (later the University of Toronto), and was modelled on the great public schools of Britain, most notably Eton College. (SOURCE PLZ) O RLY? YA RLY. NO WAI. SOUNDS LIKE A POV TO ME!
• An announcement of the College's January opening appeared in the December 17, 1829, edition of the Canada Gazette, and teaching at the College began on January 4, 1830, with 57 students, the first boy enrolled being Henry Scadding. (SOURCE PLZ)
• By the end of the school's first semester, the enrolment had increased to 89. (SOURCE PLZ)
• Prior to 1829, the College was called the Royal Grammar School. (SOURCE PLZ)
• Its first permanent buildings stood on Russell Square, on land that is now bounded by King, Simcoe, Adelaide and John Streets in downtown Toronto. (SOURCE PLZ)
• Almost immediately after the College opened, plans were implemented for newer and more permanent buildings, and the 1831 school year began in new structures at the north-west corner of King and Simcoe Streets. (SOURCE PLZ)
• In Lost Toronto, William Dendy wrote: "All the UCC buildings were of red brick. Only the main block had much architectural pretension, with its large porch supported on stone piers and the windows ornamented with flat, ledge-like architraves supported on scrolled consoles.... The centre block measured 80 feet wide and 82 feet deep and contained offices and classrooms opening off a central hall on both floors; in the northwest corner of the second floor there was a "prayer room", with a dais for the master and box pews for each of the seven forms...." (SOURCE PLZ)
• In 1837, UCC's student militia offered help to Sir Francis Bond Head's Family Compact government in suppressing the pro-democracy Mackenzie's Upper Canada Rebellion. (SOURCE PLZ)
• In 1852, Mackenzie's sons, William and George, were enrolled at UCC. (SOURCE PLZ)
• On March 4, 1837, the King's College charter was amended to take UCC in under the control of the university, with the principal to be appointed by the King, the vice-principal and masters nominated by the Chancellor of King's College (the Lieutenant Governor) at the approval of the King's College Council. (SOURCE PLZ)
• By the 1870s, with an enrolment of 300, the school was outgrowing the 1831 buildings. (SOURCE PLZ)
• A $40,000 expenditure for expansion of the original structures was approved by the province for twelve classrooms, a public hall, a room for the principal, and beds for 60 more borders. (SOURCE PLZ)
• The improvements were complete by April 1877, with the centre block expanded and its main facade altered to more of a Queen Anne style blended with a modified Elizabethan. (SOURCE PLZ)
• Two story brick piers enhanced the corners and framed tall narrow windows, with the main entrance protruding forward, flanked by banded columns, more typical of Jacobean style. (SOURCE PLZ)
• An octagonal cupola surmounted the main entrance volume, surrounded by narrow pinnacles topping the corner piers, which all concealed chimneys and ventilation openings. (SOURCE PLZ)
• The eclectic mix of different styles was typical of the overall concept of Victorian architecture. (SOURCE PLZ) O RLY? YA RLY. NO WAI. SOUNDS LIKE A POV TO ME!
• By 1880, the College already again needed expansion of the boarding houses, and a gymnasium was necessary. (SOURCE PLZ)
• UCC came close to closing its doors in 1887, when a Liberal provincial government which supported university federation, and saw the College's endowment and downtown campus as sources of funds for such an expensive venture, came to power. (SOURCE PLZ) O RLY? YA RLY. NO WAI. SOUNDS LIKE A POV TO ME!
• In reaction to this a group of Old Boys met, along with letters of support from various alumni, including Lieutenant Governor John Beverley Robinson, in an effort to stop the closing of the College's doors. (SOURCE PLZ) O RLY? YA RLY. NO WAI. SOUNDS LIKE A POV TO ME!
• The meeting ended with a unanimous motion that the group's views be laid before the government. (SOURCE PLZ)
• The story was covered widely in the papers of the time, with the Evening Telegram being most supportive, the Globe taking a more moderate stance, and the News criticizing the existence of the school. (SOURCE PLZ) O RLY? YA RLY. NO WAI. SOUNDS LIKE A POV TO ME!
• In the end, after much negotiation, a decision was reached to detach the school from King's College after fifty years of affiliation, and to operate it under the guidance of five trustees appointed by the Minister of Education. (SOURCE PLZ) O RLY? YA RLY. NO WAI. SOUNDS LIKE A POV TO ME!
• The College was also to be relocated to an area outside of the city, though this provision was not included in the statute.
• From 1887 to 1891, much effort was directed towards the moving of the College. (SOURCE PLZ)
• The principal, then George Dickson, and the architect G.F. Durand, toured the private schools in the United States, and in February 1888, plans for the new buildings were presented to the government. (SOURCE PLZ)
• A site at Avenue Road and St. Clair Avenue was suggested by the government, but was objected to as the 14 acres was deemed too small. (SOURCE PLZ)
• A new site, slightly farther north, was chosen and purchased from a Mr. Lawrence Baldwin. (SOURCE PLZ)
• The ground-breaking for the new buildings at the new campus took place on April 2, 1889. (SOURCE PLZ)
• On July 3, 1891, the bell at the Russell Square campus rang for the last time, and on August 29, a farewell cricket game was played, and, in an attempt to ensure the survival of the College, the Upper Canada College Old Boys' Association was created on the same day. (SOURCE PLZ)
• UCC then moved to its current site, the Deer Park campus, 200 Lonsdale Road at Avenue Road in Forest Hill, with the doors being officially opened on October 14, 1891. (SOURCE PLZ)
• William Dendy described the buildings in his book Lost Toronto: "Inevitably, given the date, the style of the new buildings was Romanesque Revival. It was built on a foundation of roughly finished Credit Valley sandstone, with upper walls of red brick ornamented with terra cotta panels and string courses. The basic arrangement of the design - a projecting triple-arched entrance, a central tower, and flanking wings forming a quadrangle behind - was very common at the time, and had become firmly established in Toronto with Lennox's City Hall (1996-92).... In fact, the new tower, rising 165 feet above the ground, like a church steeple above the surrounding trees, became a symbol of the college - an ever present reminder to students, and to the city below the hill, of the importance of the college and the influence of the alumni that had been shaped by it." (SOURCE PLZ)
• The new buildings purportedly held a room for a commercial course, which contained a counter and series of wickets built to simulate a real bank; these facilities were to help teach boys the routines of banking. (SOURCE PLZ) O RLY? YA RLY. NO WAI. SOUNDS LIKE A POV TO ME!
• In 1902, a separate Preparatory School was built at the south edge of the Deer Park campus, creating two physically separate schools. (SOURCE PLZ)
• More than 400 graduates perished during both the First World War and the Second World War. (SOURCE PLZ)
• Historian Jack Granatstein asserted that UCC graduates accounted for more than 30% of Canadian generals during the Second World War, including General Harry Crerar, Commander in Chief of the Canadian Army, and Major-General Bruce Matthews, Commander of the 2nd Canadian Division and later Chairman of the College's Board of Governors. (SOURCE PLZ)
• The College faced another crisis at the end of the 1950s when it was discovered that the 1891 main building was decaying rapidly due to poor construction; cracks and pipes were appearing throughout, doors frames warped to the point where doors could no longer be opened or closed. (SOURCE PLZ) O RLY? YA RLY. NO WAI. SOUNDS LIKE A POV TO ME!
• Eventually there was a fear that the tower would collapse. (SOURCE PLZ) O RLY? YA RLY. NO WAI. SOUNDS LIKE A POV TO ME!
• Because of these problems, the building was condemned and evacuated by March 12, 1958. (SOURCE PLZ)
• Faculty offices were moved to the Prep building, the infirmary, and any other spare spaces, including the principal's residence, Grant House. Classes were conducted in portables. (SOURCE PLZ)
• That same year, a major fundraising campaign was launched as construction of a new building on the exact site of the old was started. (SOURCE PLZ)
• HRH Prince Philip visited in 1959 to assist with the fundraising. (SOURCE PLZ)
• Money to reconstruct the iconic tower over the main entrance was donated by the media magnate, Ted Rogers. (SOURCE PLZ)
• Even though construction began in 1958, during the modernist era, the symmetry of the original structure, as well as a clock tower, were repeated, yet instead of a Romanesque Revival style a simplified Georgian was used. (SOURCE PLZ)
• In the summer of 1959, Governor General Vincent Massey laid the cornerstone, and tragedy struck that same year when an Italian construction worker fell from the tower to his death. (SOURCE PLZ) O RLY? YA RLY. NO WAI. SOUNDS LIKE A POV TO ME!
• None-the-less, Field Marshal Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein dedicated the new front doors on April 28, 1960, and the new building was officially opened by Vincent Massey and Ewdard Peacock on September 28. (SOURCE PLZ)
• The $3,200,000 cost of the bulding was fully subscribed. (SOURCE PLZ)
• UCC welcomed the first woman to its Board of Governors in 1971 with the appointment of Pauline Mills McGibbon, although she resigned in 1974 upon her appointment to the post of Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. (SOURCE PLZ)
• In 1979, UCC celebrated its 150th anniversary in the presence of the College's Official Visitor, HRH Prince Philip, at the College's first Association Day. (SOURCE PLZ)
  • All of the above from: Charles Dickens, American Notes. Cited in The College Times, Summer 1910, pg. 30; John D. Robarts Research Library, University of Toronto, Newspaper Hansard, March 12, 1887; 'Upper Canada College, 1829-1979: Colborne's Legacy; Howard, Richard; Macmillan Company of Canada, 1979.
• By 1989 the Peacock Building, the original structure of the Prep School, built in 1902, was growing outdated for the needs of the College. (SOURCE PLZ)
• It still contained boarding dorms, bathrooms, and masters' quarters which were being used as storage and makeshift offices. Renovation of the building was considered, but eventually it was decided that a new structure should be built as part of a larger, overall building campaign for the campus. (SOURCE PLZ)
  • UCC Rennaissance XXI literature. I'll add the footnote.
• The new Eaton Building, named for the Eaton family, which sent many sons to UCC, was completed in 1992, with a modern design that still included references to its historical predecessor. (SOURCE PLZ)
  • What's being disputed?
• The gothic pointed arch of the original Peacock Building main door was reconstructed as a free-standing monument in the Eaton Building's forecourt. (SOURCE PLZ)
  • Um, it's sitting right there.
• 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. (SOURCE PLZ)
  • www.ucc.on.ca
• Two years later the College decided to greatly alter it's academic course and adopted the International Baccalaureate programme. (SOURCE PLZ)
  • Not my edit, but www.ucc.on.ca
• The Eaton Building was extended in 1999 to accommodate the school's curricular expansion to include grades 1 and 2. Senior kindergarten was introduced in 2003. (SOURCE PLZ)
  • www.ucc.on.ca
• By the early 20th century, the city was growing quickly around the Deer Park campus. (SOURCE PLZ)
  • Not my edit, but can cite Wikipedia article on Toronto, if you like.
• The College trustees began to explore the possibility of once again moving the school. (SOURCE PLZ)
• A property of 450 acres on the Credit River, north of the Toronto, was purchased in 1913. (SOURCE PLZ)
• Plans for a new college building were even drawn up by a Toronto architectural firm. (SOURCE PLZ)
• However, due to the First World War and the depression, plans to move the school were abandoned in the 1930s. (SOURCE PLZ)
• Still, the property remained in the hands of the school, and it has become a popular outdoor education centre for UCC students. (SOURCE PLZ)
• In 1964, a modern bunk-house, designed by Old Boy Blake Millar, was built, and an arboretum was planted. (SOURCE PLZ)
• In 1967, the bunk-house, known as Stephen House, won a Massey Medal for excellence in architecture. (SOURCE PLZ)
  • The above from: Upper Canada College, 1829-1979: Colborne's Legacy; Howard, Richard; Macmillan Company of Canada, 1979
• Today, Norval is Canada's oldest "outdoor" school. (SOURCE PLZ)
  • Not my edit, but www.ucc.on.ca
• There is no fixed date for the formation of the UCC Cadets, though beginnings can be traced to a willingness of students to participate in the defence against the 1837 rebellion. (SOURCE PLZ)
• Later in the 1800s, in schools throughout England, Canada and the United States, involvement in a military body was thought of to inspire patriotism in young men, as well as being a good method of teaching discipline and obedience. (SOURCE PLZ)
• By 1863, UCC students were paraded weekly, in an amateur fashion, under someone known as Major Goodwin, but with the beginning of Fenian troubles in Upper Canada by 1865, UCC students requested that the Cadets form into a company of the Queen's Own Rifles. (SOURCE PLZ) O RLY? YA RLY. NO WAI. SOUNDS LIKE A POV TO ME!
• By 1866, the request was fulfilled, making UCC possibly the second school in Canada to have a proper Cadet Corps (the first being Bishop's College School in Lennonville, Quebec). (SOURCE PLZ)
• When the Fenians did attack Fort Erie, Ontario, on June 1, 1866 (see Fenian Raids), the UCC Cadets were called to duty, but were instructed to guard the armouries and official stores. (SOURCE PLZ)
• None-the-less, this was the only time in Canadian military history where student Cadet Corps (Bishop's College Cadets were present as well) was called to duty. (SOURCE PLZ)
• By the 1890s, there was a lack of enthusiasm for the Cadets. (SOURCE PLZ) O RLY? YA RLY. NO WAI. SOUNDS LIKE A POV TO ME!
• It was an extra expense for a student's family to cover the costs of uniform, weapons, and even their drill instructor, and drill and practice time was beyond the commitment to scholastics and sport. (SOURCE PLZ)
• Enrolment fluctuated over the next few decades, at one point the school's administration turning its eyes to the school the College had been modelled on, Eton, as well as Harrow, where Cadet participation was compulsory. (SOURCE PLZ) O RLY? YA RLY. NO WAI. SOUNDS LIKE A POV TO ME!
• No real action was taken by UCC in regards to the Cadets, however, by 1910 the population of the company had increased to 63, and in 1912 a Sergeant Carpenter was approached to act as instructor. (SOURCE PLZ)
• He was not to last long, as by 1914 he was in Europe as Sergeant-Major in the 9th Battalion of the 1st Canadian Overseas Contingent. (SOURCE PLZ)
• Numbers in the UCC Cadets still stayed high during the First World War. (SOURCE PLZ)
• By around 1919, the UCC Cadets finally became compulsory, and principal Grant asked the army district headquarters if the Corps could be presented with Colours, both the King's Colour and College Colour. (SOURCE PLZ)
• The College Colour was given by Elanor Gooderham in 1921. (SOURCE PLZ)
• During the war, the Cadets' association with the Queen's Own Rifles had lapsed, and by 1923 two regiments, the Toronto Regiment and Queen's Own Rifles were requesting that the Corps affiliate itself with them. (SOURCE PLZ)
• After some dispute between the three parties, the College settled on the Queen's Own again by 1927. (SOURCE PLZ)
• For thirty following years, the Cadets remained an integral part of College life, and by the middle of the Second World War boys were practising not only drills, but also spent time on lectures, map reading, military law, and signalling. (SOURCE PLZ) O RLY? YA RLY. NO WAI. SOUNDS LIKE A POV TO ME!
• However, by the 1960s, due to broader shifts in social paradigms, belief in the Cadets was faltering; religion and patriotism were not held in such high regard by youth, and rebellion was the more accepted behaviour for teenagers. (SOURCE PLZ) O RLY? YA RLY. NO WAI. SOUNDS LIKE A POV TO ME!
• Minutes of the Board of Governors meeting in 1965 recorded, for the first time in sixty years, poor discipline at the battalion parade. (SOURCE PLZ)
• Principal Richard Sadlier finally disbanded the Cadet Battalion as a compulsory body in 1976. (SOURCE PLZ)
• He noted: "The Battalion has been left with little beyond its ceremonial drill which is a pretty irrelevant exercise to many people today and difficult to defend when it becomes the be-all and end-all of a program." (SOURCE PLZ)
  • Above from: Upper Canada College, 1829-1979: Colborne's Legacy; Howard, Richard; Macmillan Company of Canada, 1979

I hope that clarifies everything for you. --gbambino 17:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait. You're saying that EVERYTHING I QUOTED ABOVE as unsourced came from one (1) book? If so, you have now exposed Wikipedia to a lawsuit. Please get acquainted with Fair Use: http://www.nolo .com/article.cfm/objectID/C3E49F67-1AA3-4293-9312FE5C119B5806/310/276/240/ART/. You will see that you have failed FIVE out of FIVE tests for proper Fair Use of copywritten book published material. This now exposes Wikipedia to legal liability. John Wiley & Sons now owns all IP from the former Macmillan Company of Canada. Please clarify immediately what you have done. Otherwise, I will call Wiley's Permissions Deparment at (416)236-4448 (http://ca.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-8583.html) to report this violation of law. 66.208.54.226 17:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:No legal threats, which is an official Wikipedia policy. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 17:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Annon., I would suggest you 1) note that not everything in the article comes from Howard's book, and 2) look at the book to see that nothing in the article is a verbatim copy. The book is used as a source of information, just like the other books, newspaper articles, and internet sites cited. However, do as you please with your time. --gbambino 17:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Jay Hodgson Group

Every graduate of note can't be included in the article - hence the separate page at List of Upper Canada College alumni. Besides, I've done a few searches on the Jay Hodgson Group, and came up with nothing substantial - no newpaper or magazine articles, just that Hodgson is currently completing his PhD. I've no real issue with him being included on the Alum page, but I think, in comparison to the other graduates noted in that list, more proof of his noteriety is needed. There are tons of semi-successful UCC graduates who aren't listed because they're just not all that great in comparison to the Order of Canada winners, knighs, CEOs, Chairmans, Cabinet Minsters, Lieutenant Governors, etc. --gbambino 23:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Didn't he conform with notability standards for music at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28music%29? He specifically complies with:

• "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such."

I don't get it, don't you read your own rules????

once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable - I'll ask again: How is the band notable? I'm not saying you're wrong, but where's the evidence? As I said, I did a search on both Google and Yahoo, and got next to nothing - one mention of Hodgosn completing his PhD in music. If the Jay Hodgson Group was really that notable, don't you think there'd be more info on them out there - like Jim Cuddy and Blue Rodeo for example? Anyway, the two are on the List of Upper Canada College alumni page now - why can't you just leave it at that? --gbambino 16:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Jay Hodgson was part of the McDermott band. The McDermott band was notable because it was a 4 time Juno winnner. Since Jay Hodgson was "once part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable", ie McDermott, that makes Jay Hodgson notable. 18:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, okay, but your edit said he "performed sporadically with EMI recording artist and four time JUNO nominee John McDermott." That he sometimes performed with McDermott didn't seem to make him a part of the band, but kind of a sit-in, or replacement player. And, like I said, my searches brought up nothing - again, making him seem not that well known, or notable. But I'll concede to your assertions, and Wikipedia policy - thanks for clarifying the issue. I take it you're now okay with him being on the Alum page? I am. --gbambino 18:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me 66.208.54.226 19:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I have semi-protected this page, which means that it cannot be edited by anonymous and newly-registered users. I have taken this action because an anonymous editor has been deleting large portions of text to illustrate a point, which is contrary to Wikipedia:Etiquette. In so he doing, he/she also appears to have violated the Three-revert rule, which is an official policy of Wikipedia. I encourage the editor to take some time off from this article to review Wikipedia policies and guidelines in order to learn how to work with other editors to improve articles, and how to avoid edit wars, which are a waste of everybody's time. Ground Zero | t 23:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me -- new here. But what qualifies *you* to hold this position of privilege? If this user was a registered user, what then? Or is this fairly typical when it comes to wikipedia (i.e., anonymous users screwing around)?

I am an Administrator, so I have special powers to protect articles, see through walls, fly, and, well, actually not so much the last two, but I can protect articles, block users, and do a few other things. If, for example, the actions that led to the semi-protection had been done by a registered user, I could have blocked the user from editing for a period of time. Semi-protection and protection are done with some frequency to protect Wikipedia from vandalism and to help resolve edit wars. Ground Zero | t 23:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

(1) Can you address the hypocracy of Gambino breaking the Three-revert rule himself with no consequences? (2) How does one deal with the hypocracy that he can delete additions "because they have no source" but if the same standard is applied to his writing, this is considered vandalism? Honestly, not being cheeky here, I really want to know. -- Unsigned comment by User:68.149.195.86

The word is "hypocrisy". The three-revert rule does not apply inthe case of vandalism. Your large-scale deletions were vandalism because you were disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. For example, you removed references in the first paragraph to UCC being a private school, and all other description but "UCC is a school" not to improve the article, but to make a point. If someone challenges you to provide a source, the way to respond -- and this really is how things work on Wikipedia -- is to provide a source. Responding by blanking out large portions of text becuase you don't want to defend your actions is vandalism. I have been around Wikipedia long enough to be made an administrator, so I do know how things work here. And, often, I have learned by making mistakes. We all do. So please don't consider this an attack on you. I just want to encourage you to learn more bout this great project by reviewing its policies and guidelines. I've linked a few above to get you started. By learning about the policies and guidelines, you can be more effective in contributing to Wikipedia, and avoid messy confrontations like this. Ground Zero | t 04:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope that the Admin will note that Gamibino seems very quick to immediately whine to mommy admin with the "POV" argument as noted in the mediation he required with AndyL on the Monarchist League of Canada page. See http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Archive_18#Monarchist_League_of_Canada_and_Monarchy_in_Canada. How many times will you let Gambino abuse the system to tug at mommy's pant legs when he sees things that he doesn't like until you Admins start rightfully ignoring Gambino's hypocritical propagandist rants? This isn't good for Wikipedia when advocates of an insane position can exploit you Admin folk to enforce an incumbent POV. -- Unsigned comment by User:66.208.54.226

Here is another policy that you can review to start learning about how Wikipedia works: No personal attacks. We do our best to be civil here. Your comemnts are not appropriate. Again, we all make mistakes when we first start off, so you're not alone in these transgressions. Making mistakes is how we learn. Ground Zero | t 04:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to stir up the pot here, and please correct me if I am WAY off base (again, I'm new), but all this seems contrary to the *interactive* nature of wikipedia. I've been following these posts (am an old boy, so interested) and it would seem that there is one particular user who is working to ensure that any edits made by anonymous users, which do not meet *his/her* rather than Wikipedia's standards, are erased. I don't mean to point fingers, but one of the users (I keep seeing the handle "Gbambino") seems to me to be abusing his position somewhat, as he is constantly reverting any changes of, what seemed to me, at least, to be viable additions to this article (particularly on UCC and ethnicity). I appreciate that you are the site administrator, and I was wondering if you could tell me why this is allowed to occur, before I give up on contributing to this page before even starting? I'm actually worried that if I add *anything*, my work will be deleted. -- Unsigned comment by User:WormwoodJagger

I am not intervening here in defence of Gbambino. I have locked horns with him on other occasions, and I do not see eye to eye with him on a lot of things. I intervened to stop a senseless edit war between a regular editor and one or two new users. One of the new users made it clear above that he is trying to promote his own particular point of view ("I want to expose that UCC was not a racist-free playground"), rather than trying to achieve a Neutral point of view, which is what we aim for. I am not arguing that Gbambino's edits are neutral either. I'll start picking my way through the arguments on both sides over the next couple of days to try to figure out what -- if any -- of the anon contributions should be incorporated into the article. The most effective way to improve articles on Wikipedia is to work toward compromise, which was not happening. Revert wars are just a waste of time and bandwidth.

I am not "the" site administrator -- I am "an" administrator. There are many of us.

I am going to try to mediate between the different points of view here. You should be aware that not all of your edits will remain here unaltered. As it says at the bottom of every edit page: Please note: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.

Finally, please sign your edits by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This makes it easier for everyone to be able to follow who wrote what. Thanks, and welcome to Wikipedia. Ground Zero | t 04:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've reviewed some of the edit warring that was going on. There have been several points of contention:

1. Ethnicity: An anon user introduced a section relating three stories about racism at UUC that began with: "Anecdotal examples of deep-seated insidious racism at the school in the 1980s included:" This sentence is so very clearly not consistent with the WP:NPOV policy that it had to go. Of the three anecdotes, the anon user provided evidence for one, and at that point, Gbambino began incorporating that story into his subsequent edits, i.e., he was working toward consensus in keeping with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That is how things are supposed to work here.
2. Inclusion of certain musicians as notable alumni. Gbambino appears to have moved this text (and I'll check this) to a branch article on notable alumni. This is consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wikipedia has, for the benefit of the reader and for technical reasons, a guideline on how long articles are supposed to be. This article already exceeds the recommended length. The recommended way of addressing that problem is to move text to branch articles, which is what Gbambino did. It is not going to be possible to fit all of the information about a school with 177 years of history into one article. Some of it has to be moved into branch articles. The information is not deleted from Wikipedia, just moved.
3. The mascot issue: I haven't seen any evidence the ORL Y owl is the school's mascot, so that appears to be nonsense. I think that Gbambino has made it clear that he is not wedded to the idea of listing Cookie Monster as the school's mascot. Since it is clearly not an "official" mascot, for the copyright reasons listed above, it should be deleted.

If there are other issues that I have missed, please list them below and I'll try to sort them out. Ground Zero | t 04:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Zero, I reviewed the article on Neutral Point of View NPOV.

• But these racist events at UCC are not OPINION, they are FACT. Though in that light, I should retract statements like "insidious institutional racism" and let the FACTUAL occurences speak for themselves.
• I also object to the hypocracy that Gambino accuses me of violating Verifiability WP:VAND while at the same time, he is even more guilty than I. Why not delete HIS *UNVERIFIED* statements about UCC? He is violating one of the "3 pillars" of wikigoodness and you turn a blind eye to his contravention of Law while punishing just me. Is this fair I ask you?
• If I were you, I would agree with my reasoning that is solidly based on your OWN rules on wikigoodness and delete every single sentence in the article that LACKS VERIFIABILITY, which I will remind you again, is canonical law in wiki land. Allow me to quote for you what it says at NPOV: NPOV is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. The three policies are complementary, non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editor's consensus. They should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from one other, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three.
• Please Admin man, I beg you, enforce your own rules of Verifiability on the Gambino. BTW, what's a tilde? 68.50.242.120 04:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Zero, my work in the Sourcing section above, in which I demonstrate that Gambino has 96, YES!!! 96 unverified statement and that's not even the whole article, just part of it. Please enforce Wiki Verifiability and force Gambino to source each statement or delete it (which was all I was trying to do before and was in full compliance with wikinesss as a result). I tried the four squigglies but they don't show up, what's up with that? 68.50.242.120 04:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The four tildes work -- your IP number shows up. As far as I can tell, of the threee "facts", Gbambino has accepted one -- the Mostek story. Whether or not the Barton story is evidence of racism is debatable. It sounds like a pretty silly story for the principal to tell, but not evidence of serious racism. As far as looking at the yearbooks and seeing white faces, that is not evidence of institutionalized racism either. Were non-whites screened out because the school had a quota on non-whites? Or were they screened out by society's failure to grant them the financial and educational opportunities that are generally a pre-requisite for admission to UCC, and society's racism is what contributes to a mostly white student body, not UCC's racism. Finally, I've made myself clear on on the question of verifiability. You are clearly not questioning Gbambino's edits because you think they are incorrect, but simply to make a point because you are angry that he has asked you to provide sources for your edits. You can appeal to another Administrator if you think I am being unreasonable about this. Ground Zero | t 05:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Zero, I must be confused. You acknowledge that Gambino has FAILED to conform with one of the 3 canonical pillars of wikiness by NOT providing verifiability. Who cares what you think my POV is on the matter? I thought you as Admin guy value NPOV, you don't want to hear my POV, so why would my POV factor into your decision at all. It is fact that Gambino is contravening one of the 3 holiest Law of Wikiness. You do not dispute this. In fact, I believe you admit it. And yet you will not take corrective action on Gambino? Why? I do not understand. Please help me understand. Otherwise could you do me a favor and just state for record in writing the following: "I Zero hereby acknowledge that Gambino has violated the rule of Wiki Verifiability in at least 96 of his statements, but I have decided to explicitly refuse to do my duty as an Admin and take any action to any of those 96 violations of Wiki Verifiability." Then after you do that, can you instruct me how I can appeal to other Admin people and show them your statement of rejecting Wikiness? Or do I wiki that? or google that? (not sure) 68.50.242.120 05:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• I have posted a request for assitance from other administrators at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. It is up to other admins to decide whether or not to participate in this discussion. Let's wait for a few days to see if anyone takes up the challenge. If not, then I can ask one or two that I know if they could tak a look at this. As I have stated, I do not think that your challenge of the verfiability of the 96 statements to which you refer has been made in the spirit of building Wikipedia, but rather to make a point. Please keep in mind that everyone here is a volunteer, including administrators. We don't get paid for doing this. Let's try to work together. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 12:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please! Cut Him Some Slack

I've come here because User:68.50.242.120 requested my input as an advocate. Please offer 68 some help in expressing his efforts to introduce discussion about the POV he feels is underrepresented in the article. In the name of welcoming newcomers, I'd like all to consider backing off a little on the patronising and stirring. It's much easier to maintain your cool when you've been here for a while and you have experience of how things unfold. It's much easier to tolerate insults when you've been around.

If anyone would like an outsiders opinion on some of the editorial issues, I can also make a couple of comments on that. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 06:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. Metta, if there is anything that you think that I could have done better, please let me know. Ground Zero | t 12:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Metta. I would like to first apologize for any personal attacks I have made. If you feel that I make further personal attacks, let me know and I will retract them. I am newb to Wiki and have been happy to learn the rules that make Wiki such a great source of reference information.

I do feel that my POV is underrepresented in the article and that administrative/protocol tactics are being used to Other any substantive contributions that threaten pre-conceieved POVs. The fact is that Gambino is a Vice Chairman of the Monarchist League of Canada, which is well known for NOT being a bastion of cultural diversity in Canada. (BTW, a Vice Chairman writing an article about his own organization hardly brings one comfort that a NPOV has been instituted). After all, how many Jews or Blacks or Chinese or Aboriginals or Bulgarians in Canada spend their time worrying about how to queen it up more in Canada? LOL, not many. So I have very strong suspicions about his motives in what I see as an attempt to quash the exposure of racism at UCC.

So here's what's objectively on the table for resolution.

1. I have proven that Gambino has made at least 96 non-verified statements. This fact is not disputed. It is accepted by all parties including myself, Zero and Gambino. This is a violation of one of the 3 pillars of Wikiness. According to Wiki Law, these statements must be excised, deleted and expunged.
2. It is irrelevent as to my "motive". That's like saying "Well, I am not going to arrest the arsonist who burned down 6 churches because the snitch who provided the evidence rubs me the wrong way and I think he's just trying to get revenge at the arsonist for stealing his girlfriend." Uhhhh.... no. The world doesn't work that way. Either Gambino is, or is not, violating Wiki Law. My motive as I point out this fact is immaterial as to whether or not Wiki Law has been violated. Justice is blind. Now enforce it.
3. I have pointed out above in the Ethnicity section that Gambino is using weasel words. Zero, the Admin, has conveniently ignored this. And thus no action has been taken to excise, expunge and delete the nefarious use of weasel words to downplay the possibility that racism might exist at UCC.
4. I am most disturbed that a seemingly "neutral" Admin would just come right out and say "I refuse to enforce the rules of Wiki to which I am bound cause I don't like you." I am not sure how Wiki, as a community collaborative effort, is going to get anywhere when that type of attitude is tolerated by its Admin. 66.208.54.226 15:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

“The fact is that Gambino is a Vice Chairman of the Monarchist League of Canada, “

The fact that he has political views does not mean that his edits are, by definition, biased. We all have biases, and we should do our best to exclude them from our edits. Let’s discuss the bias of Gbambino’s edits, and not assume that all of his edits are inherently biased.

We’re not in a Court of Law here, we are applying policies. No-one is getting away with a crime here. If all of Gbambino’s edits for which he has not provided evidence were removed as you wish, the article would be a shell of its current self. The Wikipedia article on UCC would be diminshed so that you can make a point about how you don’t feel you should be challenged on your edits. That is not how the policies on verifiability are intended to be used. If verfiability were as strictly applied thoroughout as you have requested for this article, we would have to remove 90-95% of the content of Wikipedia. Again, it is fair for Gbambino or anyone else to request a reference for anything being added to an article to in order to ensure that it is an improvement. But deleting large blocks of text to prove your point does not improve the article.

I’ll take a look at the weasel words issue that you raise. Please accept that there have been a lot of edits and I haven’t followed all of them. If I have missed something, it is because I am human and have only limited volunteer time available for this project, not because I am choosing to overlook things. What are the particular weasel words that you are concerned about?

“I am most disturbed that a seemingly "neutral" Admin would just come right out and say "I refuse to enforce the rules of Wiki to which I am bound cause I don't like you."”

I didn’t say that. I have solicited the attention of other administrators to help resolve this because I accept that you do not see me as being impartial on this. We will have to wait for the input of others to resolve this. Ground Zero | t 15:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• I have asked User:CambridgeBayWeather to take a look at this. He is an administrator who has edited this article in the past. My request to him is here. Ground Zero | t 16:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"The fact that he has political views does not mean that his edits are, by definition, biased. We all have biases, and we should do our best to exclude them from our edits." Agreed. But it does mean that you need to keep an especially close eye on what he writes because you now know he does have a very strong POV by his affiliation with such an organization as the Monarchist League of Canada. Then when he starts (a) using weasel words to mitigate accusations of racism and (b) deleting text from others that prove racism, what do you expect me to think?

"We’re not in a Court of Law here, we are applying policies." Fine, we're in a Court of Policies. Apply the Policies. Wiki is a very large collaborative effort. These policies need to be adhered to in a consistent manner else chaos will erupt and editorial integrity will suffer and accusations of bias will spin out of control. Oops, they already did. And all because you won't apply Wiki policies. They're not your policies, Zero, they are the policies of Wiki, you must respect them, doubly so because you are Admin.

"That is not how the policies on verifiability are intended to be used." O Rly? Please provide source on the "intent" of these policies.

"If all of Gbambino’s edits for which he has not provided evidence were removed as you wish, the article would be a shell of its current self. The Wikipedia article on UCC would be diminshed..." The article IS ALREADY DIMINISHED according to Wiki policy because it is NOT VERIFIED. This is not MY policy. This is YOUR policy. I'm sorry that you do not agree with your policy, but your job as Admin is to enforce WIKI policy whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not. And this is great because you said the UCC was getting too lengthy according to word limit guidelines, this is a perfect opportunity to trim it down.

"Again, it is fair for Gbambino or anyone else to request a reference for anything being added to an article to in order to ensure that it is an improvement." You conveniently forget that nothing HAS to be deleted AS LONG AS Gambino steps up to the plate and provides a source for all these statements. All I ask is that Gambino follow the law of Verifiability. Yes, it may take Gambino some time and effort to do so, but that's not my problem, nor is it yours. The irony here is that when Gambino deletes my writing as "not verified", you do nothing Zero. Nothing. Nada. NOTHING. In fact, you assist Gambino by reverting and locking! But when I ask that the verifiability standard being EQUALLY applied to his writing, and not just mine, now you're like "oh noes!!!! joo noob, that's not d3v int3nt!!!!1o111oneoneeleven". Is it any wonder that I personally feel that you are not handling this role as Admin in an impartial manner in the face of such behavior?

Zero, since you keep saying that you cannot find the weasel words complaint in the Ethnicity section above, I will requote for you the issue of weasel words in the Ethnicity section above: Dear Zero, please refer to Gambino's quote "Unlike many other Canadian independent schools, UCC has a long history of ethnic students since its founding. The first black student enrolled in 1831, the first Jewish student in 1836 and the first aboriginal student in 1840, some graduates from the Ojibway peoples of Upper Canada going on to study at Dartmouth College and Harvard University. [9] Still, despite the inclusion of students from these ethnic groups, UCC maintained a reputation as a "bastion of WASP privilege." [10]:Do you see his use of the the "Still" and "despite"? These are weasel words and threaten the wikigoodness of NPOV, please, you must help us here and correct the bias that Gambino is introducing here by trying to "tone down" or delegitimize the "reputation" of UCC as a "bastion of WASP privilege". His phrasing instructs the reader to take any charge of racism at UCC with a grain of salt. Do you not agree? Can you delete these weasel words plz? Thx !!! :) 05:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC) 66.208.54.226 16:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"I have asked User:CambridgeBayWeather to take a look at this. He is an administrator who has edited this article in the past." I totally and completely reject the idea of CambridgeBayWeather as an impartial Admin in this issue for 2 reasons. First, I castigated him for being so naive as to think the Cookie Monster was the official mascot of UCC. I mean, c'mon, Intellectual Property Law 101? Hello? Does anyone REALLY think that Sesame Workshop LICENSED to UCC the Canadian rights to use Cookie Monster as their mascot? You think UCC would PAY for that license? Anyways, I can't trust User:CambridgeBayWeather because of my prior chastisement of his behavior. He might want revenge on me because I was so rightly pointed out an error on his part. Second, I don't trust the opinion of anyone who thinks Cookie Monster was the mascot of UCC. Period. Third, he has been complicit and guilty with Gambino in the crime of silent approving of unverified statements in the UCC article by previous reverts he did to the article that left Gambino's unverified statements untouched. Please get an Admin involved who has no prior involvement with this article else I will not trust their impartiality. This is just Fairness 101. 66.208.54.226 16:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You and I are not going to be able to resolve this on our own. We're just going around in circles. Let's wait to see what others think. I have responded to your valid concerns about weasal words below.

I was unaware of your problems with CBW. I will ask User:HOTR, instead, if you agree to having him comment. Ground Zero | t 16:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right Zero, you and I will not not resolve this.

And just one more thing, allow me to present the Cookie Monster argument for Verifiabiliy. Gambino had written that the mascot for UCC was the Cookie Monster because he saw a guy in a blue suit at a sports event at UCC. He agrees now that he was probably wrong. I assert that he was utterly wrong to think this. Why did this happen? BECAUSE HE WAS ALLOWED TO WRITE STUFF ABOUT UCC WITH BEING REQUIRED TO VERIFY ANY OF IT BY THE ADMINS. Who know WHAT ELSE he has written about UCC is wrong because he couldn't be bothered to verify or source his statements. Learn from the Cookie Monster incident and make Gambino source everything he writes otherwise other mistakes he has made will go unchallenged and unnoticed.

His article on UCC should be retitled "History of UCC from an Architectural and Monarchist Perspective" since so much of it has to do with really boring building and royalty issues. But wait! Guess what? According to his bio page, he's an architect and I know for a fact that he is a Vice Chairman of the Monarchist League of Canada. No wonder he spends all the textual real estate talking about architecture and royalty at UCC. I can't be bothered, other than the Cookie Monster issue, to call him out on other mistakes because my brain would explode from the boredom of verifying architecture and monarchy factoids. Ironically, when people try to add more interesting stuff, like racism and famous alumni to the article, he poos poos the efforts. Doesn't sound very NPOV to me.... 17:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Two things I know about: Architecture and monarchy. Big surprise that I should contribute information that is in one way or another related to those two things. Strange, though, that you don't note a bias within my edits about the history of the school in relation to the government of Ontario and UofT, nor my edits about the UCC Cadets, nor my edits about the arts, nor... well I'm sure you get the point. Instead of trying to undermine my character, put more effort into adding what you know about into the article(s), and make some attempt to make it credible. I'd much rather that than these silly, childish cat-fights. --gbambino 17:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

To user 66.208.54.226. The idea that I would want "revenge" is not worthy of consideration. The only reason that I made edits to this article was to revert vandalism and I may have put links in. This was not to condone the article as such nor to agree that the edits made by any editor were correct. As to the mascot, it sat in there for several days being passed over by multiple editors so there was a small chance that it was correct. Some suggestions that would help your case. First stop with the attempts at sarcasam. Some editors may see it as not following Wikipedia:No personal attacks. All it needs is an admin to agree with them and you could find yourself banned. However, this is not a threat that I would/will do it. Next take a look at Wikipedia:Assume good faith while any of the editors may be making errors I don't believe that they are acting with malicious intent. As to admins allowing any editor to make unverifed claims. Who knows how many admins have actually made substantive edits to the article. Finally a quick review of random articles will show that most have less references than this, which is indeed a problem that Wikipedia needs to address. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, will you accept User:HOTR as an unbiased administrator. I do not know if he will agree to take on this task, but if you agree, I can ask him, or you can ask him yourself. Ground Zero | t 17:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with User:HOTR 66.208.54.226 18:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity again

I have taken a look at the wording in this section based on User:68's comments and found it to be both POV and containing weasel words as User:68 identifies. I have tried to improve it, but it needs further work. In particular, the reference to non-white students representing a substantial portion of the class should be substantiated, otherwise it is just conjecture, and should be removed. What does "substantial" mean? Could someone with a recent yearbook do a head-count of the leaving class so that we can have a firm number, rather than something open to interpretation? I have also removed "multi-millionaire" and "jet-setting" as being non-neutral. I think that the replacement wording gets the same point across without the prejudicial words. Ground Zero | t 16:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I've just finished reading the discourse that's gone on over the course of the night and morning. In regards to the Ethnicity section, verifiable edits, and weasel words, I'd just like to make it clear: 1) It wasn't I who created the Ethnicity section, and 2) I tried to edit it as POV-free. If that resulted in weasel words, it wasn't intentional. Regardless, I checked the yearbooks last night, and found that 68.50.242.120 was wrong on both his claims that Motek Sherman's editorial appeared in the '88 and '91 College Times, and in his assertion that Sherman's editorial was about racism. In fact, Sherman did indeed write that he experienced "anti-Semitism, ugliness, stupidity and bureaucracy," but that comment is the only mention of any form of racism. In fact, his article appeared in the 1990 edition, and more complains about the aloofness of the administration and its disregard for students in general as a cause for lack of leadership, commitment and school spirit within the student body. Hardly an exposé on insidious racism. None-the-less, I'll add his comments to the article. --gbambino 17:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

In the context of a higschool yearbook editorial, at a school which is now being theorized for its "codes of silence" by student poststructural commentators in academe, it is *miraculous* that Sherman should have been able to publish even this "aside," which nonetheless verifies that, in his opinion (which the school esteemed enough to grant him the position to write the ediotieal), he experineced "anti-Semitism, ugliness, stupidity and bereaucracy" at the school. More care and thought should go into your response, I feel, than such a dismissive line as this:"Hardly an exposé on insidious racism" -- not conducive to open dialogue. This is baiting, obviously. Are you two playing some kind of troll game?129.128.238.84 17:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not here to get into a dialogue about racism at UCC, I'm here to insert factual information about the school into an online encyclopaedia article. Our personal feelings on the relevancy and importance of the editorial are of no worth here. All that can be done is note his comments in the article, and that's what I'm going to do now. --gbambino 17:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Gambino:

1. I said Motek wrote it in 1988. Someone else (ie not me) said it was 91.
2. Glad to see you at least bothered to do the work to verify something. Seems like you're more than happy to do the work of verification when it squelching as much as possible any charge of racism at UCC. Too bad you explicitly refuse to use that same work ethic to your endless streaming of architectural and monarchy factoids on UCC. But fear not, I'll see what I can do about that if you won't.
3. Fact remains that Motek complained of anti-semitism at the school despite the fact that they let in a token Black and a token Jew in the 1800s. Racism is insidious not because of 1 incident, but because of a series of incidents that are systemically kept hidden. I will do my best to scrounge up every single verifiable charge of racism at UCC until a picture of historical insidious and blatant racism emerges to any impartial reader.
4. While you have the College Times in hand, do me a favor, k? Let us know how many blacks are shown in the Leaving Class pictures? According to http://www.toronto.ca/toronto_facts/diversity.htm, Blacks make up 8% of the Toronto population. How many UCC leaving class students were Black? How many teachers? How many of the top school administrators? Thanks in advance for your cooperation. 66.208.54.226 17:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That the "Jew" and "Black", as you so sensitively put it, were "token" is your opinion. That school photographs are proof of systematic racism is your opinion. I've wasted a lot of my time providing the evidence you so desperately seek above. Now give up yours to back your claims. If you've got proof of systematic racism at the school, as opposed to merely your interpretation, driven by some obvious, and serious, beef with UCC, then let's see it. I'm sure we'd all be glad to, and insert it into the article. --gbambino 17:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

As I've stated before, the absence of blacks or other races is not proof of racism at UCC, but of racism in our society that results in these groups not having the educational and/or financial opportunites that are need to get into UCC. Drawing the conclusion that there isinstitutionalized racism at UCC based on this observatio alone would be POV in my opinion. Ground Zero | t 17:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I simply ask that the # of Black students be published. That is a fact, not an opinion. Draw your own conclusion. Some may find it relevant, some, like you, may find it irrelevent. I believe you're imposing a radical fringe POV to say that the # of Black participants at an institution is irrelevent to the question of whether racism exists at that institution or not. But just know, in a racial or sexual discrimination case, it's required that an audit be performed of the number of minorities or women at different positions of power in the company be reported as well as their salary levels. Even defense attorneys for these defendents of racial or sexual discrimination have given up on arguing that this is irrelevent because it only proves "racism in our society". The fact is that if 8% of Torontoanians are Black, and over a 20 year span, you see that Blacks make up 0.2% of students and 0.4% of teachers and 0% of high level administrators in school the size of UCC, you're telling me that this in NO WAY suggests racism? Like Black parents, compared to white parents, are systematically discouraging their sons from applying to one of the most elite schools in all of Canada? A school that offers financial aid so that even low income Black parents would not see finances as a barrier to access? 66.208.54.226 18:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to weigh in here.

Are you seriously trying to argue, Ground Zero, that although a country or society may be racist, one of its leading educational institutions which, in your own words (or at least Wikipedia article), has "educated many of the country's elite, powerful and wealthy" is not racist because the school did not create a lack of "educational and/or financial opportunities"? Fine. Then what about a more "neutral" statement such as, "In its history, Upper Canada College has never graduated a class which is even remotely representative of Toronto's population, demographically speaking." Then readers can say, "Oh well, maybe that's not because of racial profiling on the part of the school - maybe it's just reflective of a lack of 'educational and/or financial opportunities' in a broader social context".

The reason you won't allow user 66.208.54.226 to put in his observations about the yearbooks is because you know that's pure tripe. Res ipsa loquitur: in law that means, "the fact speaks for itself". And the fact that you will not find more than a token representation of blacks or other minorities in any UCC yearbook "speaks for itself". If you somehow maintain that the fact is ambiguous and open to interpretation, then leave it in and let the reader be the judge. The fact that you are so hell bent on excluding it suggests the contrary, however.

I have no objection to the # of black students, and have not said that. Nor have I disallowed User:68 from including it. There is a general protection on the page to stop the edit war. As you say, the numebr of black students is factual, so there is nothing wrong with including it. What I would object to is drawing strong conclusions from the number. I believe that the low % of black students would be evidence of racism in our society, but not at the school. The large numbers of students of East Asian, South Asian and Jewish backgrounds tell me that there is no systematic discrimination at the school. The fact is that African-Canadians usuallty don't have the money or the educational background to get into the school. that is because they have been discriminated against in Canadian society for, well, ever. And please stop trying to say what I believe. You really don't do a very good job at all of interpreting my comments. Ground Zero | t 18:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Neither do I have an issue if someone wants to insert actual ethnic demographic numbers into the article - I'm sure it would serve to show that the shcool's admission criteria is based mostly on academic ability and financial ability to pay the fees. They most certainly wouldn't prove the existence of racism within the school's administration.

The only thing I'd have to wonder is, would the racial demographics of all Canadian schools have to be inserted into their Wikipedia article, should they have one? Or is all this really driven by a personal bias towards UCC in particular? --gbambino 18:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Need moderator assistance here please. I don't know how to argue with someone who is going to argue black is white and white is black. I just want the #s published without sabotage, squelching or a cover-up. Let people draw their own conclusions. 19:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If the article is to mention anything about UCC racism it is necessary that it is entirely someone's notable and verifiable opinion other than a wikipedia user. The same goes for implying the school is a beacon of multiculturalism.

Re the paragraphy that begins: "Unlike many other Canadian independent schools, UCC has a long history of ethnic students since its founding."

1. Isn't this taking an an unecessary jab at other schools?
2. Is there a precedent for using this particular statistic (having one non-white student in 1831) as a measure of ethnicity?

It seems to me that the most notable information in the section is the quotations regarding the reputation of the school. Is there a notable opinion somewhere stating why it is important that 3 ethnic students were at the school before 1840? I'm not Canadian, so I'm unaware of any culturual obviousness of the statements.

Having said that, 66/68, please cool it and don't make demands of other users or admins. I myself have huge biases here at wikipedia, but I don't appreciate having them thrown in my face and I imagine Gbambino doesn't either. As a part of this community we all are equally responsible for ensuring it is a civil and non-divisive environment. This discussion will take time to resolve and it will happen a lot quicker if we focus on one issue at a time. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 21:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You raise some good points, and I've edited the section to hopefully rid it of some of the bias you mention. In regards to the inclusion of the early examples of minorities attending the school, I think that if we are to include the school's reputation as a WASP institution (which I believe is true), then we should also mention that the school has always admitted minorities into its enrolment (which I believe is also true). Perhaps "Ethnicity" isn't the best heading for the section. --gbambino 22:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. The opening sentence is still a little weaselly. I think the following might be an improvement to the opening sentence:

• For many years UCC has maintained a reputation as a "bastion of WASP privilege. ^[3] even though ethnic students first attended the school as early as 1831. (with appropriate ammendments to other paragraphs)

As I raised before, I believe the reputation of UCC is the most relevant assertion about ethnicity. It doesn't matter whether 1 or 100 ethnic students attended. The reputation (i.e. the notability) is what we are reporting on wikipedia. It's very useful supplementary information that 3 ethnic students had attended by 1840, but certainly supplementary. All of this information should be supported by citations, as Homey suggests. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 00:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If the article discusses racism and/or anti-semitism at UCC it should reflect existing citations rather than try to conduct original research into demographics. Wasn't there a book published recently consisting of essays by UCC grads, at least one of whom reflected on his experiences of anti-Semitism? That sort of information can be referenced as can published statistics (if there are any) on the racial composition of UCC. However, we should be careful to put in notable examples of what would now be called anti-racism by UCC such as allowing in Jewish refugees (most notably Peter C. Newman) as students at a time when many private schools were "restricted". I don't know if UCC has racist admission practices or not - we shouldn't speculate. If there is evidence that they might, whether it be, say, complaints to the Human Rights Commission, lawsuits, complaints by anti-racist groups or published recollections by individuals then we can include this. If it's just a perception by editors that pictures of UCC classes look awfully white, that's POV. Homey 22:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Strangely, I've just come across the comments you speak about: Graham Fraser, Globe and Mail Washington Bureau Chief, in James Fitzgerald's book Old Boys (which is used as a source in many parts of this article). There's another quote by James George, a diplomat. I'll try and insert them. --gbambino 22:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

A good start. I'm going to take a back seat now that an agreed mediator has arrived. Best wishes to all writing this article. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 00:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you clarify how you know that an agreed mediator has arrived? (Sorry, I'm newb). Thanks.66.208.54.226 01:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. User Homey has arrived to this talk page (above) as an unbiased administrator. It seems to me you are feeling a little apprehensive about this and would perhaps like me to stick around for a little longer. So I will. This page is on my watch list. I would appreciate any feedback you can give on my advocacy on my talk page. I have requested your list of WP:V issues being partially addressed after the ethnicity section has been discussed. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 01:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Metta Bubble for your assistance. I will submit feedback on your talk page and restate a summary of my outstanding objections on this article sometime tomorrow. 66.208.54.226 03:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, good. Feel free to use my talk page if you want to workshop the objections before bringing them here. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 04:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I'm a mediator per se (I'm not a member of the mediation committee in any case). I'm happy to give my opinion, FWIW. I'm really not clear on what specifically this dispute is about. Can someone point me to some edit diffs that show what phrases/points are in contention?Homey 04:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not able to supply that but would also appreciate it. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 04:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)