![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Canada Christian College. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Pertaining to WP:WEIGHT, I question the excessive space given to controversies from the 1970s covered by the Toronto Star when the current degree-granting regime (in-force since 1999) has not had its academic legitimacy questioned prior to a current political media blitz.
Canada Christian College is currently under political attack due to having pending legislation for university status under review in the Ontario legislature. Entire paragraphs of the history section were not included until that controversy began. It seems that political opponents are utilizing the Wikipedia page as a way to shape public perceptions of the current incarnation of the college by pointing to pre-Pr4 incarnations of the college (which, with the exception of six years, was under different leadership). In my estimation, this is grossly inappropriate and endangers the well-being of hundreds of current students, all of whom stand to lose their degree legitimacy unfairly.
To be clear, a "history" section should include landmark events in the history of an institution. But is a "landmark event" where an institution got its curriculum 40 years ago? And if so, does not the inclusion of controversial information about that curriculum provider introduce unnecessary antiquated controversy to the college's article page? To be clear, this is not an attempt at PR, but rather, a recognition that an overreliance on articles primarily dating to the 1970s should not be given undue weight in an article about a college that currently exists and has numerous academic offerings. As observers will note, only two or three sentences of the history even reference 1999 and beyond -- 21 years of the most important, current information about the institution missing -- while entire paragraphs are devoted to events 30-40 years ago. This is especially troubling as the "history" section is what readers see first, and likely, what colors their view of the institution for the rest of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quartzgoldbling ( talk • contribs) 03:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I would respectfully suggest that we all take the temperature down a bit here. Let's assume we're all editing in good faith even if we think the article should go in different directions. To the IP, I would remind you that Wikipedia has chosen a very specific filter for its epistemology, what we call "reliable sources," and while I think this is a good way to go about things, it can wind up in some odd places. Sometimes you can have an institution or entity which once received a lot of publicity for something, and not much before or since. Strictly speaking, this would mean the article should be waited towards that one issue. We can certainly use primary sources to inform us, but we always prefer secondary sources. I haven't had the time to do much of a dive into the sources here, but I'll try to do so. In the meantime, let's remember that success on Wikipedia is often when all parties are equally angry at the article. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 05:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
The Proposal for University Status section is unnecessarily long. It details several quotes from politicians in the midst of the legislative process that unduly prejudicial toward the college, which most obviously, has academic offerings, a new campus, community involvement, and past controversies below. I think this section can easily be tightened up to take up less space (especially since its at the beginning of the article). I am going to begin making this section more concise and am open to feedback from others Quartzgoldbling ( talk) 18:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
That sounds fair. Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a political attack vehicle! Whoever this school is, they should get a fair shake. It seems to me opponents of the school (or political entities attached with the school) got on here and just went crazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trollhunter7 ( talk • contribs) 19:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
The overall effect of recent edits to this article seems to be a bit promotional. Removing negative material (right to grant degrees revoked, removed quote from Mike Schreiner), recontextualizing criticism by Wynne as "a political opponent" and connecting the critic to a "convicted pedophile" cited to a tabloid, inserting promotional language like "state of the art", a whole section on MLK celebrations sourced again to the Sun and "Toronto Caribbean" (which, regardless of reliability, neither say anything about CCC apart from it being the location)... I was tempted to roll these back, but there's been a lot of work on the page recently so figured I'd bring it up here instead. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
With great respect, this is a ridiculous blanket revert. Removing individual edits is one thing based on them being promotional. But the work that I did, including what I brought up above about Wikipedia:recentism, we well within the bounds of acceptability. The entire section on the university status for the school reads like a newspaper covering current events. There is no reason for multiple individuals who all essentially say the same thing to be quoted. And the update about the legislation passing! How is that in anyway promotional—it’s just fact.
As for the pictures of the campus (which I didn’t add, but if you look at other wiki pages for schools, are beyond acceptable), what justification was there for removing those? I spent the better of a day researching and carefully adding/modifying this page only to have a blanket rollback after a 5-hour warning on the talk page. Quartzgoldbling ( talk) 22:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Moreover, I added in the MLK section bc the school, per Parliament interviews that are publicly accessible, had their university application supported by the past president of the BBPA, due to being the sole host of the MLK Celebration for the past 15 years. There is rationale to show positive community involvement (all of which I documented) to at least balance the school’s past controversies. Quartzgoldbling ( talk) 22:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia revert best practices ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reverting) there should have been partial reverts, rewording, or something...not just going nuclear on hours of research and work “because it seems like X,” based off of what, two responses to the initial concern occurring with the span of a few hours? Quartzgoldbling ( talk) 22:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
It’s not an artificial balance...there are three sources, including secondary sources and the BBPA themselves, indicating that the college hosted and supported the event for 15 years. It was attended by politicians across the spectrum. That’s an important stance the college seems to have taken—support of the black community—not an artificial balance. Quartzgoldbling ( talk) 23:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
As for the rest, again...why wouldn’t it have made more sense to edit out what appears promotional—I.e., remove by consensus? In order to make even moderate changes I spent time on I have to go through my browser history just to re-look up sources and re-write sections/modify other paragraphs. Perhaps I am missing something, but I don’t see how three persons over the span of five hours meets a threshold of consensus to wipe out all changes. I’m open to hear why that would be necessary instead of simply removing individual promotional-esque material, and Dumuzid, for what it’s worth, I also believe you are editing in good faith. Quartzgoldbling ( talk) 23:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Without beating up any dead horses here, one other point - for the university section particularly (referenced by the individual who reverted this whole article), I specifically opened a section on Recentism on this talk page *prior* to making any changes. And, got a “go-ahead” from two people, and this, began those edits. The removal of repetitive quotes was to state the facts (people opposed university status for three major reasons) without having quotes essentially saying the same thing (I.e., why Schreiner’s quote was removed), as that type of repetition is what you would expect when current events are being evaluated, and in fact, not what you would expect in an encyclopedic entry. So especially when that set of edits was first brought up on the talk page, and thereafter, given a green light, why would *THAT* get pulled into all of this? Quartzgoldbling ( talk) 00:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I too would like to know what the rationale is here to remove all information added to this page and not partial edit where anyone takes issue? Is there a conflict of interest by certain individuals whom only edit or revert to a negative stance, regardless of sources? Respectfully I would like to request that the photos I added to the page remain. Not certain how a photo could be promotional or biased, almost all university wiki pages have a minimum of one photo for context. Trollhunter7 ( talk) 00:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
In the wake of a discussion between three people spanning over five hours that led to a blanket revert of a half-day of research and writing, I am going to begin making incremental edits again. I would greatly appreciate direct discussion *here* on changes I make prior to simply sweeping them up in mass hysterics of "other people's material sounds promotional, therefore let's not do any hard work and instead decide to delete it all indiscriminately." Quartzgoldbling ( talk) 00:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
(
edit conflict) FYI I restored some of the edits just now (the pictures, for example). But the standard editing process is
WP:BRD -- someone makes a change to an article; someone else reverts if they think it's problematic; the burden is then on the person who wants to make the changes to find consensus to restore them. If you simply start restoring the material again, it should not be surprising if someone reverts as there were problems.
For what it's worth, I typically do try to avoid blanket reverts. I've had it done to my edits before and I know how frustrating it is. But there were just too many edits and too many problems to reasonably go about it backwards piecemeal rather than rolling back and going forward piecemeal, if that makes sense. If so much of the change weren't to promote (whether intentionally or not) the school or reframe criticism, it would've been a harder call to make.
Just for example, the MLK celebrations are very clearly
WP:UNDUE. When we organize sections of an article we need to figure out what aspects of a subject come up frequently in high-quality sources. The sources here are a press release, a tabloid, and an article on Toronto Caribbean which doesn't seem to talk about the college at all. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\ 00:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, the article being cited under past controversies about Chik-Fil-A says nothing about the college organizing any protest. I am explicitly making that known here for others to comment and will be removing that statement within the next 24 hours. Quartzgoldbling ( talk) 04:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Rhododendrites, much appreciated! Quartzgoldbling ( talk) 01:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
As the new sections of the College's Wiki note, a recommendation was made by PEQAB and followed by the Minister to not grant the college university status. Now much of the previous seven months of controversy cease to be as relevant to an encyclopedic entry about the college (i.e., the bulk of quotes and play-by-play of the back-and-forth between politicians and the college about whether they deserve university status). In fact, it seems that for the time-being, they will remain a college.
To be sure, the section is relevant. Obviously its materially important that they attempted to gain university status and are unable to do so at the present moment. But both Wikipedia:Recentism and WP:WEIGHT suggest that the length and over-detailed accounts in this section should be consolidated/shortened now that a decision has been made. I will wait for comments here over the next 24 hours for thoughts and then begin making edits. Quartzgoldbling ( talk) 05:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)