G2bambino, it's really pathetic and transparent your attempts to hide UCC's dirty laundry on scandals and ethnic/gender issues by relegating them to the "History" article. These 2 issues are not historical, they are current affairs because they are still so recent and still playing out as we speak. I like how your edit history only refers to these mass deletions as simply "reducing the history section." Disgusting. Stop being such a shill. You really need to look deep into your soul and better understand what NEUTRAL means as in "NEUTRAL Point of View". All you ever do in this article is compulsively edit this article with the agenda of minimizing any negatives and maximizing any positives about this school.
- Firstly, I'll remind you to be civil. Secondly, the "dirty laundry" hasn't been hidden anywhere. What's been done is that the lengthy history component has been given its own article, with a summary on this page, and a link to the sister article. As you'll note, this is as per common Wikipedia policy. I'm sure you'll also note that the history summary here makes reference to the scandals, etc. If you have any evidence that points to contemporary issues regarding bigotry or sexism, please provide it and it can be addressed in this article. Otherwise, it remains history. As for the sexual scandals, there is, as far as can be found, one class action suit against the school still open. I will mention this in the history section. And, thirdly, sign your name when you post. --G2bambino 23:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- -- I have reverted your deletions. Your excuse to hide the school's dirty laundry does not pass the smell test.
- -- Since you're a member of the Monarchist League of Canada, the whitest, WASPiest club in Canada, of course you would like to think that ethnic/gender issues at UCC are "history", but they are not.
- -- The scandals, you admit yourself, are still on-going and only started several years ago. How convenient that the Doug Brown case that STARTED in 2003 and did not end until 2005 is now "history".
- -- Lastly, you hold the Featured Article standard for Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools in high regard. What does that article say on structure? It says "The key to writing a good school article is to explain why the school is unique. What makes it different from every other school? Does it have special programs? A history of championship sports teams? Famous alumni? Has there been a noteworthy event there?" If you take a look at their 4 Featured Article examples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:FA-Class_school_articles), you'll see that these schools will have sections on topics unique to them like "Student Privileges", "Uniforms", "In Popular Culture" and "Accusations of Bias in Admissions Test". If you do a search for UCC in the news, the 2 most common topics on the school will deal with scandals, sexism and racism. They define the school. Jonawiki 23:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- -- On Jan 20, 2007, you added an insanely boring section on the HISTORY of the school motto and crest going back to the 1800s. Shouldn't THAT go into your little article on the "HISTORY of UCC"? I mean, my God, who honestly cares about the graphical evolution of the school crest from the 1800s till today? You consider the Doug Brown case of 2003 to 2005 "history" but this you do not? Hypocritical much? Jonawiki 23:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- The scandals are a recent part of a long history. They are given due mention in the summary of the school's history here, and covered in detail in the school's main history article. If there is anything more ongoing than what is mentioned, please provide the evidence. --G2bambino 23:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I think I have to add the following: the Doug Brown case is currently under appeal (both conviction and sentence), so its hard to categorize it as "a recent part of a long history". It is a contemporary, ongoing legal proceeding. G2bambino, you mention above "as for the sexual scandals, there is, as far as can be found, one class action suit against the school still open". Seems to me that that would move the whole issue smack into the present, no? You're speaking about a CLASS ACTION (i.e., a lawsuit with so many plaintiffs that the court will, if certified, have to appoint a representative plaintiff before the suit moves forward). Maybe you can explain your rationale in a little more detail about why you think this subject should form part of the school's "history" - because it really isn't readily apparent.Blunders of the third kind 18:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Past cases are past cases - I don't know how anyone can argue that something closed and finished is not now a part of history. However, if there's a cite for anything currently ongoing, then let's add it as a current event. I can understand why Jonawiki would refuse to accept my openness to that, but I'm a little confused as to why everyone else is jumping on this "Bambino is a fascist censor" bandwagon. I added a bit about the class action suit as I think its still ongoing, though I haven't yet been able to pull out a source for it. I believe there's only four or five plaintiffs. I'm unaware of what's going on with Brown - but, as I said, if we've got evidence to back up a claim that its still ongoing, then... put it in! --G2bambino 19:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Blunders of the Third Kind, as an FYI, in response to your comment, B2bambino decided to delete the entire Scandals section. Nice, huh? Jonawiki 23:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The scandal and ethnic/gender issue sections have been in the main UCC article now for several months. Please stop censoring and deleting UCC's dirty laundry. I have put them back. As per the "Featured Articles" on Secondary School guidelines, these are the EXACT type of things you should be including in a secondary school feature article... they speak to the uniqueness and media notability of the school. Pretty much any newspaper article on UCC is either going to talk about the rape scandals or the racist/sexist sins of the UCC establishment. Ghettoizing these issues to your obscure "History of UCC" article is not satisfactory. Please do the mature thing and stop deleting things over and over again. Discuss it here instead of engaging in an immature revert war. In addition, I deleted your motto/crest section. You can place your write-up on crests and mottos into your "History of UCC" article at your discretion since that topic is clearly historical in nature, has no current affairs relevance and is not interesting enough to warrant space in the main UCC article. Jonawiki 22:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- There are 175 years worth of newspaper articles that mention UCC, only some in the past 10 will mention the sex scandals. Not one contains anything about "racist sins", and only one, published 13 years ago, alludes to anything remotely bordering on sexism. Please follow your own advice re. the reverting and discussion; and, pertaining to that, I've already explained that the moving of the majority (note: not all; or have you even read the current history section?) of the info about past scandals and ethnic/gender issues (of which I wrote about 75%) to a main history article is as per WP guidelines. What seems to be your sole beef is that the "dirty laundry" isn't being given the prominence you think it should. Well, the reality is that your claim about the scandals "defining the school" is merely your own POV, which, I'm sorry to tell you, doesn't matter here. If you want to slander the school, get your own blog and do so; stop using Wikipedia as a free way to promote your grudge. --G2bambino 23:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I've requested that a mediator be brought in to deal with this problem. --G2bambino 00:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- - Your POV is that of a marketing brochure. Stop using Wiki as a free way to hype how awesome you think UCC is. Do it in your Live Journal and be done with it.
- - I deleted your crazy boring historical treatise on crests and mottos. It doesn't belong in the main article. It needs to be banished to the "History of UCC" article that nobody but your mom will read.
- - I put back in the scandal and ethnic/gender sections. They have been there for MANY MONTHS now. You need to DISCUSS things HERE first BEFORE deleting whole sections that that the Wiki community colloborated on.
- - Please try to reply to people point by point. I know it's to your advantage to conveniently ignore certain issues and points that people raise, but it only reinforces the impressions that you have a POV agenda and that you're not discussing issues in good faith. Your last statement above borders on incoherence. Jonawiki 00:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- The simple thing to do here is until mediation is resolved is to leave in both sections till you hear otherwise rather than continually taking out one seciton or the other in a revertt war. Leave them both (Personally nothing wrong with lots of info on said subject). Till wiki mediation says otherwise.--Xiahou 00:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, mediation is welcome. However, this isn't an issue of deletion: the sex abuse scandals and ethnic issues are still mentioned in brief on this article, and covered in detail at the sister article History of Upper Canada College. This was done to reduce the length of this article, as per WP guidelines. Jonawiki merely seems upset that the scandals aren't being given the prominence he feels they deserve, and has, for some reason, targeted the crest and motto section for revenge. One way or the other, I don't care if the crest and motto section is moved to History of Upper Canada College as well. --G2bambino 00:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. It's unfortunate that G2Bambino acted like a little child in continuing to delete the sections on Scandals and Ethnic/Gender issues. Hopefully he will stop the revert war. I look forward to discussing why his Crest/Motto section needs to be banished to the History of UCC article where it belongs. Jonawiki 00:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to congratulate G2bambino on all the fine work he has put into this article. Kudos.
As for Jonawiki's demeanor.... no comment.
Having said that, I would like to chime in on a couple of things:
(1) G2bambino's editorial choices IMHO show a pattern of excluding content critical of UCC and "balancing" substantive criticisms with positive trivialities.
(2) The essay on the crest should go into the article on the History of Upper Canada College, not in this main article.
(3) G2bambino should stop deleting the sections on Scandals and Ethnic & Gender Issues. As Jonawiki rightly pointed out, they have been in the article for at least several months. The burden of proof rests with G2bambino to argue why these sections should be deleted before he goes around removing content without community discussion.
(4) I think G2bambino was right to call in a mediator. Magonaritus 02:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, thank you for your compliments re. the article. It's much appreicated. However, I do take some issue with the implication that I "deleted" content "without community discussion."
- Firstly, I'll repeat myself so that it's clear: I wrote 75% of the Scandals and Ethnic & Gender Issues sections myself.
- Secondly, they weren't simply deleted. They were subs of the History section within this article; they therefore went (in full, no less) with the rest of the History section to the sister article History of Upper Canada College, with a reduced history here that still made reference to the past scandals, etc. This was done because this article was much too long to be approved for FA status; and I explicitly stated my motives at the end of the preceeding section here at Talk. Of course, this whole stink Jonawiki has caused has erased any chances of the article becoming an FA; one of the FA criteria is that the article be "stable."
- Anyway, I still maintain the belief that because the Ethnic and Gener Issues and Scandals are a part of the school's history, and were in the History section before, they should be presented fully in the History of Upper Canada College article, and mentioned in the History summary here. Further, the "scandals" still ongoing should be covered in a Current events section, or something similar. --G2bambino 20:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's laughable to state that you wrote 75% of the Scandals and Ethnic/Gender Issues sections. Not. True. Oh, and irrelevent. (Unless stroking your own ego is relevent?)
- You stated and then deleted the following questions "Anyway, why is there a problem with creating balance? Isn't it our mission to provide impartial information, so as not to create a slanted perception, despite the fact that some editors might wish otherwise?" This is the problem with your notion of NPOV: as Magonaritus pointed out, you feel it's appropriate to balance a substantive negative with a trivial positive. This is ludicrous. For example, this would be your NPOV on Nazis: "Nazis hated Jews and killed many of them. However, Nazis were quite clean. Nazis hated homosexuals and killed many of them. However, Nazis were quite polite to each other. Nazis invaded every country around them unprovoked. However, Nazis believed in educating their children." Point in fact, you're NOT NPOV on UCC, you're a living breathing propaganda machine that is trying to turn Wikipedia into a marketing brochure for the school.
- I'll ask again for the 6th time, knowing that you'll ignore the question, for the 6th time: why is the motto/crest section not in the "History of UCC" article? It's about the past. It talks about 1800s this and 1800s that. It has no relevance to the school today which the crest/motto at the top of the page hasn't already addressed. For you, the Doug Brown case of 2003 to 2005 is "history" but the motto/crest section is not? I look forward to you once again ignoring your hypocrisy on this matter for a 6th time. Jonawiki 22:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Frankly, you are a boor who provides nothing constructive. Dealing with you is a waste of anyone's time. I'll wait to see if someone else of a saner mind will provide some thought on this issue. --G2bambino 22:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- You have called me a "boor" or a "crude uncouth ill-bred person lacking culture or refinement." Hmmm... that sounds like a personal attack to me. You should be aware of the Wiki policy on No Personal Attacks WP:NPA. I'll leave you a reminder about WP:NPA on your talk page.
- Oh, and congrats, as I predicted, you avoided explaining why the Motto/Crest section should not be moved into the "History of UCC" article for the 6th time. I look forward to raising your hypocritical position once again for a 7th time in the near future. Jonawiki 23:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
A third opinion has been requested. --G2bambino 23:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Mine's not the requested third opinion, but apparently I'm the originator of this article and I was asked to comment. Anyway, the scandals should obviously be mentioned in the main article, since they are important to understanding the school's current state and position. How much information about them should be in the article is another question, though, and one which it's wise to ask for mediation on. I don't think we need a subsidiary article about the history of UCC, either – little of the history of any school is going to be really important, by which I mean necessary to understand how the school developed into what it is today.
- To my mind the bigger problem is the massive amount of trivia in the article. Does the world really need to know about the Joe Cressy Golf Tournament? The article about St. Michael's College School had the same problems last time I looked; I hope the inflation of these articles isn't some form of inter-school rivalry. John FitzGerald 00:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- I just checked. The St. Mike's article has been extensively and neatly trimmed. John FitzGerald 00:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm certainly all for neatness, and I too have wondered about the value of information on things like the Green Report and Grandparents' Day. However, I loathe to remove them for fear of the debate arising as to what is pertinent to keep and what isn't; ie. where do we draw the line? (That problem has already arisen over who should be on the selective list of notable alumni on this page.) I am sure, though, that only the most important parts of UCC's history should be outlined here, as you said, to help understand basicly how the school has developed into its present incarnation. However, the school's full history really is lengthy and thick with important persons and events. Similarly, we don't need every detail of the trial of Lorne Cook or what the contents of Ashley Chivers' computer were on this article - though the subject definitely merits full space elsewhere. Perhaps the Scandals and Ethnic sections can remain here, but be edited down to the basics with more fleshed out text at the History of Upper Canada College article. --G2bambino 00:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. Good luck with it, all of you. Obviously between you you have the capacity to turn out a pretty good article. You may argue a lot more but St. Augustine said something about heat being necessary to produce gold. Luckily I went to a school with no history of distinction, except perhaps as a producer of scruff. Oh – as a former educational researcher in T. O. I should add the caution that assertions about the school's academic excellence should include the caveat that its students have characteristics which would enable them to do well in any school (they come from high-achieving families who can afford to promote their children's academic achievement outside the curriculum). Lawrence Park Collegiate has an exceptional academic record for the same reason. There are also technical problems with any system for ranking schools by achievement. I used to rank schools by achievement for the separate board, and I can assure you that the best-known published rankings, including EQAO's, have to be taken with many grains of salt. I will check back about that issue. John FitzGerald 17:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
How can we talk about UCC nowadays without mentioning the scandals front and center? For the past decade, any major article about UCC in the Star or Globe is about the scandals. They have no place in an article hidden away on the history of UCC. Also, UCC has a reputation as a prestigious WASPish old-boys-club institution. Again, the ethnic and sexual politics are not a matter of historical interest, but speak to the very unique character of the school. Is Gambino a UCC employee? He seems to spend an enormous amount of time working on the UCC article and most of his edits seem to be sneakily pro-UCC. Gambino sure loves his weasel words. 12.198.166.130 00:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think "weasel words" and "sneakily" qualify as personal abuse. You know, even I am not perfect. The reason there is open editing here is to allow others to correct one's personal biases. And while i think the scandals should be prominently mentioned, putting them "front and centre" seems inappropriate. Is it your intention that the article start with something like "UCC is a private school in Toronto famous for sex scandals"? That's scarcely a fair statement of its chief historical role, which is preserving the power of the Canadian establishment. As I noted, this problem was solved in the article about St. Mike's. And there are ways of dealing with unreasonable edits. G2bambino (sic) has suggested a reasonable plan. if you have a reason for preferring another why not tell us? John FitzGerald 14:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Accusing someone of using weasel words is not personal abuse. It's an official Wiki policy to avoid weasel words, see WP:Weasel for more information.
- No, I don't think that the article should start with "UCC is a private school in Toronto famous for sex scandals". But let's face facts, if you have read the Globe, Post, Sun or Star over the past decade, many of the articles discussing UCC have been about the scandals. The scandals and ethnic/gender issues are FAR more important, notable and relevant to understanding UCC than trivial and narcissistic details such as maple syrup manufacturing at Norval, the Battalion Ball's origin in 1887, Sir George Parkin as a notable faculty member or that mountain biking is a sanctioned sport at UCC. When was the last time you saw an article in the newspaper about any of these things?
- G2bambino keeps finding exuses to squirrel these sections away. As such, I question the neutrality of his POV. No, I do not find his plan reasonable. My plan: just leave these sections alone. Keep the status quo. They have been there for many months. They are somewhat well written and reasonably well sourced. If you want to shorten the article, go make editorial cuts to other less important and more narcissistic sections of the article. But leave scandals and ethnic/gender issues alone. 12.198.166.130 17:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sections of the article that are great candidates for shortening or cutting include:
- >List of Principals: cut this, or put it into the article about the history of Upper Canada College
- >Note Faculty: cut most of these people, if they're not notable enough to have an article about them in Wiki, then it's not worth listing them here
- >Branches: cut this or make it into a sentence rather than a long bullet point that wastes space. The cities mentioned are hyperlinked to Wiki articles about the city, not to any info about the branches.
- >Norval: too much information, needs trimming. Should probably be subsumed into the section on "Campus and facilities"
- >School events: too much informationa about the 19th century origins of events, needs trimming
- >Athletics: same situation as "Branches" above
- >Over Usage of Subsections: Get rid of subsection headings 2.1, 2.2, 4.1, 5.1, 7.1, 13.1, 13.1.1, 13.2. I'm not saying to get rid of the text in these subsections. I'm just saying the text doesn't warrant a structured subsection heading like that. It makes the Content tab longer than it needs to be. 12.198.166.130 17:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- An encyclopaedia lists facts, and we construct the articles here in a format that begins with general overview and moves on to more minute detail. Separating the scandals and ethnic/gender information from the history implies two things: 1) these are current, still ongoing events, and 2) the information within them is absolutely necessary to give readers an overview of the College. Firstly, it's clear they are not current, and secondly, asserting that they are needed in full to understand UCC is merely an unfounded opinion; the prevelance of what's printed in the media is not a justifiable defence; the media's full of scandals instead of maple syrup making because scandals sell papers, maple syrup does not. The scandals and ethnic/gender info is covered in the history section as per our third opinion moderator's suggestion.
- Thank you for your more constructive suggestions. I've tried to make an attempt to incorporate some of them, though I'm not sure the current events section should be eliminated; where else could this pertinent info go? --G2bambino 21:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- (1) Actually, the Third Opinion did NOT suggest placing the Scandals section in the History article. He did not suggest anything with regards to the Scandals section.
- (2) You assert that the Scandals section does not reflect "current, still ongoing events", but I thought several folks above have already shown that these Scandals are in fact still going through the court system and represent the very recent past. In fact, the consensus above seems to be that the Scandals section should remain in the main article.
- (3) I find it somewhat odd and disturbing that you would assert that Ethnic and Gender issues at UCC are not "current, still ongoing events". Again, it seems that some of the events discussed in that section happened only within the past decade or two. I don't really consider that "history."
- (4) Just because something happens in the recent past does not mean it should be in a History article. Should "In Popular Culture" sections go into History articles? (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuyvesant_High_School#In_popular_culture). Other educational institutions have seen fit to include issues of racism and controversy of the recent past in their main articles (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_State_University, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryville_High_School_%28Tennessee%29).
- (5) You seem dismissive of the fact that just because something is reported in the news, it carries no substantive weight, and that the media only reports flighty sensational trash like... oh... I don't know... rape and racism at UCC? But I thought Wikipedia gave great deference to information reported by multiple secondary sources... aka notability (see WP:notability). Since there is so much notability about UCC as a den of sexual predation and white upper class protestant power structures, shouldn't these notable issues be acknowledged and explored? Magonaritus 05:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
There has been no "consensus" on keeping the scandals in a separate section, other than the one between you and Jonawiki (though, you two may well be the same person); John FitzGerald stated they should be mentioned on this article, and they are. From the third opinion it can be taken that if the ethnic/gender issuas go in the history because they are past cases, then so would the scandals; recent history is still history, as noted below. There is only one case currently open against the school - it is addressed in the current events section. If you can give evidence of any kind of ethnic/gender issue presently at UCC, provide it. Until then, that there are any is simply your own fabrication. The articles you gave as examples are on schools that do not have as lengthy of a history (or, at least, a lenghty history has not been written), and therefore don't warrant a separate, dedicated history article. This one does. Lastly, the scandals, etc. are notable enough to be covered in the history article, even being given their own separate sections, but your and Jonawiki's assertion that their prevalance in the media supports their being given prominance in this article is baseless - Wikipedia is not a tabloid rag. --G2bambino 05:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I reverted your deletions again. Those sections have been in the article for months now. I will not allow you to delete them unilaterally. This is not your personal article. Can someone bring in mediation or arbitration? Thanks. Magonaritus 07:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The full history section was in the article for months; the sections you insist on reinstating were within it. The majority of the history section has been moved to a specific UCC history article. The burden of proof is on you to identify why the sections should now a) be separated from the history, and b) not be reduced here with detail in the UCC history article. Saying "but, it was in all the papers!" simply isn't good enough. I am attempting to edit this article to an FA standard, which takes work. Part of the criteria is that the article be "of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail," as per WP:Summary Style, which states "when there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own entry, that text can be excised from the present entry and replaced by a link." The former history section, including detail on scandals, qualified. It would be appreciated that instead of undoing all my work, you contribute to making the article better quality. --G2bambino 08:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- (1) You need to get your facts straight. This is the umpteenth time that you have assert factual inaccuracies in this talk page. The factual error you just made was to state that Scandals was part of the History section. But that's just not true. It was part of the Recent Events section, a totally separate section. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Upper_Canada_College&diff=103548613&oldid=103548503. So given your logic, the Scandals section should remain in the main article in the renamed Current Events section.
- (2) You state that l have the burden of proof to show why the Ethnic/Gender and Scandal sections should NOT be deleted out of the main article. Can you please point out the Wiki policy that says the burden of proof lies with those who want do undo a deletion? The closest I can find to such a policy has the opposite stance. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikipediAhimsa "When in doubt, don't deleteThat is, edit towards a goal, not away from what you think is bad. If someone contributes something which you find unclear or misleading, polish their work to make it shine. This polishing may involve deletion, but that shouldn't be considered the intent of the edit."
- (3) You state that you want to edit this article to an FA standard. Well, I checked the FA standard for schools at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools. It states "The key to writing a good school article is to explain why the school is unique. What makes it different from every other school? Does it have special programs? A history of championship sports teams? Famous alumni? Has there been a noteworthy event there?". How can you argue that the Scandals do not meet the criteria of making UCC "unique" and "different from every other school" and do not constitute a "noteworthy event."? The history of ethnic and gender issues given the school's "prestigious" reputation also meet this criteria. As such, you MUST include Scandals and Ethnic/Gender issues in the main article to qualify it as an FA article.
- (4) Again, I ask you respectfully, please stop deleting these 2 sections for now. Please respect the status quo (that these 2 sections remain in the main article) until mediation can run its full course. I know you have put a lot of effort into this article, and we all appreciate it, but this does not give you special privileges to unilateally make editorial decisions and to unilaterally ignore consensus (See WP:CON for more information).
- (5) For the record, may I ask, are you an employee of UCC? Or do you have some fiduciary or financial interest in the school?
- (6) To further emphasize the "currentness" of the Scandals, I will be adding the latest development on the scandals to the main article per the Toronto Star article from February 2nd, 2007 (See http://www.thestar.com/News/article/177488) in which it states: "Upper Canada College has formally apologized to victims of sexual abuse at the prestigious school, saying that as an institution it "failed the victims and their families, and for this we feel immense sorrow and regret." The apology came in a letter sent to the entire UCC community – including students and their parents as well as past students, known as "old boys" – earlier this week. It referred to the sexual abuse of students as the most difficult issue the school has had to face in its 177-year history." The school has admitted now how significant the scandal has been to the school. This is an important and necessary issue that needs to be covered when discussing the school. Magonaritus 18:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Ethnic/gender issues was part of the history section, scandals was part of recent events - you are correct. Recent events is not the same as current events; recent events are in the recent past; as stated by our third opinion moderator below: "History doesn't need to entail 100-year-old accomplishments, it can be as recent as three months ago." You still cannot explain why the scandals make the school "unique" - a number of schools in Canada have been targeted recently with sex abuse charges, including Selwyn House, St. Andrew's, Appleby College, and Bishop's College School . UCC's appeared more in the media because the school is already famous, it did not become famous because of the scandals. You also seem to operate under the assumption that the article makes no mention of the scandals or ethnic/gender issues, which makes me wonder whether you've actually read the article, or are just blindly reverting to get what you want. The issues are addressed in the current history section, in an abbreviated form; again, as said below "A paragraph or two should suffice to cover this issue." The court cases outlined belong in the history because they, save for one brought forth by Doug Mackenzie, are over. Thank you, however, for the link to the article re. the letter. Some reference can be made to it in the history section. As for status quo - there is none. This article is being edited to improve its quality - restoring the whole history section and separate recent events sections will be contrary to that effort. --G2bambino 19:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)