Talk:Canada Christian College

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706171152/http://www.caircan.ca/aa_more.php?id=3119_0_3_0_C to http://www.caircan.ca/aa_more.php?id=3119_0_3_0_C

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT

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)

Two sentences on CCC's use of material from a substandard source is not undue weight but even if it were WP:WEIGHT doesn't mandate excising sourced information entirely. It is also relevant to the revocation of their degree granting status in the 1980s, which is clearly a "landmark event" for a college. 199.7.156.249 (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

My comment about undue weight is actually about the bulk of the history section. I removed these two sentences because they prejudice the reader. The Ontario Ministry of Education did not target Canada Christian College for its curriculum. In fact, it was only under the Degree Granting Act, which affected multiple institutions, that the Ministry acted. Hence, it is unrelated to the issue-at-hand, and thus, not linked to the "landmark" event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quartzgoldbling (talk • contribs) 04:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the Kitchener-Waterloo article is slightly incorrect (though not egregiously enough, at least to me, for its exclusion from this article). This is proven by subsequent events and flow of logic. When some members the Jewish community complained about the college, "an official at the Ministry of Colleges and Universities stated that the Canada Christian College's granting of degrees appeared to contravene the Degree Granting Act of 1983." They didn't point back to a separate revocation in 1982. Rather, a newspaper article in August 1982 mentions that the college *could* lose degree-granting status (cited on the page) and the actual carrying out of that occured, along with other colleges, in 1983.

The degree granting status was revoked in 1982 under legislation passed in 1980 to curb degree mills. The 1983 law superseded it but it is not why degree status was originally revoked in 1982. 199.7.156.249 (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Interesting how that's not cited. Article as of August 1982 still has school granting degrees (though under allegations from province) and even last week's NDP press release states the college lost degree-granting privileges in 1983. One of the two sources (Kitchener-Waterloo or NDP) is wrong. Oh, and it's VERY strange how your account came alive after two years at the exact moment 76... stopped posting. I assume you are a sock-puppet account and will be watching these posts very closely.

And I assume you are affiliated with CCC and are in violation of WP:COI by editing the article at all. 199.7.156.249 (talk) 04:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

lol. You are a good politician whoever you are, with that deflection. I literally cited the two places I read that (Record and NDP release). Earlier I stated the flow of logic in the existing history section (which I did not insert(!), just comprehended). You're going to deflect about how your account came alive after two years as a sock-puppet for 76...Otherwise, after two years you just randomly found an administrative section open about an edit-war on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quartzgoldbling (talk • contribs) 05:15, 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)

Dumuzid: I appreciate the temperature check. Being behind a screen makes it far easier to treat people uncharitably than being in-person. I also appreciate your fulsome explanation of Wikipedia's epistemological stance. Though I've had my account for several months, I only recently got interested in editing articles on institutions related to Abrahamic religions, as that is my sphere of research. Due to the confluence of my geographic location and the cultural moment, the first article I got interested in was this one. I still find it off-putting that such an emphasis can be placed on bad press decades past that bears no significant weight on present academic offerings, as the latter has the real ability to negatively impact living individuals who likely had no knowledge of how an institution may or may not have been 40 years ago. Notwithstanding, I respect the necessity of proper citations and relying on secondary sources. I will do my best to balance all of the Wikipedia editing principles when working with articles.-Quartzgoldbling

Quartzgoldbling, while I addressed myself to the IP, you are quite right that it was more about your contributions (in my defense, it had been a very long day!). My very brief skim has told me this somewhat negative stuff is likely to be a part of the article, but we can certainly work to put it in a proper context with secondary sources. Thank you for your reasonable approach, and have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Recentism

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)

Go for it!! -Roxy . wooF 18:54, 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)

As everyone can see, there has been an IP address logged in that has added current events to the Proposal for University Status. Comments about reports or the fact that "PEQAB will release their decision today" do not belong on a Wikipedia page.Quartzgoldbling (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC) I will be removing all of these updates.15:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

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)

Agreed 100%. The recent edits have taken an overly promotional tone and it's not a close call. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The recent editing by new SPAs has caught my eye also. Meters (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Just went ahead and rolled it back. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Some of the new content may be useable. I'll review the content later today, but I'd like to see some discussion of what is going on. This has the appearance of COI editing. Meters (talk) 20:36, 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)

Quartzgoldbling -- there seems to be consensus that the recent changes wound up with something that was less article and more advertising brochure. While in general, I would agree with aprtial reverts, in this instance I think it's better to go about it this way so consensus can be reached in smaller increments. I worry a bit about your desire to "at least balance the school's past controversies." That's not what we do; we represent what reliable sources have to say. If the reliable sources have largely negative coverage of a person, place, or thing, then the Wikipedia article should have a proportionally negative tone. We don't try to artificially "balance" the coverage. I don't doubt that you are engaging in good faith, but I think this calls for a slightly more collaborative approach. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:42, 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)

As I pointed out, it's concerning when a series of WP:SPAs make large changes to an article. I wouldn't have blanket reverted, but now that it has been done I would like all of the content changes to be discussed so we don't get into another edit war like the last one that ended with this article being protected.

Unlike the other accounts, Quartzgoldbling, you are not a new account; however, you have made almost no edits other than on this subject, you were involved in an AN thread about this page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1050#edit warring and apparent white washing at Canada Christian College, you removed a COI notice from this page [1] without answering the talk page suggestion that you had a conflict of interest [2] [3], and you have removed content while incorrectly claiming 'The link that was "supporting" this claim is dead, and thus, not valid to cite such a bombastic claim' (incorrect because the archived link is not dead, and sources do not have to be online) [4]. So, let's start with this: you are clearly a WP:SPA on this article, and your history makes the previous concern about a possible WP:COI seem reasonable. Do you have a connection to this school? Meters (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, the incidents you are speaking about in October were out of frustration. I take full responsibility for them. I was ganged up on by two IP addresses, which appeared to be sock accounts, and had even the smallest edits I made reverted. This was the first major article I edited (and present tense, is still the one!). I am a Christian living in the greater Toronto area whose research examines the commonalities between Abrahamic faiths. I have a decade of experience in academia, and know a host of professors across North America and Europe at hundreds of institutions, naturally including ones in Ontario (CCC, Toronto Baptist, Tyndale, Redeemer, Toronto School of Theology, McMaster, UWO, etc.). So my only COI would be knowing people at all of these institutions. To be sure, I would gladly put in the same effort at editing any of the Wiki pages for these other schools if I felt the pages did not accurately reflect the totality of those institutions. However, none of them have been the recent target of politics as CCC has! I followed the legislative battle in October-December very closely, and more recently, read an article that gave an update on their progress. That is what brought me back to the page after a period of being a bit turned off with my past Wikipedia-editing experience. Quartzgoldbling (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

In the wake of a blanket revert

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)

Please first answer the COI question above. And I would suggest that it would be better to propose the changes here rather than making them in the article.Meters (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

So, I did take this route for my biggest changes (i.e., the proposal for university)...yet, those "consensus"-based changes were included in the blanket revert. Quartzgoldbling (talk) 00:55, 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)

The MLK issue -- I can see why this would potentially be problematic. I just reorganized the proposal for university status, so please feel free to review it in light of the Wikipedia:Recentism policy and let me know if the edits were appropriate. Additionally, within Past Controversies, I read the article about the Chik-Fil-A parade when I was making edits before the weekend, and it does not state that CCC organized it. Thus, I am going to follow the language of the article.Quartzgoldbling (talk) 03:48, 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)

Agreed. I just went ahead and removed it. BlogTO doesn't seem like an ideal source for such a claim anyway. I looked for other sources and found McVety expressing support for Chic-Fil-A and against same-sex marriage, but nothing about him organizing a counter-protest. Seems sufficiently covered by controversial remarks about homosexuality unless others wish to introduce more/better sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Rhododendrites, much appreciated! Quartzgoldbling (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Big update with Canada Christian College's proposal for university status

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)