text:
That issue is so last week. I haven't objected in a while about that because I am pleased with how the Ethnicity section was re-written to be far more neutral and balanced and rigorously sourced (aka Verifiability) and provided substantive heft.

 * Lastly, do me a favor Metta, please, I beg you, don't advocate on my behalf any further. Actually, why don't you go "advocate" for Ground Zero and Gbambino instead. I've had quite enough of your advocacy, civility, dispute resolution and mediation skills and calming effect to last me quite a while. <IP_ADDRESS> 03:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, that went well... --gbambino 04:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes very. Shame really.

 * Anon, my advocacy does not extend to advocating your right to stir up trouble. If your only interest at wikipedia is in testing the limits of our regulatory systems you will be blocked for disruption / trolling. Please consider this formal warning. ॐ Metta Bubble puff  05:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Ok, beyond my quip above, after giving this some thought, I seriously think <IP_ADDRESS>/<IP_ADDRESS>'s sole purpose here is simply to cause agitation. Contrary to Meta's statement that <IP_ADDRESS>/<IP_ADDRESS>'s less than outstanding edits began after being goaded here, his vandalism (and it certainly was vandalism - look at the aricle edit history) and aggression began  because of a simple request for sources to verify his original research edits.  In fact, his defensive tactics may have started even before that, as seen at: Talk:UCC - Mascot.  All that about O RLY owl - that's <IP_ADDRESS>/<IP_ADDRESS>.  Taking a gander through the rest of his comments from beginning to end, he's self-contradictory, antagonistic, insulting almost to the point of making himself liable, there isn't a shred of good faith anywhere to be found, and he starts it all over again every time someone new weighs in on this ridiculous debate.  Personally, I think it's time to put this to a swift end. --gbambino 04:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi Metta Bubble. /wave. How about instead of accusing me of trolling, perhaps you can spend your time responding to my well researched, impeccably sourced and pristinely logical reasoning below. It's weird how you keep ignoring it, huh? Here, let me make it easier for you and quote it again. Maybe you can reply to my substantive issue rather than spending your time accusing me of being a dick or a troll? Here it is again....

 * First, I have asked the question: ARE THERE, OR ARE THERE NOT PUBLIC WRITTEN EXCEPTIONS TO THE POLICY ON Verifiability? Do not pass Go. Stop ignoring this question. Stop dancing around the point. Stop side-stepping the question. Allow me to quote AGAIN from you the Wiki policy on Verifiability:
 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth
 * This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.
 * Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. (even if the consensus is among the editors GBambino, Metta Bubble and Ground Zero!)
 * If the article has many unsourced statements that have been there a long time, you may request sources on the talk page before removing them, unless the article or information is about a living person, in which case remove the unsourced information.

 * As you can see, I am quoting YOUR OWN POLICY and it seems to say pretty clearly that there are no exceptions. And I think the reason why is it because it forces the community to abide by a very rigorous standard that reduces disputes, reduces error and reduces copyright infringement liability. In fact, it's BECAUSE the standard is so high, some have created Wikinfo, where a "sympathetic point of view" is condoned and does not limit "content to an unattainable encyclopedic goal." But guess what, this is NOT Wikinfo, this is Wikipedia where you DO limit "content to an unattainable encyclopedic goal."

 * Please show me any written statements that in the Wiki Content Policy on Verifiability that says:
 * You do not need to conform with Verifiability because "it's self evident" to the editors involved
 * You do not need to conform with Verifiability if a dick asks for it
 * You do not need to conform with Verifiability if you're too lazy to bother

 * Hi Gbambino. /wave. How about instead of accusing me of trolling and building the business case to ban me, perhaps you can spend your time responding to my well researched, impecably sourced and pristinely logical reasoning below. It's weird how you keep ignoring it, huh? Here, let me make it easier for you and quote it again. Maybe you can reply to my substantive issue rather than spending your time laughing at my being called a dick or a troll? Here it is again....

 * First, I have asked the question: ARE THERE, OR ARE THERE NOT PUBLIC WRITTEN EXCEPTIONS TO THE POLICY ON Verifiability? Do not pass Go. Stop ignoring this question. Stop dancing around the point. Stop side-stepping the question. Allow me to quote AGAIN from you the Wiki policy on Verifiability:
 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth
 * This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.
 * Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. (even if the consensus is among the editors GBambino, Metta Bubble and Ground Zero!)
 * If the article has many unsourced statements that have been there a long time, you may request sources on the talk page before removing them, unless the article or information is about a living person, in which case remove the unsourced information.

 * As you can see, I am quoting YOUR OWN POLICY and it seems to say pretty clearly that there are no exceptions. And I think the reason why is it because it forces the community to abide by a very rigorous standard that reduces disputes, reduces error and reduces copyright infringement liability. In fact, it's BECAUSE the standard is so high, some have created Wikinfo, where a "sympathetic point of view" is condoned and does not limit "content to an unattainable encyclopedic goal." But guess what, this is NOT Wikinfo, this is Wikipedia where you DO limit "content to an unattainable encyclopedic goal."

 * Please show me any written statements that in the Wiki Content Policy on Verifiability that says:
 * You do not need to conform with Verifiability because "it's self evident" to the editors involved
 * You do not need to conform with Verifiability if a dick asks for it
 * You do not need to conform with Verifiability if you're too lazy to bother

<IP_ADDRESS> 05:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You know:
 * I was the one who caught the weasel words used by Gbambino in the Ethnicity section and got them excised thanks to Ground Zero
 * I was the one who identified the Motek Sherman incident which was ultimately used and verified in the Ethnicity section
 * I was the one who pointed out that Cookie Monster was not the school mascot and succeeded in convincing Gbambino to take it out
 * I was the one who came up with the idea of even having a separate section on Ethnicity
 * I was the one who forced this Gbambino to source EACH and EVERY statement in the Ethnicity section... now it has real substantive heft
 * I was the one who forced Ground Zero and others to take a careful look at the syntax of the Ethnicity section to ensure a Neutral Point of View

Before I came along, this is what UCC had to say about Ethnicity:

(under the "Today" section}

''Unlike many other Canadian independent schools, UCC has a long history of ethnic students since its founding. The first black student appeared in 1831, the first Jewish student in 1836 and the first aboriginal student in 1840. Today, students from about 18 countries attend UCC, and comprise a substantial quantity of students in each of the offered years.''

--> OMG, the bias in this previous version is sickening to me personally. It totally lacks any sourcing. The data is cherry picked to present one fringe radical view on ethnicity at UCC. Ugh.

This is what the new Ethnicity section says now: Ethnicity

''UCC began admitting ethnic minority students early in its history. 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. [10]''

''Diplomat James George, a student between 1926 and 1936, said upon reflection about his time with other UCC graduates in the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs: "If UCC really was a womb matrix for a bunch of WASP patriots, why did it produce so many internationalists?" [11]''

''UCC has maintained a reputation as a "bastion of WASP privilege." [12] Some students recall experiencing anti-Semitism; Graham Fraser, the Globe and Mail Washington Bureau Chief, who attended UCC between 1960 and 1964, recalled: "Anti-Semitism was generally an unspoken undercurrent at UCC, but a couple of times I witnessed overt anti-Semitism.... Before 1960, Toronto was a pretty narrow, close-minded, little Victorian town and Upper Canada College reflected that reality." [13]''

''Foermer Prep School Headmaster Richard Howard said in his book Upper Canada College, 1929-1979: Colborne's Legacy, published in 1979: "The growth of the enrolment has increased the number of boys from a wide variety of backgrounds and decreased the ratio of those from old Toronto families. The address list now reflects Toronto's ethnic variety and resembles a small United Nations." [14]''

''Motek Sherman, the editor of the school's yearbook The College Times in 1990, wrote an editorial stating that while UCC was no longer "a white-bread, right-wing fortress: it has become much more multi-cultural and (dare I say it?) liberal.... In my years at UCC I have faced anti-Semitism, ugliness, stupidity and bureaucracy." [15]''

''In 2002, student Adam Sheikh created the Diversity Council to celebrate the cultural diversity of the school's student population. This council, a body of students independent from the school administration, organizes celebrations of Chinese, Jewish, Christian and Ukranian cultures. [16]''

''Today, students from about 18 countries attend UCC. The international students typically come from among the wealthiest families in the countries of their origin.''

--> Wow, what a change! It's balanced. It's neutral. It's verified. Sweet!

In addition, as a noob, I have learned about and USED to argue my point in a researched and logical fashion:NPOV, Notability (even correcting GBambino about the notability standards for music), personal attacks, assume good faith, verifiability, Wikinfo and no original research.

You guys should be thanking me for making this article so much better than it was before. Not harrassing me, calling me a dick, making flip remarks, giving me formal warnings, insulting me as a troll and trying to ban me. What's wrong with you people? Honestly, seriously, no joke. <IP_ADDRESS> 12:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have been observing this dispute for some time and I must admit, until now only because it amused me.

Metta Bubble, I believe the problem here is that you started by advocating that user 66 be given a break and then repeatedly told him that as a result of his efforts, "I believe this strategy will result in you getting blocked for being a dick." I know you were probably trying to avoid making a personal judgment yourself, but by not making your views clear on this (i.e., 'I personally don't believe you are a dick'; or, 'I believe this would be the right thing to do') you made your views clear by omission. It's really hard to blame user 66 for suddenly being upset with you. Did not the Buddha say, "When they meet a sorrowful man, they should lament the bitterness of this ever-changing world"? User 66 is clearly confused and sorrowful about Wiki and was hoping for more of a constant in his advocate. You have to admit, whatever you think of his approach, the Ethnicity section does read a lot better because of his efforts. Peace.**** (unsigned comment)

There were two ways that User:66/68 could have improved the ethnicity section: It seems pretty clear to me that the current, more NPOV version is not User:66/68's work, but the work of me and others who have suffered through his abuse. It is very sad that he is trying to take credit for something that looks nothing at all like what he was trying to impose on this article. I wish, I so very much wish, that he would choose to work with us rather than against us. We are reasonable people, and it does not take threats, insult and abuse to get us to make something NPOV. Ground Zero | t 13:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) he could have re-written it in a strongly POV, unreferenced manner, then entered into a revert war to protect his agenda-promoting version, bullied, threatened and insulted other editors, deleted large sections of text to make a point, engaged in long diatribes on the talk page, demanded that other editors engage in hours of work to verify facts that he did not question (some of which are so obvious that they require no verification), refused to accept some of the verification because it was not on the exact web page cited, but on another web page from the same website, demanded sanctions against other users, abused everyone who tried to assist him, and hoped that his point about it being POV would be picked up by the editors he was threatening and insulting, and that they would make NPOV edits; or
 * 2) he could have written an NPOV version himself.

I agree with almost everything that GroundZero has written. Of course, it should be noted, however, that Meta Bubble did repeatedly call user 66/68 a "dick." This term may have some special meaning in the Wiki world which escapes me, but, I think immediately his/her use of this term negates any claim s/he might make to occupying some neutral vantage on the whole unfortunate episode which this discussion page would seem to represent. I realize how very difficult it can be to keep one's cool dealing with 66/68's style of argumentation (i.e., polemic), and I myself would be the first to admit that I lost my temper with him/her yesterday. That said, name calling will not help. Nor will it placate 66/68, I don't think, to have a supposed "neutral" perspective which begins almost immediately by calling him/her a "dick" (special meaning in Wiki notwithstanding, as user 66/68 is not registered and so, we can assume, would not understand any wiki jargon). I have to say I'm somewhat dissapointed.

I would also note that it, in my opinion, it takes two to tangle, and it seems somewhat disingenuous for one of the two engaged in a revert war to claim innocence: to be engaged in this sort of thing belies, to my mind at least, a *personal* interest in work, which may not be fully conducive to the aims and values of Wikipedia. I wonder if 66/68 might state once more, for the record, in a new section which will not be edited, exactly what his/her wants and needs in this whole unfortunate episode are. Then, responses can be concerned only with those wants and needs (on a point by point basis). I would also suggest a moratorium on commentary on 66/68's previous actions, prior to his/her concession that s/he was unfamiliar with the "rules" of Wiki, and especially since his/her *apology* for previous indiscretions on this page -- many of the responses here are obviously baiting. S/he has yet to apologise to me for his outburst yesterday, but I returned in kind, and want to be first to apologise. Take this or leave this -- but I would consider myself to have as neutral a position on this, again, whole unfortunate episode as anyone else I've seen here, besides, perhaps, 38 (though definitely not 38's colleague at work! :).WormwoodJagger 14:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Wormwood's comments, especially in two regards: (1) calling user 66 a dick (either directly or indirectly) was not necessary and did not add to the discussion; (2) this process has been a two-way street. Gbambino has repeatedly launched personal attacks against user 66 and, at the very minimum, Ground Zero has been prone to losing his or her temper with user 66.

What has been the unstated premise that has been driving this discussion is that there are clearly two perspectives that are clashing here. User 66 obviously feels that there are important facts about UCC's treatment of minorities which should be included in the article; on the opposite side of the fence, Gbambino is one of those Old Boys who appears sensitive to any suggestion that UCC is an exclusive community. You have locked anon users out of the article and therefore imposed the latter view on Wikipedia. You can rationalize and justify this all you want and throw around terms like "dick" and "vandalism" if it makes you feel better, but I do have one question for Ground Zero and the likes: if you lock anon users out of the article and consign them to the discussion page, do you really not expect some heightened level of frustration to be displayed? Peace.Blunders of the third kind 15:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

 * The term dick does have special meaning in Wikipedia and other wikis. It is short-hand for a lot of things. Please follow the link to see what it is about. Having said that, some elaboration on that concept should have been provided the first time it was used so that the anon editor, who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia, would not automatically see that as a personal attack. I semi-protected the article only after a revert war had broken out and the anon user had begun abusing other editors. I have been working to make the ethnicity section less POV based on suggestions by other editors and even some of User:66/68's more temperate comments. Gbambino has never objected to these edits to make it less POV, so I don't think that your criticism that we are trying to protect the "sanitized view" of UCC is fair or valid. Even 66/68 believes it is now neutral. See above where s/he says: "Wow, what a change! It's balanced. It's neutral. It's verified. Sweet!" Ground Zero | t 15:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Lifting semi-protection
It would seem, then, that the semi-protection can be lifted. This will allow 66/68 and GroundZero and Gbambino to demonstrate their good faith by (i) assuaging the often repetead concern here that GroundZero and Gbambino have taken a proprietary interest in this page and (equally as oft repeted ) (ii) that 66/68 is incapable of reasoned dialogue. I look forward to seeing this page grow now.WormwoodJagger 15:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with Wormwood. I think the semi-protection should be lifted as a concrete gesture of good faith.

And I don't want to prolong things when a civil tone seems to have returned to the discussion, but I did check out the link to *dick* as you suggested, and what I found is as follows: "Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is something of a dick-move in itself, so don't bandy the criticism about lightly." In any event, we seem to have moved passed it. I look forward to finding the semi-protection lifted.Blunders of the third kind 16:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed -- let's all get back to work!<IP_ADDRESS> 17:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not surprised that, once again, Ground Zero has chosen to comment recently and yet ignore my request for proof on his part for exceptions to Verifiability per below:
 * First, I have asked the question: ARE THERE, OR ARE THERE NOT PUBLIC WRITTEN EXCEPTIONS TO THE POLICY ON Verifiability? Do not pass Go. Stop ignoring this question. Stop dancing around the point. Stop side-stepping the question. Allow me to quote AGAIN from you the Wiki policy on Verifiability:
 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth
 * This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.
 * Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. (even if the consensus is among the editors GBambino, Metta Bubble and Ground Zero!)
 * If the article has many unsourced statements that have been there a long time, you may request sources on the talk page before removing them, unless the article or information is about a living person, in which case remove the unsourced information.

 * As you can see, I am quoting YOUR OWN POLICY and it seems to say pretty clearly that there are no exceptions. And I think the reason why is it because it forces the community to abide by a very rigorous standard that reduces disputes, reduces error and reduces copyright infringement liability. In fact, it's BECAUSE the standard is so high, some have created Wikinfo, where a "sympathetic point of view" is condoned and does not limit "content to an unattainable encyclopedic goal." But guess what, this is NOT Wikinfo, this is Wikipedia where you DO limit "content to an unattainable encyclopedic goal."

 * Please show me any written statements that in the Wiki Content Policy on Verifiability that says:
 * You do not need to conform with Verifiability because "it's self evident" to the editors involved
 * You do not need to conform with Verifiability if a dick asks for it
 * You do not need to conform with Verifiability if you're too lazy to bother

In the meanwhile, I will continue to:
 * Ask Gbambino and Ground Zero to prove on what grounds they base their tyrannically implemented and arbitrarily chosen exceptions to Verifiability.
 * Escalate for the demotion of Ground Zero and Metta Bubble
 * Escalate for the removal of every single unsourced statement within the UCC article as per the policy on Verifiability

If either Ground Zero or Gbambino or Metta Bubble want to stop personally attacking me and start having a civil discussion to prove where in Wiki policy they can unilaterally decide to ignore Verifiability, I welcome that discussion. Unfortunately, it seems they're far more interested in ignoring this issue and just calling me a troll and threatening to ban me. I think the reason is because they know that substantively, and logically, and technically, they are in the wrong on this and I am in the right. So it's easier to provoke and bait and insult in the meanwhile. Very, very sad.

<IP_ADDRESS> 17:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Anon., at least we can agree on one thing: I certainly am ignoring this "issue." Good luck with your future ventures here at Wikipedia! --gbambino 17:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have been considering WormwoodJagger's suggestion seriously. I have been around Wikipedia for a few years now, and have seen problems caused by people who have an axe to grind, a point to make, or a general unhappiness with the world. They can take up a lot of time for serious editors who are here to make worthwhile contributions. 66/68 has demonstrated, with her/his latest outburts, that lifting the semi-protection would simply give him another opportunity to be disruptive. He still seems to be asserting her/his right to remove large portions of text that he feels have not be referenced in order to make a point. I do not think that it is in the interests of Wikipedia to allow her/him to renew her/his disruptions. The anonymous editors and the newly-registered "Blunders" who have stopped y to support lifting the semi-protection are welcome to express their views. I will wait for people who have been around Wikipedia for a while, and have made contributions, to voice their opinions because I think that the decision should also reflect the thoughts of people who have a bit of experience with how Wikipedia works. As I've said above, if another administrator decides to lift the semi-protection, I will respect that decision. So far, none has.

User 66/68: I have advised you on how to seek my demotion. You must seek Arbitration to do so. You cannot get it here, so repeating your demands here is pointless. And I don't think that advocates can be demoted as I believe it is a completely voluntary and non-elected position. Ground Zero | t 17:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC) Ground Zero | t 17:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have posted a note at the Adminstrators noticeboard indicating that there is discussion about lifting semi-protection so that other admins can lift semi-protection if they see fit. Ground Zero | t 18:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

GroundZero: Thanks for the consideration. Just to be clear: I didn't mean to advocate that the semi-protection be lifted, just that it be considered as a way to get beyond this issue. I think, clearly, you have every reason to be concerned about 66/68, especially after the last posting. I look forward to seeing how this progresses and, of course, defer to your seniority here. WormwoodJagger 20:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to express some frustration here. The fact that User 66 has at times engaged in terse or provocative language is undeniable. But even a cursory review of this discussion page bears out that throughout this dialogue both Ground Zero and Gbambino have often been dismissive and condescending towards User 66. Both users repeatedly assert that User 66 has shown a lack of good faith. But there is a complete lack of insight into their own lack of good faith. Once we examine the facts it becomes apparent that there is absolutely NOTHING User 66 could do to satisfy them to make any changes to the article as it exists. In essence, the article has become ossified by the prejudice of one user and one administrator.

Let’s examine the facts.

Repeatedly, both Gbambino and Ground Zero stated that a way to show good faith would be to register as a user. So that is exactly what I did. And what happens? (1) I am told that my point of view as a “new” user is largely irrelevant. In response to my suggestions, which obviously do not conflict with User 66 to a sufficient degree, Ground Zero writes:

The anonymous editors and the newly-registered "Blunders" who have stopped y to support lifting the semi-protection are welcome to express their views. I will wait for people who have been around Wikipedia for a while, and have made contributions, to voice their opinions[.]

(2) More disturbingly, on the Administrator’s Notice board, Ground Zero suggest by innuendo that I am a “sock puppet” for User 66. Why? Because it is inconceivable that anyone would support or even sympathize with User 66’s views. Can you really ask for any more cogent or compelling evidence that Ground Zero, as an administrator, does not take User 66’s views seriously at all? For the record, I am nobody’s “sock puppet”.

Whether or not I agree with all of User 66’s points or tactics is irrelevant. I believe that locking a site to anon users should only be an option of last resort. I fail to see how User 66’s insistence that Wikipedia abide by one of its own cardinal rules (i.e., verifiability) can be described as an act of “vandalism” or dismissed as an attempt to “prove a point”. When User 66 wanted to demonstrate that UCC’s student population did not reflect Toronto’s demographics he volunteered evidence which is routinely admissible in a court of law under cases dealing with the equality provisions (s. 15) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For your information, Ground Zero, I find it somewhat ironic that when the Ontario Court of Appeal took judicial notice of racial profiling existing in the Toronto Police Force they were happy to do so under a far less exacting standard than you have insisted that User 66 provide for a single entry on Wikipedia: see http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/april/brownC37818.htm.

Note what Justice Morden says for a UNANIMOUS court: (para. 44) “A racial profiling claim could rarely be proven by direct evidence. This would involve an admission by a police officer that he or she was influenced by racial stereotypes in the exercise of his or her discretion to stop a motorist. Accordingly, if racial profiling is to be proven it must be done by inference drawn from circumstantial evidence.”

The same logic applies to UCC. Evidence of racial profiling in the student admissions body will rarely be capable of proof by direct evidence. After all, it is unlikely that the admissions committee will admit that they discriminate against minorities. So the only way the fact can be proven is through indirect or circumstantial evidence – such as, student body pictures in yearbooks.

With the greatest of respect, Ground Zero, your language in this dialogue admits to a level of intellectual dishonesty which I find inappropriate and ill-suited to a Wiki administrator. But what do I know, right? I’m only newly registered after all…Blunders of the third kind 21:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

 * When User 66 wanted to demonstrate that UCC’s student population did not reflect Toronto’s demographics he volunteered evidence
 * No, he did not. Please review the edit history of the article, as well as 66/68's contributions to this talk page, to note that not one shred of evidence was ever presented by 66/68.
 * Also, this is not a court of law where UCC's admissions practices are to be judged. This is an encyclopaedia where facts are presented.  Without a proper source which states that UCC's admissions process is governed in some form by racial profiling, then to assert that it is is POV and original research - two things unacceptable at Wikipedia.
 * And lastly, one has to ask, even if it could be proven that a look at the UCC graduating class photos showed that the school's ethnic diversity did not match that of greater Toronto, for what purpose would it be inserted into the article? There are schools in Scarborough where a walk through the halls will tell you that the school's demographic is not reflective of the larger metropolitan Toronto area, but is that a sign of racist admissions processes, or simply a reflection of a fact that the school exists in an ethnic enclave, or of more complex socio-economic patterns across the city and/or country? --gbambino 22:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ground Zero's response to Blunders
Firstly, let me welcome you to Wikipedia. I hope that you enjoy your time here, and not be put off by this dispute. This is not typical of life here on Wikipedia. I do want to address some of the comments that you have made.

 * "Once we examine the facts it becomes apparent that there is absolutely NOTHING User 66 could do to satisfy them to make any changes to the article as it exists. In essence, the article has become ossified by the prejudice of one user and one administrator."

This is not supported by the facts. The fact is that the ethnicity section has now been changed significantly to make it more NPOV. You can review the article history to see the changes that have been made by clicking on the “History” tab at the top of the page. These changes result from valid comments made by unregistered and new users that Gbambino and I have incorporated into the article. The fact is that user 66/68 now agrees that it is NPOV. If you can indicate what parts of the section show the “prejudice of one user and one administrator”, then we can discuss what further changes would be appropriate.

 * "I am told that my point of view as a “new” user is largely irrelevant."

No, you were not told that.

 * "In response to my suggestions, which obviously do not conflict with User 66 to a sufficient degree, Ground Zero writes: “The anonymous editors and the newly-registered "Blunders" who have stopped y to support lifting the semi-protection are welcome to express their views. I will wait for people who have been around Wikipedia for a while, and have made contributions, to voice their opinions[.]”"

I ask that you to read to the end of the paragraph that you truncated: “I will wait for people who have been around Wikipedia for a while, and have made contributions, to voice their opinions because I think that the decision should also reflect the thoughts of people who have a bit of experience with how Wikipedia works.”

The emphasis on “also” is in the original. Further, please see my comments above about changes to the article resulting from comments made by unregistered and new users.

 * "More disturbingly, on the Administrator’s Notice board, Ground Zero suggest by innuendo that I am a “sock puppet” for User 66."

What I wrote was “may or may not be a sock-puppet”. I take your word for it that you are not a sock-puppet. User 66 has also been writing as User:68, so it is conceivable that s/he would be using other IP numbers and may have registered. I have now removed the statement to which you object. The context of my posting was to ask other admins to consider whether or not to lift the semi-protection that I imposed and continue to believe is appropriate. There is no requirement that I post such a request. As I have said above, I would respect the decision of another editor in this regard.

 * "I fail to see how User 66’s insistence that Wikipedia abide by one of its own cardinal rules (i.e., verifiability) can be described as an act of “vandalism” or dismissed as an attempt to “prove a point”. "

He demanded verification of UCC being in Toronto, being an elementary school, being a secondary school, and so on. These facts cannot be reasonably disputed especially since Gbambino provided a link to the school’s website, which identifies these facts.

 * "When User 66 wanted to demonstrate that UCC’s student population did not reflect Toronto’s demographics he volunteered evidence which is routinely admissible in a court of law under cases dealing with the equality provisions (s. 15) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

Circumstantial evidence may well be relevant in the question that you cited. I have made the argument, and no-one has challenged it, that the racism that you and 66/68 claim is evidence is societal racism, not the racism of the school. I hope that I have been able to adress some of your concerns. Ground Zero | t 22:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"And lastly, one has to ask, even if it could be proven that a look at the UCC graduating class photos showed that the school's ethnic diversity did not match that of greater Toronto, for what purpose would it be inserted into the article?" Really a question?

Thank you for your response (and your welcome), Ground Zero. The response I have to your last posting is below and is made in good faith. I am heartened by your assurances that what has happened to the UCC page is not typical of Wikipedia.

I am, as I have identified, a new user. I have done some a little research into Wikipedia over the last day or so. One of the things that I have found is that there is a rebuttable presumtpion that to the greatest extent possible all pages will be unprotected. This reflects the clear Wikipedia philosophy that the process of building an on-line dictionary works best when it is collaborative and dynamic. For this reason, Wikipedia official policy on page protection is as follows: “We strive to protect pages only when absolutely necessary and to unprotect them as soon as possible”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:This_page_is_protected

In your response to me you stated, “If you can indicate what parts of the section show the “prejudice of one user and one administrator”, then we can discuss what further changes would be appropriate.”

I accept your invitation but I also want to register my objection. It is not at all clear to me that User 66/68’s activities constitute trolling or vandalism and that the integrity of the UCC page would be threatened if unprotected. I believe I ought to have the right to make the proposed edits directly to the UCC page rather than have to provide detailed explanations on the talk page. I believe that I am being deprived of my right to do so under clear violation of the Wikipedia policy cited above and once again I renew my request to have the page protection lifted.

In the interim, my proposed changes to the Ethnicity section are listed below:

1.	James George Quote is Irrelevant

In the ethnicity section, Gbambino has cited an excerpt from a quote from James George lifted from the book, Old Boys. James George’s quote in full is as follows:

“Among my contemporaries at UCC, Arnold Smith, George Grant and myself all became Rhodes Scholars. Arnold Smith, who was four years older than me, got his Rhodes along with George Ignatieff. They both wound up in External Affairs. We had an extraordinary group of people in the External Affairs Department after the war who had a great deal of idealism that was internationalist in scope...if UCC really was a womb matrix for a bunch of WASP patriots, why did it produce so many internationalists.”

As you can see, this quote has absolutely nothing to do with ethnicity or the demographics of the student body. Rather, what James George is questioning is the assumption that a high school in a backwater colony would be incapable of producing original and international thinkers. If James George had asked, “if UCC really was a womb matrix for a bunch of WASPS, why did it produce so many distinguished alumni of different ethnicities?”, it would have relevance to the ethnicity section. The quote used, however, has none and therefore is really asserting a POV. I would eliminate it.

2.	Richard Howard Quote is erroneously verified

The fourth paragraph of the Ethnicity section cites a quote from Richard Howard which states that UCC is akin to a mini United Nations. Even though it is stated that this quote is from Howard’s book, Colbourne’s Legacy, the quote is footnoted (#15) to a different book – James Fitzgerald’s Old Boys. When you click on the hyperlink provided, there is no reference to Richard Howard’s quote (or book, for that matter). I suspect that the footnotes might have got mixed up due to recent edits (as Howard’s book is now footnote #16) and this should be corrected.

3.	Michael Ignatieff Quote Right on Point

What you do find in James Fitgerald’s book, however, is a quote that is extremely relevant to the Ethnicity section from Michael Ignatieff, former Harvard professor, current member of Parliament and Director of the Munk Centre for International Relations at the University of Toronto. Michael Ignatieff says:

"The UCC culture in my time was basically Tory, Anglican and fantastically patrician. I think anybody who was at UCC has to wrestle with the anomaly and irony of a patrician education in an egalitarian society like Canada. The contradiction is particularly flagrant...

The Canadian elite must be an open, permeable elite which is colour blind, religion blind and gender blind. There has to be an elite based not even on intelligence but character. They will mostly come from schools that bear no resemblance to Upper Canada College.”

This quote is completely relevant to the Ethnicity section and it is made by a prominent and respected intellectual and politician. I would definitely add this quote to the section.

4.	Motek Sherman misquoted

In the section as drafted, Gbambino states the following:

“Motek Sherman, the editor of the school's yearbook The College Times in 1990, wrote an editorial stating that while UCC was no longer "a white-bread, right-wing fortress: it has become much more multi-cultural and (dare I say it?) liberal.... In my years at UCC I have faced anti-Semitism, ugliness, stupidity and bureaucracy”.”

Again, the footnote is to James Fitzgerald’s Old Boys. But when you link to it, you find that nowhere does Motek say that UCC is “no longer a white-bread, right-wing fortress: it has become much more multi-cultural and (dare I say it?) liberal.” This part of the quote does not exist anywhere in the cite provided. Instead, Motek comments, “to any outsider who was trying to attain membership in it, UCC had represented the holy grail of the WASP elite”.

I would eliminate the first (and unsupported) segment of the quote. I pause here to point out that if User 66/68 had committed such a serious error in sourcing, he or she doubtless would have been accused of bad faith and/or vandalism. I think the fact that Gbambino has escaped such criticism is indicative of an unfortunate and defining bias in this discussion.

 * 1) 5 Diversity Council

The article then states that in 2002 a student (Adam Sheikh) created the “Diversity Council” at UCC to “celebrate the cultural diversity of the school's student population”. I don’t know where the author gets that the purpose of the Council is or was to celebrate cultural diversity, but what I do know is that a footnote link to verify the fact goes to the “Harmony Scholarship” website. That website says that the purpose of the Harmony Scholarship awards (of which Adam Sheikh was a recipient) is to recognize student efforts at “promoting harmony and challenging different forms of discrimination and prejudice in their schools and communities.”

So I would rewrite the section to read (in a more neutral and verifiable tone), “In 2002, student Adam Sheikh created the Diversity Council to celebrate the cultural diversity of the school's student population. For his efforts Adam received the Harmony Scholarship, an award that recognizes student efforts to promote harmony and challenge different forms of discrimination and prejudice in their schools and communities.”

 * 1) 6	Number of Nationalities Represented by UCC

Finally, the ethnicity section ends by stating that students of 18 different nationalities attend UCC. Surely this is a fact that requires verification. You have now issued an omnibus dismissal of User 66’s requests for verification because he has asked for verification of - to your mind - self-evident or obvious facts. Of course, these are not the only type of facts that User 66 has asked for verficiation for. Even assuming such requests fall outside the rubric of verifiability, the claim that students from 18 nationalities attend UCC does, in my opinion, require verification.

I think the Ethnicity section as currently drafted is riddled with errors and misstatements but can easily be corrected. I do not question the good faith of Gbambino and other contributing editors. I would ask that the same courtesy be extended to other users, including myself. I hope that it does not prove necessary to repeat this time-consuming exercise. If any future edits are to be made, I hope they can be made directly to the article. I hope my feedback has been constructive. Peace.Blunders of the third kind 18:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * 1. James George Quote is Irrelevant
 * His reference to UCC's reputation as a "womb matrix for WASP patriots" clearly illustrates that a) the school has/had a reputation as a predominantly WASP school, as mentioned in the article for good reason, and b) he feels such a label to be untrue.
 * 2. Richard Howard Quote is erroneously verified
 * This is indeed wrong; it seems the order of all the footnotes for this section is incorrect. I will fix this.
 * 3. Michael Ignatieff Quote Right on Point
 * That seems like a fine insert to me.
 * 4. Motek Sherman misquoted
 * Part of the footnote order issue that I mentioned above. What Sherman states in Old Boys and what he said in the 1990 College Times are not a complete match.  The only real sourcing error is yours, so be careful with the bias accusations.
 * 5. Diversity Council
 * Please read through the linked website - in particular, read the section dedicated to Mr. Adam Sheikh
 * 6. Number of Nationalities Represented by UCC
 * Just to make it clear, that was originally not my edit. However, I do recall reading this elsewhere, and am currently searching for the source.  If anyone feels it necessary, it can be removed until said source is found. --gbambino 19:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

As a result of Blunders' critique above, I just have to say:
 * 1) ROFLCOPTER
 * 2) i lub joo
 * 3) u r #1 pwnzer

See what happens when you don't adhere to verifiability? Or only apply verifiability scrutiny to one editor's prose (ie me) but not the other (ie gbambino)?

<IP_ADDRESS> 19:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

With regard to your comments about page rotection, I agree that it is not sopmething that should be done lightly. Preference should be given for keeping Wikipedia as open as possible. Wikipedia, however, has given itself procedures for preventing vandalism and other disruption, including page protection and blocking and banning users. These powers are provided only to those Wikipedians who have been chosen by their peers as administrators. In the seven months that I have been and administrator, I have used semi-pretection on only one occasion that I recall, and then it was only for two days. I have never used full page protection (which prevents even registered users other than administrators from editing), and I have not blocked any user.

I am disappointed that I have had to leave semi-protection on this article for so long. It is only because I believe that User 66/68 will continue to disrupt the article that I have left semi-protection on. I judge my actions by the responses of my peers: So I do not think that I have overstepped my bounds as an administrator, and I do not think that it would be prudent to lift semi-protection yet.
 * User:CambridgeBayWeather is an admin who has participated in the discussion and has not lifted semi-protection.
 * User:HOTR is an admin whom User:66/68 agreed to use as a mediator. Homey has not lifted the semi-protection.
 * User:Mindmatrix is an admin who responded to my posting on the Adminstrators' noticeboard. I had alerted other admins to the problem at the UCC article and asked for other views. Mindmatrix reviewed the volumnious discussions on the talk page and concluded that semi-protection should not be lifted at this time because of the likelihood of 66/68 returning to his/her disruptive behaviour.
 * Finally, User:MettaBubble, a member’s advocate invited by 66/68 to represent him, concluded that it was 66/68's behaviour that was the problem here.

Unfortunately, your right to edit is being limited by another anon user’s behaviour. Your reuqest to lift semi-protection is noted, but I believe, and apparently other admins believe, that continued semi-protection of this article is not a violation of Wikipedia policies. If another admin decides to lift semi-protection, I will respect that decision.

As far as the content goes, you have clearly done a lot of research, and raised a number of valid points. I see that Gbambino is addressing them, and making some of the changes. When he is done, we should revisit your comments to make sure that everything that should be reflected in the article is reflected. Regards, Ground Zero | t 21:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"He demanded verification of UCC being in Toronto, being an elementary school, being a secondary school, and so on. These facts cannot be reasonably disputed especially since Gbambino provided a link to the school' website, which identifies these facts." Can it be assumed that these unverified POV assertions (according to Wiki standards) would be self-evident to readers in, say, Siberia?<IP_ADDRESS> 22:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Your argument is fallacious. It is assumed that this information is acknowledged and accepted by those who are familiar with the subject. If among that group, there are dissenters, then the burden of proof is on the minority dissenters to provide information that clearly demonstrates the facts, as they are accepted, are wrong. Anyone that knows about UCC knows that it's in Toronto: this is a basic, undisputable fact. If you disagree with this, state your reasons, and state where you think it's located, with supporting citations. Commmonly accepted, trivial facts do not need citations to support them.
 * Further, assuming that UCC [is] in Toronto is a POV assertion is patently ridiculous. There is no point of view in such a statement; it is a statement of pure, logical fact, or simply a plain observation. Base level knowledge has to be assumed at some point. If not, one could demand that the definition of every word employed in the development of this article, with full citation, which is rather absurd.
 * It appears to me that those who demand proof of UCC's location are behaving as trolls now. The point is invalid, and has been discussed and dismissed as a triviality. If you object to that, then take it up in a Wikipedia policy review discussion, since such "problems" would clearly have a scope greater than just this article. Mind  matrix  22:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Mindmatrix, I applaud your patience and restraint in dealing with newbs like 129. Good for you. /sarcasmOff <IP_ADDRESS> 22:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Why, do statements like these unverified POV assertions (per 129) show any more restraint and patience? Or do you believe a different standard applies to me? (BTW: the third paragraph I wrote above was primarily directed at other users.) Mind  matrix  23:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Y'know, I was planning to lift semi-protection at the beginning of next week as an experiment, but when I see the troll(s) still circling, I realise it would be pointless. Ground Zero | t 22:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * ROFL, 129 has now been deemed a troll by GroundZero. Well, I guess you deserve it 129 for asking critical questions. Bad noob, bad! <IP_ADDRESS> 22:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * 129 is hardly a "noob" - his edit history shows clearly that he's been editing since July of 2004. --gbambino 23:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Reason #4345 Why Verifiability Matters
GroundZero edited the scandal section at 14:55 March 17 to state that Brown was a history and geography teacher at the prep. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Upper_Canada_College&diff=44217693&oldid=44214849

Uhhh.... what? If I recollect correctly, Brown was most of all an English teacher. Oh wait, here's a source for you: http://injusticebusters.com/04/Brown_Doug.shtml mentions several times that he's an English teacher. Never mentions history or geo (though I think he taught some such classes).

But please continue, GroundZero, putting in more UNVERIFIED stuff into the article. Fiction, hazy recollections, half truths, outright errors, they're all good. <IP_ADDRESS> 22:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * As you're taking your own recollection as a source, then so will I: Brown taught geography into the late 1980s. At that point he did not teach english. Prior to those years he may well have taught english.
 * English has been added to the list of courses taught by Brown. --gbambino 23:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I feel so bad for you. Did you not read what I just wrote? Are you blind? I am NOT taking my recollection of Brown as an English teacher as a source. Reread what I wrote above, I gave a link, specifically :http://injusticebusters.com/04/Brown_Doug.shtml. Didn't you see the link? I await an apology from you for your sarcasm founded on incorrect facts. BTW, I would suggest you delete references to Brown teaching geography and history unless you can provide a verifiable source. I have a hazy recollection that he taught these 2 subjects, but I would rather be a good Wiki citizen and use a source. Wouldn't you? Oh wait, I forgot who I'm talking to. You don't believe in using sources. Sorry, I forgot.  <IP_ADDRESS> 23:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Certainly verifiability is important; nobody here said it wasn't. However, verifying trivial facts (eg - UCC is in Toronto) is not required. This is why some people here are labelling you, and others, as trolls - you simply don't seem to grasp the difference between the two cases. Mind  matrix  23:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * BTW - you clearly misunderstand what a verifiable source is: a blog ain't it. A better source would be UCC yearbooks, or staffing records. In this particular case, the blog references a CBC article, so why not link to that directly? Mind  matrix  23:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Mindmatrix, answer my question below in a civil and substantive manner. Cause as far as I am concerned, your little quip lacks verifiability.

 * First, I have asked the question: ARE THERE, OR ARE THERE NOT PUBLIC WRITTEN EXCEPTIONS TO THE POLICY ON Verifiability? Do not pass Go. Stop ignoring this question. Stop dancing around the point. Stop side-stepping the question. Allow me to quote AGAIN from you the Wiki policy on Verifiability:
 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth
 * This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.
 * Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. (even if the consensus is among the editors GBambino, Metta Bubble and Ground Zero!)
 * If the article has many unsourced statements that have been there a long time, you may request sources on the talk page before removing them, unless the article or information is about a living person, in which case remove the unsourced information.

 * As you can see, I am quoting YOUR OWN POLICY and it seems to say pretty clearly that there are no exceptions. And I think the reason why is it because it forces the community to abide by a very rigorous standard that reduces disputes, reduces error and reduces copyright infringement liability. In fact, it's BECAUSE the standard is so high, some have created Wikinfo, where a "sympathetic point of view" is condoned and does not limit "content to an unattainable encyclopedic goal." But guess what, this is NOT Wikinfo, this is Wikipedia where you DO limit "content to an unattainable encyclopedic goal."

 * Please show me any written statements that in the Wiki Content Policy on Verifiability that says:
 * You do not need to conform with Verifiability because "it's self evident" to the editors involved
 * You do not need to conform with Verifiability if a dick asks for it
 * You do not need to conform with Verifiability if you're too lazy to bother

<IP_ADDRESS> 23:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * It is not my policy. It is Wikipedia policy. And just as it is the case in every peer-reviewed journal, encyclopedia, and book outside Wikipedia, so too it is within Wikipedia: Commmonly accepted, trivial facts do not need citations to support them. Specifically, If you add any information to an article, particularly if it's contentious or likely to be challenged, you should supply a source. (from Citing sources) Note how it says particularly if it's contentious or likely to be challenged.
 * Nowhere did I say that You do not need to conform with Verifiability because "it's self evident" to the editors involved. What I said was there is no need for citation if the facts are obvious to those who know the subject (not the editors as you state). Also, don't place in quotes words I never spoke or wrote, if you try to pass those words off as mine.
 * Further, cutting and pasting the same text repeatedly into the conversation is trolling. You spend a few seconds trying to elicit as much work from other editors as possible. I have absolutely no patience for that. Mind  matrix  23:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's try this: how about you verify that UCC is not in Toronto, is not an all-boy's school, is not an elementary school, and so on. A source affirming those facts has been provided, so it would really be of great benefit to your credibility if, instead of ranting, you could actually adhere to the Wikipedia policies you throw at others. Please, be an example to all of us, and help us improve our editing skills. --gbambino 23:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Three things
 * Why are you so afraid to answer my substantive case for verifiability as a strict policy above? Is it because you know you're wrong? I guess that must be it.
 * There's no need for me to verify that UCC is in Toronto. There is a need for YOU to verify that UCC is in Toronto. And here's the kicker. It's real frickin easy. Source it the home page of the school http://www.ucc.on.ca. It says that UCC is in Toronto, Canada RIGHT IN THE DAMN HEADER... ON THE HOME PAGE. boy, that was SOOOOOOO difficult, wasn't it? yeah, so difficult. too difficult actually. i think it best that you leave it unsourced, cause it would be impractical to source it in this case.
 * Your scandal section is scandalously incomplete because you're missing any statements on Hearn and Cook (Cook who loved to make the little boys swim naked, the world's #1 teacher pedophile ever) <IP_ADDRESS> 23:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * You know, none of us are at your beck and call. Sometimes we have to attend to other matters in our life, so we can't provide instantaneous reponses to you. My apologies if this offends. By the way, the answers are above. I should also point out that you won't get anywhere in Wikipedia if you continue to issue commands as you have in this talk page. Mind  matrix  23:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Using the link provided in the article as you say shows that the school, is in Toronto, it is a school, is an all boys school and thus has been verifed so why are you still asking for that to be verified? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

1) UCC's website is cited in footnote #1, which is at the end of the opening paragraph. The information which verifies that UCC is in Toronto, an all-boys school, and an elementary school is contained within. 2) Be careful with that libel thing again... 3) Go see your therapist. --gbambino 23:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Uhhh... no it doesnt. The link https://www.ucc.on.ca/podium/default.aspx?t=7170 does NOT show this. If you want to prove the school is all boys and goes from elementary to secondary, you would need to reference instead https://www.ucc.on.ca/podium/default.aspx?t=6616. As for "the oldest independent school in the province of Ontario, and the third oldest school in Canada" that is still a mystery to me where this comes from. A. Complete. Mystery. But of course, for whatever reason, you're not bothered by this. At. All. Weird, huh? I guess it's because it's SOOOOOOO SELF EVIDENT TO EVERYONE (BUT ME) that UCC if OF COURSE the oldest independent school in Ontario and the 3rd oldest school in Canaada. SILLY ME. I should have remembered how SELF EVIDENT that little factoid was. 23:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Gbambino: I attended UCC during the same time (we probably know each other) and, to be fair, I took English with Doug Brown in Form 3, which would have been 1987. I remember reading Watership Down and The Wizard of Earthsea and spending an awful lot of time dissecting the mindless drivel of a stoned Roger Waters as though it were high art! :) I *also* took Geography with him the next year: he failed myself and every other hockey player in his class during the 2nd semester, and then, due to parent pressure, gave us all +90s as final grades.  A real *star* academic, obviously.

Why is everyone so virulent again?!?!?! How about all of you taking a *deep* breath, maybe drinking a coke, and watching a bit of the Simpsons, before answering each other's edits? This is really frustrating, as I have a number of edits I would like to add, to begin my work on Wikipedia. I came here to learn and to participate.... It's a shame this is being ruined by what can, at times, seem like shouting matches between gatekeepers and visigoths!WormwoodJagger 23:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I had Brown for geography in '88. At that time I don't recall him teaching english any more.
 * I suppose everyone's virulent because.. well, Anon. has never stopped being so, and everyone else is getting tired of his antics, especially those who've come here with a genuine intent to help, only to be slapped in the face because they didn't crack a whip and get everyone doing exactly what Anon. wants. It is a shame that others can't help edit the article because of one disruptive user.  Perhaps it would simply be best if we, myself especially, adhere to that old nettiquette rule: don't feed the trolls. In time I'm sure he'll either learn to play nicely, or simply wither up and go away. --gbambino 23:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, WormwoodJagger, as a registered user you should be able to edit the article, no? --gbambino 23:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Perhaps he got confused about which account he was posting from. I suggest you make checkuser request to find out. ॐ Metta Bubble puff  00:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I am registered but can't edit. Metta: I assume you've got me confused with someone else. Aren't you the moderator?WormwoodJagger 01:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Maybe we should ban all UCC alumni from editing the article? That way we wouldn't have students who adored their experience battling it out with those who loathed their experience. (I say this with tongue only partly in cheeck) Homey (Who studied Watership Down, Beowulf and Roger Waters despite attending a plebian public school - and is resisting the temptation to correct the grammar of those who had the benefit of a private school education:) ) 23:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Homey: UCC is an independent, not a *private* school (tongue so far into cheek, it looks like I'm eating a Toblerone :)WormwoodJagger 23:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Is anybody actually looking at the article?
See this edit where the protection tag got removed. Too much argument not enough thought. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mmm.. that's my fault. Highlighted and copied top-most section of a previous version of the article (with proper table), sans semi-protection tag, and pasted into my edit.  You're quite right, that was a careless error on my part. --gbambino 08:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's Step Back and Clearly Identify the Issues Wow. I can’t believe the sheer mayhem that can ensue when you leave this site unattended for a few hours. I second Wormwood’s advice: we should all step back from the brink for a moment to collect our thoughts.

There has been so much emphasis placed on the fact that User 66 asked for verification or proof that UCC is located in Toronto. If you actually read the full exchange that has occurred on this page, you will see that User 66 asked for a lot more than that. I do not mean to speak for User 66, but clearly when he or she asked for proof that UCC was located in Toronto, he or she was frustrated by a perceived inconsistency in the application of Wikipedia rules to different users (such as verifiability, NPOV, etc.). To focus on one request for verification (i.e., whether UCC is located in Toronto) is, in my opinion, simply a straw man.

Even ignoring this one issue, there are serious and genuine claims in the UCC article that are currently are not verified. And everyone has lost sight of that fact. Everyone is so busy trying to decide if free access should be granted to the UCC sight that no one has questioned whether it is, after all, an accurate article. I note that earlier today when I pointed out numerous deficiencies in the “Ethnicity” section, corrections had to be made. And to Gbambino and Ground Zero’s credit, they were made.

At the risk of repeating what has already been stated (because I know Mindmatrix hates “cutting and pasting the same text”), please remember that User 66 also asked for verification of, inter alia, the following facts (which I would certainly label as beyond the pale of “commonly accepted”):

·	The school was founded in the hopes it would serve as a feeder school to the newly established King's College

·	The eclectic mix of different styles was typical of the overall concept of Victorian architecture.

·	More than 400 graduates perished during both the First World War and the Second World War.

·	By the early 20th century, the city was growing quickly around the Deer Park campus.

·	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

I think it is completely genuine to insist that these facts be verified.

That said, let’s visit the controversial (if not ridiculed) issue of User 66’s request that proof or verification be provided of the fact that UCC is located in Toronto.

'Why Consistency of Approach is not a mere formality'

I do have to add my voice to the other users that have raised this point repeatedly: where is that stated in Wikipedia policy that commonly accepted or trivial facts do not need to be proved? What is so glaringly obvious about this endless back-and-forth is that if that were a such caveat to Wikipedia policy, surely it would have been cited by now. The fact that it has not can only lead one to the inevitable conclusion that such a policy does not exist.

Although I do not feel that I should have to defend myself for asking a question in good faith, I feel I must make it clear that I am not asking for substantiation of this point to bait or troll – I actually ask the question in good faith and here’s why: the common problem that occurs within any system of governance that dispenses with the need to prove or justify “commonly accepted” or “de minimus” facts is that they are prone to abuse.

Surely everyone is familiar with the concept of due process. There are criminal trials where an accused is clearly and undeniably guilty on the merits of the case but if they plead not guilty the Crown is still required to prove its’ case beyond a reasonable doubt each and every time. The Crown is not allowed to say, “Come on, your Honour – it is commonly accepted that this accused is guilty. Surely, you are not going to require me to actually PROVE it?” Why is proof still required, even in such cases? I would suggest it is because the ONLY way to preserve order in any system of knowledge (whether it be the common law or the gathering of encyclopedic information) is to adhere to unmistakably defined rules that do not admit to exceptions of convenience.

It is easy to dismiss the idea of having to prove that UCC is located in Toronto, right? In the same way that it is equally easy to prove that Saddam Hussein or Slobodon Milosevic are war criminals, right? Or that six million really died in the Holocaust, right?

It is no answer to say, “Well, the fact that UCC is located in Toronto is different than whether or not Milosevic was a war criminal because the former is well known to anyone familiar with the subject and free from controversy while the latter is by nature contentious”. That misses the point. The moment you separate and divide facts into different categories (such as “accepted” or “trivial” or “contentious” or “important”) you are once again faced with the same overriding dilemma: just WHO exactly decides what facts are accepted and what facts are contentious? And I am not being facetious. To an ultra-nationalist Serbian, Slobodon Milosevic is a patriotic and political hero without compromise. To an ultra-conservative Christian, abortion is murder without compromise. To them, there is nothing contentious in such facts at all.

In order to avoid dealing with such quagmires, Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability. If you adhere to a strict and textual interpretation of Wikipedia policy (and I have seen nothing to suggest that a deviation from such a method of exegesis is justified), the moment a fact is challenged by one, it becomes contentious. The alternative is absolute chaos. You win the battle on this subject of UCC, but tell me, Mindmatrix, do you really want pro-lifers to cite your precedent that:

(1)	If they are in the majority their view of the ‘facts’ govern unless and until the minority can prove them wrong;

(2)	If they are familiar with a subject (such as abortion) they are entitled to state what they, as the majority, view as “basic, undisputable facts” because “base level knowlegde has to be assumed at some point”?

(3)	They are entitled to determine, of course, what is “contentious” and what is “accepted”, provided they adhere (in their judgment as the majority, of course) to your litmus test of whether or not a fact is “likely to be challenged” (and I assume that challenges by anyone deemed to be a troll or vandal can be summarily dismissed)?

Would you be willing to post the exact same views that you have expressed here on the UCC discussion page on the abortion or Holocaust articles or discussion pages for Wikipedia? If you are, I would invite you to do so (or I can do it for you) and I believe you would have provided a full answer to my objection; if not, what you are saying cannot be valid and is only an argument of convenience.

While I accept, as you have pointed out Mindmatrix, that commonly accepted facts do not need to be verified for peer-reviewed publications, surely you realize that Wikipedia is the antithesis of peer-reviewed publications. I think it would be safe to go so far as to say that Wikipedia is a genuine anathema to peer-reviewed publications, since it can be edited by anonymous parties. And the less control you have over WHO is editing, the more strict the adherence to the rules about WHAT is edited and HOW it is edited (i.e., verifiability, no POV, etc.).

Again, I feel I must say that I make these points in good faith. I hope the fact that I express disagreement with the “majority” is not construed as “trolling” or “vandalism” or even mada fides. I would like to engage in a genuine discussion. If anyone else shares this interest, feedback would be appreciated. I would like to resolve this issue once and for all before it spreads to other pages. Let’s face it: Wikipedia does not need any more bad press. Peace.Blunders of the third kind 04:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Thank you for the even-tempered critical analysis that makes full use of logic and evidence. Because of the quality and thoughtfulness of your comments, the editors and admins can't call you a troll or sock puppet like they do anyone else they disagree with. So instead, they do the next best thing: ignore you. Welcome to Wikipedia, please come again ! :) <IP_ADDRESS> 15:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Anon. - please do us the favour of finding sources for whatever it is you think needs them. Then they can be inserted into the article.  If a source cannot be found for some content, that content can be disputed and/or removed, but don't start picking at minutia.  That would be much more productive, and better proof good faith on your part, than constantly whining and demanding that others do all the work at your command.
 * Blunders - the 5 points you raised as being unscourced are indeed sourced already. As well, the fact that UCC is in Toronto is verified on the UCC website, a number of links to which are provided.  If Anon. feels there should be a direct footnote link to a page on the UCC website that states UCC is in Toronto, then he should simply say so, and provide the appropriate URL.
 * But we cannot have a footnote after every sentence - as Anon. seems to be demanding we have. That's not the correct style when writing essays or books, therefore nor is it for Wikipedia. --gbambino 16:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Blunders, thank you for taking the time to post such well-considered comemtns. I will respond on your talk page. Ground Zero | t 17:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Upper Canada College/Archive 2


text:
Talk:Kruidnoten

Comment removed
I have removed an uncited user comment, which contradicts the cited material in the article. Twice. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)behijdsfivb7geseudtvfkcsrndg

Merge with Speculaas
Since this biscuits use the same recipe as Speculaas and this article is short, perhaps it would be better to merge this content into a section of the Speculaas page?

Inferno986return (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * They're thought of as separate things. Nobody calls kruidnoten speculaas, even if they are made of the same thing. It's like having separate articles for tagliatelle, penne, spaghetti and lasagne instead of merging them all into pasta. Rua (mew) 18:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Large edit
Because of the poor quality of the lemma and the poor quality of the references, I modified the article. Most references are still poor, so further improvement is required. HenriDuvent (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Reverted. Please do not remove information when the correct references are provided and/or without proper explanation on what is lacking. Your grammar was incorrect as well. --Ananasz (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my grammar, but the information is partly wrong, not rooted in good sources and very subjective and time dependent; sources are very poor (only commercial and popular ones), see discussion on Dutch WP. Hopefully you can respect this and improve my grammar. (By the way: previous text was poor English (too))  best regards, HenriDuvent (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

If you can, list the questioned claims and sources for examination, so they may be adjusted. The sentence building in the article was acceptable and there were no spelling errors; It'd be better not to touch anything if English is not your first language. I can help you with this, no problem. --Ananasz (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will add a list of errors, but please respect that all the additions of the same user have been removed on Dutch WP, because of their poor quality, best regards, HenriDuvent (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

List of mistakes and oddities: Hopefully you understand my intervention better now, and again, in the Dutch lemma neither this information, nor the sources were accepted. best regardsHenriDuvent (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Traditions: When children come to witness Sinterklaas' arrival to the country: which country -- I suggested to replace it by the Netherlands and Belgium; no source
 * 2) to receive a handful of kruidnoten from one of his helpers is often expected. --"Is often expected", what is meant by that, by whom? I suggested to modify
 * 3) An old practise that's rarely performed anymore is the throwing of kruidnoten on the pavement during the entry event -and one also with lowered consistency- across the classroom floor in elementary schools. --"An old practise"? What is meant by that, very unclear, and it is not a tradition as is suggested by the title, no good source; "lowered consistency", what is meant by that? Throwing  kruidnoten is still common practice at home and at schools. I suggested to modify.
 * 4) Children crawl around to collect as many as they can, which is considered to be a form of entertainment, though the act itself is guessed to be comparable to the throwing of rice at weddings or merely a symbol of Sinterklaas' generosity.-- This is just own interpretation, " crawl around?" no source. There is no connection to throwing of rice, no good source; I suggested to leave this out and to modify.
 * 5) Around the 2000s, hygiene concerns grew, and visiting Piets now tend to lay down a pile or small bag on the student's desk or directly in the child's hand. -- Probably it started around 2000, but this is not sure, and for what reasons, no serious sources, I suggested to specify - or leave it out.
 * 6) Another typical holiday practice related to the snack is to make them yourself. Children are given pre-made dough and are tasked to shape them into kruidnoten; though these usually end up like round pellets, are either pale or very dark in color, and taste different from the mainstream product. --It is not "a typical holiday practice". What is meant by holiday practice?  Wide spread? No serious sources. I suggested to leave it out or, in case of good sources, to modify.
 * 7) Variation: Kruidnoten are one of the most popular and recognizable holiday candies.-- Probably Untrue. no sources; I suggested to leave it out.
 * 8) Pop-up shops, fully devoted to selling the many variants that have been produced over the years, are a usual sight in big cities around Sinterklaas time. --"usual sight in big cities"? In some 'big' cities these types of shops can be found, but a usual sight? Own interpretation of the writer. I suggested to leave it out or, in case of good sources, to modify.
 * 9) Nevertheless, the common grocery- and candy store has a high selection to choose from as well. -- Why "nevertheless"? "high selection"? Own interpretation of the writer. I suggested to leave it out or, in case of good sources, to modify.
 * 10) Besides the regular variant and packages that include gummies and sugar candies, kruidnoten can be covered with a layer of (white/milk/pure/truffle) chocolate, which is one of the earliest and most loved variants, or with any of the following confirmed flavors. --"most loved variant"? No sources. "Confirmed flavors"? In what period, by what authority?  I suggested to leave it out or to reduce it, at least the list and to only give some examples. As is said in the following text brlow (about 'Bolletjes' ), the list will change yearly, and some flavors are rare.
 * 11) Note: many are also sold in mixed bags or combined with each other -- why is this a 'note'? Relevant? I suggested to leave it out.
 * 12) Caption: Kruidnoten with candies, called "strooigoed -- " strooigoed"  not explained (it means something like: small candies, pepernoten, chocolates, kruidnoten and other sweets to throw around). I suggested to put this in the main text and to explain.
 * 13) Trivia: It's become a yearly trend for certain food producers, like Bolletje, to hold contests and ask people to introduce and vote for a new flavor. -- Not sure if it is a trend, own interpretation, why is this trivial  compared to previous information, which is just as trivial? I suggested to leave it out or put it in the main text, if good sources are available.
 * 14) While kruidnoten are a holiday-exclusive snack, most stores choose to sell them many weeks prior. -- "holiday snack", what is that? "most stores" ? Why in trivia? I suggeted to leave it out.
 * 15) Though perceivably different; some Dutch residents mistakenly call kruidnoten "pepernoten" and online stores list them under this category as well. -- This is partly true but not trivial. On line stores?  Most stores in some parts of the Netherlands do. I suggested to put the pepernoot issue in the main text, and to leave out the rest.
 * 16) References: most of the references are poor, youtube, local news papers, information from producers; the lemma seems to be based on many sources, but most of them are not serious, and do not cover what is said in the lemma. I suggested to make a selection of sources, and, better to add good ones.

Thank you very much for the effort. I'm sorry for the late reply, my hands are pretty full. Let me go through each one of your points:
 * 1) I tried to look this up and the answer is The Netherlands. What I found conflicts with the page's introduction, though. Articles online state kruidnoten not to be a thing in Belgium, yet a Flemish user insisted it is and it's been added to this page. The articles are old, so this leads me to believe it's gradually become a thing. There's an interesting titbit to add.
 * 2) It's expected by children, but I agree, that section could be worded differently.
 * 3) "An old practise" entails that throwing kruidnoten to children was part of the holiday celebration and everyone used to do it. According to the added references, doing so outdoors is no longer enacted, because of vermin and the overall mess it left behind. The latter issue seems to also relate to the act of throwing kruidnoten inside schools, but since there are still schools who don't mind doing this, it's done with "less consistency" compared to the past (which would be somewhere before the 2000s, as stated). You and the page don't seem to directly disagree on this.
 * 4) I suppose the "crawling" is an assumed action, since it involves candy getting thrown onto the floor. I wouldn't judge it too harshly, but.. I do think it could be worded better. Concerning the rice and generosity topic; the page makes sure to use loose language and states it's "guessed", which is not incorrect, as long there're references added wherein people indeed express this belief. Nowhere does it say these claims are the solid truth. You may add speculation, as long you emphasise it's speculation.
 * 5) The date listed is again loose language and allows for believable estimations that are hard to debunk.. The hygiene issue is mentioned in one of the added sources. I have mixed feelings about forum conversations, but not every little change in the world gets an official news article, so the experiences of real people will have to be considered. Nevertheless, I don't disagree that these points would benefit from further examination and more direct references.
 * 6) Again, the word "practise" really only means it's a reoccurring activity. So, either parents decide to bake kruidnoten with their children at home, or like the references insinuate, at Sinterklaas events hosted by organizations.
 * 7) The page made sure to argue it is "one of the most", not "the most". It's loose language, and by now you know what my opinion is on the art of loose language. The claim isn't wholly untrue when reading about the activities attached and ever-growing flavors. The page itself is the reference to this claim, unless it's the word "holiday" you're tripping over?
 * 8) I see. To change the sentence into "Pop-up stores can be sighted in some big cities" would be the most honest.
 * 9) The word "nevertheless" assumes that the reader believes that all these types of kruidnoten are only sold in these specialized pop-up stores; "nevertheless, many are sold in regular stores as well". Something like that. Do you wish to change it into "but", and "high" into "fair"?
 * 10) The chocolate claim has a reference listed to back it up. Not sure what else to say here. I'm not doubting there are rare flavors or that new ones will be introduced; but Wikipedia urges contributors to help them keep info up to date. So, if flavors stop existing, that needs to be mentioned/removed. If a new flavor is confirmed, that needs to be added.
 * 11) The note conveys that some flavors listed aren't solely the flavor you can buy, but also come as an addition to other kruidnoten, like the powdered sugar one.
 * 12) You're right, would be ideal to add strooigoed in here. The external link is sufficient, but an extra step people shouldn't have to take.
 * 13) "Trend" is a fad, so a more fitting term would be better. No idea why it's in Trivia, this could go under the variants header, but maybe because it's something only Dutch people can join in on, so the focus on it is lowered this way?
 * 14) "Holiday snack" can only be interpret as candy-like food products you can buy around the holidays, in this case referring to Sinterklaas, since that's what this page is about. I don't know how important it is to mention the early selling of kruidnoten, but it seems to be a running joke among Dutch people. The sole intention could be to give the page character and some further insight, but I can understand not everyone cares. We can remove it.
 * 15) The "online" detail should be removed, but I don't think it deserves a place on the main body of the page, because of the same reason I gave above. Only Dutch people know and deal with this "confusion", so this will likely not interest the rest of the world. This is something for the Dutch Wikipedia to feature and expand on.
 * 16) The Youtube videos confirm the claim that these other kruidnoten usually come out round and odd in color. I've dealt with worse references. Local news papers are fine, as long they give some support to the claim. I agree general news sources to be more appealing, but it can be hard to find one single link that covers an entire claim. To have a row of reference numbers littered throughout a page will add nothing besides affect the readability, so sometimes, you just has to settle for something.

You've mentioned the Dutch page multiple times, but it is a stub. Not sure how to implement it to this. In any case, I'll get to work. I have a few more (ex-)stubs to check on, though, so by all means, feel free to reply and list more points of interest if you have them. I'd also like royalty free images of some of these flavors for the gallery, any idea if they exist? I can only find the mix and the chocolate version. --Ananasz (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear Ananasz. Thanks a lot for improving the lemma, taking into consideration my comments. I will made some more modifications, however, because some parts of the text are not true and many sources are poor and not convincing. But please check it. To be honest, I am a bit surprised to see that in this case the English WP is more liberal and does accept more bad sources compared to the Dutch one. Is it true that this is the first lemma you are involved in (which is hard to believe), can that be an explanation? Are you familiar with the Dutch or Belgian situation and language? If not, we might ask another user with a Dutch background to look at it, what do you think? Best regards, HenriDuvent (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I work for a company that examines websites and user behavior on the internet; barren pages are undesired, especially when an informative/educational result is expected. You could say that Wikipedia copies that sentiment with the existence of the stub notification and prefers its pages to be a collection of all knowledge available about the subject featured.. naturally, within reason. Something I tell users at other Wikis is "Don't start a page if you have nothing to tell". If there's little to say about a particular topic, then it might be better to turn it into a chapter at another page. For example, you could set up a Sinterklaas candy page and list everything there's to offer on there. The kruidnoten page looks fine now, but Wikipedia certainly isn't free from misinformation and many pages don't list references at all. Pages about heavy subjects, like political people or controversies, tend to become a war zone among editors, which is a true shame, but not unexpected. We try to keep potential readers up to date on any flaws a page might have, but it can be a chore, sites like these are dependant on the good intentions and cooperation of its users. Concerning languages in general, I study a few and Dutch is close to my heart. I'm in The Netherlands right now, hi! --Ananasz (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Pepernoten
the infobox says kruidnoten are "mistakenly" called kruidenoten or pepernoten. i find this kind of rude because pepernoten is the more common name colloquially, i feel like you cant claim everyone is mistaken like that. Appelsaus6666 (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kruidnoten


text:
Oak Hill Industrial Academy

Oak Hill Industrial Academy (also known as the Alice Lee Elliott Memorial Academy or Elliott Academy) was founded as a day school and later became a boarding school for Choctaw Freedmen. It existed from 1878 to 1936. It was located in the far southeastern corner of the Choctaw Nation in Indian Territory in what is now Oklahoma. The original location was in the southwest corner of Section 27 near the present-day Valliant, Oklahoma. But in 1902 it was rebuilt in the northeast quarter of section 29 near the western line of McCurtain County, Indian Territory. The school closed in 1936, and no evidence of it other than a historical marker remains.

Curriculum
Oak Hill was developed to provide training in farming and domestic trades, and to teach Christianity to the former Choctaw slave children. According to the school's founders, "[These young people] are transplanted for a time, where they may receive Bible instruction, industrial training and a foretaste of the privileges of an enlightened christian civilization". As was typical of American Indian boarding schools the farming model was implemented, where students both learned agricultural and animal husbandry skills and grew their own food. The students cultivated land, hauled water (as their well had run dry), and tended large herds of pigs and cattle. In the early days, focus was on vocational training and the educational portion was minimal, as schooling beyond an eighth grade education was not offered.

Shortly after Oklahoma's statehood, the school implemented a public school model for classes which included algebra, arithmetic, astronomy, bookkeeping, botany, chemistry, civics, composition, economics, geography, geology, geometry, grammar, history, literature, rhetoric, stenography, surveying, telegraphy, trigonometry, typewriting and zoology. In addition to the classroom studies, technical trades offered included agriculture, animal husbandry, apiculture, carpentry, cobbling, concrete work, domestics, gardening, laundry work, poultry raising, and sewing. Though standardization of education was required, so was segregation. State laws passed in 1907 (the same year as statehood), provided that any person who included any quantum of African blood had to attend a colored school and imposed fines for anyone who allowed students of different racial mixtures to attend the same schools. All students without negro blood were to be considered white and identical separate but equal facilities were to be maintained.

By 1912, the school was offering $6 1/2$ to 7 hours of classroom study followed by 3 hours in the fields, sawing and splitting wood, or in the shop for boys and in the kitchen, laundry or sewing room for girls. Bible study was required and students were expected to memorize one verse and read one chapter daily. Between 1908 and 1912, 270 acre of land had been acquired and was under cultivation and academic instruction was being offered up to the 12th grade. In the early period of Oklahoma schooling there were few high schools and Elliott was listed as the only institution offering high school education to Choctaw freedmen's children.

History
After the Civil War, Presbyterians established a church to do mission work among the Choctaw at Oak Hill around 1869, expanding it to include Sunday School in 1876. When the Choctaw Nation freed their slaves and offered them citizenship, children of freedmen were entitled to benefit from the tribe's education fund. The Choctaw nation allocated $2 for each Indian or Freedman student who "actually" attended school at least 15 days of every month. School attendance was mandatory and their system imposed fines of 10 cents per day on parents who did not send their children to school. The Nation provided all supplies and books and paid full or partial board for students who had to attend school away from their home communities. White students were barred from attending the Indian schools and if, because of necessity, they attended the neighborhood schools (as opposed to agency assisted schools), they were charged full tuition.

In 1878, a carpenter, George M. Dallas, was hired by the Presbyterian Board of Missions for Freedmen to build a schoolhouse and upon its completion began teaching a day school in the building. In 1884, because there was an inadequate water supply, the school was transferred to a log house in section 29, about a mile and a half northwest of the original location. In 1886, the Mission Board hired a teacher, Eliza Hartford from Steubenville, Ohio to take over instruction at the school. Hartford had previously taught in Cedar City, Utah from 1881 to 1885. With her arrival, the school relocated yet again to a log home which had formerly been the home of Chief LeFlore. Rather than stay with a church member and make the 3-mile journey to and from the school daily, Hartford moved into the school with 24 students on 15 April 1886, beginning the boarding school. Due to illness Hartford resigned in 1889 but the girl's hall she had advocated for was completed. In 1893 a boy's hall was completed and by 1895 both a laundry and smokehouse were built. In 1902, the schoolhouse was moved and a second story was added, so that it would be nearer the railway and water would not have to be hauled the $1 1/2$ miles from the nearest water source, Clear Creek, as the well on the property had run dry.

In 1904, the school was closed during the Choctaw allotment and an arrangement made to secure 80 acres, 40 acres from two allottees, to reopen the school the following term. When the school reopened in February 1905, in addition to the newly painted dorms, there were farm buildings supporting cattle, a dairy, a hen house, a farm, a garden, an orchard, and a piggery, which had been built and were maintained by the students. In preparation for statehood, the Curtis Act of 1898 had provided that all tribal laws were to be abolished by 4 March 1906; however, as the state was not prepared to take over the educational system, Congress passed an Act on 26 April 1906 known as the Five Civilized Tribes Act, which effectively transferred supervision of all tribal schools to the Secretary of the Interior. Effectively, this created a system whereby the eastern and western parts of the state continued to develop differently. In the east, the Five Civilized Tribes, including the Choctaw, did not have a ready means to tax land as the state education provisions required. Due to this funding difference, missionary schools were phased out in western Indian schools by the time of statehood, but continued in the eastern part of the state for many years.

On 8 November 1908, the boy's dormitory was lost to fire and a temporary replacement was built by the students in 1909. In 1910, construction began on the permanent replacement building. The students and superintendent built the first steel reinforced concrete foundation in the territory, using sand from a nearby creek, rocks and bricks from previously burned buildings and iron from the "scrap pile". On 13 March 1910, the girl's dormitory also burned and the students were forced to relocate to the original log house, which had been the first home of the boarding school. A donation of $5,000 was made by David Elliott a prominent farmer from Lafayette, Indiana for the replacement of the school buildings in the name of his deceased wife Alice Lee Elliott. Upon completion of Elliott Hall, the school was renamed the Alice Lee Elliott Memorial Academy, commonly called Elliott Academy, and was dedicated on 13 June 1912. That same year, the first black administrator of the institution, William H. Carroll, was appointed superintendent.

A Department of the Interior Bulletin published in 1916 lists the academy as a private school, at that time being wholly funded by the Presbyterian Mission Board. The school had 120 students, of whom 60 were boarders and 1 was above the 8th grade. It was also noted that of the 300 acres of land, only part of it was under cultivation for commercial purposes only and that it was not being used for educational purposes. By the 1920 census there were 58 students under the age of 20 boarding at the school but by 1930 only 10 boarding students remained. Though the federal government's management of schools in the eastern part of the state was supposed to continue for only a few years, it did not fully cease for schools with Indian attendance until 1948. The school was closed in 1936 and no evidence of it other than a historical marker remains.

Notable alumni

 * Reverend Wiley Homer, founder of Beaver Dam Church in Grant, Indian Territory
 * Edward D. Jones, continued his education at the Leonard Medical School of Raleigh, NC and became a physician in Nowata, Oklahoma
 * Johnson Shoals, continued his education at Tuskegee and Iowa State Agricultural College before returning to teach at Oak Hill Academy

title: Oak Hill Industrial Academy


text:
Talk:Dave Sarachan

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dave Sarachan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120707062126/http://www.bhsalumni.net/servlet/famous.FamousAlumni to http://www.bhsalumni.net/servlet/famous.FamousAlumni
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011042541/http://home.att.net/~nasl/rosters/lancers.htm to http://home.att.net/~nasl/rosters/lancers.htm

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dave Sarachan