Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Massey College, Toronto

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Creative Commons photos

[edit]

There are a number of photos of Massey College available at: https://secure.flickr.com/photos/sindark/collections/72157631444428834/

The photos are subject to this license, which should make them permissible for use on Wikipedia: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.159.62 (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Jdlh I don't object to the tax information. It IS public. I objected to its misrepresentation of the College's financial position. That's because a hunk of endowment -- in fact the entire endowment that supports the College's bursary programme, some $5-million) -- is lodged at the University of Toronto's School of Graduate Studies. So the tax return presents a false picture and the reality is sufficiently complicated that I didn't see the use or need to have it in the Wikepedia profile. On the other hand, I really respect the Wikepedia process and am glad to state the reasons for the earliest opposition. (John Fraser (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

John Fraser, thank you for this statement. I appreciate being able to discuss this on Talk pages instead of just editing back and forth. Your point that the finances of the College extend beyond what's covered in the tax return is a good one. Is there some addition you could make (backed by citations of reliable sources, of course) which would at least sketch in the rest of the finances? The $5m endowment at the U of T is worth a mention, for example. --Jdlh | Talk 05:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Darkcore referred to the Canada Revenue Agency links as "dead (and highly unusual)". I agree that they are unusual, and it does look like they are unreliable if not actually dead. However, I believe they definitely belong in the article. They give access to current tax returns for Massey College, which provides original sources for information about the College's finances. I've restored the links, in the form of "ref" tags with "cite web" templates, which hopefully makes them clearer. I also added a "References" section, so that future editors can easily add more references. --Jdlh | Talk 17:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:John Fraser, I see you deleted the reference to Massey College's tax filings and the citation of those filings on the Canada Revenue Agency website. I actually find that information quite relevant to the article. I think that access to the tax records of an organisation is a helpful way to understand an organisation more deeply. The records are public information. If you are the same John Fraser who is Master of Massey College, then I obviously respect your expertise on the subject. However, because I think the information useful, I've restored the reference pending a discussion here of whether it should stay, or go, or be modified. I'm looking forward to your thoughts. --Jdlh | Talk 08:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The references only apply to one line -- the line stating that the college pays taxes (which is obvious) -- and do not contribute in any other significant way to the article. It is very uncommon to have links to tax returns on articles concerning charities. Are you suggesting that every Canadian charity with a Wiki article should have links to its public tax return? For instance, the Green College page does not. -- User:S20451

Hi, S20451. Thanks for your reply. If you favour improving the line in the article, I'm happy to support that. It could give basic financial information like, 'Massey College has assets of $7.5 million and liabilities of $900,000. It raised $3.0m in 2005-2006, of which 21% was from membership dues, 18% was from sales, and 9-12% each came from rentals, donations, gifts from other charities, and "other revenues".' I didn't add the sentence or the link originally, I just support keeping them there. I think it would be great for other Canadian charities to have links to their public tax returns. Green College, University of British Columbia has no tax return, because it is an part of the University of British Columbia. You have a good idea though, I'll make a note to add a link to UBC's tax return in the UBC article. --Jdlh | Talk 20:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Cited UBC's tax return. Thanks for the suggestion. Who wants to do the same for U of T? --Jdlh | Talk
My intent was to oppose inclusion of the lines at all, for several reasons. Firstly, having taken a look at the tax information myself, I find the budget mostly unremarkable, and you appear to agree, given what you wrote in the article. Given the length of the article, the relative unimportance of the subject, and the college's status as a private entity (albeit one with charitable status), I don't see that the budget is of widespread interest. Secondly, picking three Toronto-area charities completely arbitrarily, of similar size and importance to Massey College (these were the first three that I could think of off the top of my head) -- Branksome Hall, St. Thomas Anglican Church, and Tarragon Theatre -- none of these articles has any mention of finances or links to the tax return. Thus, if for no reason other than consistency of style, why should Massey College? Thirdly, the task of seeking out every Canadian charitable organization on Wikipedia and adding financial information, as well as keeping the information updated on a regular basis, represents a lot of work and does not seem to be a priority of the Wikipedia community, given the lack of action towards this goal so far. Fourthly, on this talk page, we have evidence that three Wikipedians are in favor of deleting the tax links -- Darkcore, John Fraser, and myself -- with only yourself speaking in favour of keeping the references. Having said that, I won't make edits to the page myself. -- S20451
I appreciate S20451's contribution. Allow me to attempt to rebut their points. Firstly, it is not "remarkableness" but "comprehensiveness" (in the spirit of the featured article criteria) which motivates including financial information in an article about an organisation. The Massey College infobox say there are 120-130 students, while the UBC infobox gives its endowment as $700m. Neither piece of information is remarkable, but both are part of a comprehensive coverage of the subject. (Also, let me say I didn't intend my article text to convey that the budget is unremarkable or otherwise; I just stated some basic facts.) Secondly, I can imagine that articles on other institutions presently lack financial information. But in invoking "consistency of style", do you mean that article A can't be made better unless articles B, C, and D are made better to the same degree at the same time by the same people? Surely not; I'm not familiar with any Wikipedia policy or custom which says that. I do argue that in order to bring any of those articles to Featured Article quality, financial information would need to be stated and attributed, because finances are a basic part of understanding any organisation. Thirdly, just because many articles are a long way from being comprehensive and using the CRA as a source, doesn't argue for us declining to make the Massey College article better. See the previous point. Fourthly, I'd like to see us leave this question open and gather some more opinions. I'd like to hear Darkcore's opinion directly on this question; his earlier objection seems primarily to be that the links looked dead. If you want to hear opinions from a wider range of editors, we could put the question to the Village pump. Finally, let me add that I can understand publishing financial information about an institution may be uncomfortable for some. However, I believe that withholding material information from an article to make the subject more comfortable risks imposing a non-neutral point of view. I think Wikipedia has chosen comprehensiveness and NPOV over comfort. --Jdlh | Talk 23:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I would point out that your argument largely presupposes your conclusion, that the financial information is of sufficiently wide interest to warrant inclusion in the article (a position with which I continue to disagree). However, I don't feel strongly enough about it to continue this discussion. S20451 14:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:John Fraser, I see you deleted the reference to Massey College's tax filings again. 70.49.220.86 restored them partially, and I restored them completely. I did take S20451's hint and added some substantive financial information to the article, hanging the CRA references off that. Again, I must say I actually find that information quite relevant to the article. Assuming that you are the Master of Massey College, I respect your opinion on the matter. I would appreciate it if we could discuss the matter here on the Talk page and reach a consensus. Thank you. --Jdlh | Talk 19:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I for one would like the link to be kept as the College's annual newsletter does not include a financial statement Fmh1964 17:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)FMH1964[reply]

I would still argue that the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to serve narrow interests such as this. S20451 18:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two more deletions of the financial information today by User:John Fraser, with restorations by Igorwindsor, User:70.49.56.87 (partial), and myself. Mr. Fraser, I encourage you to join this discussion and tell us your views on the financial information in this article. Folks, from this discussion I see light participation and a weak consensus in favour of including financial information. Yet from people's actions, the matter seems not to be settled. Would it would help to hear opinions from other editors about the appropriateness of including financial information? I'm willing to solicit comments on the Village Pump. Let me know. --Jdlh | Talk 06:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought of two more reasons for the inclusion of Massey College's charitable status and its financial information. First, this would be useful for anyone doing research on charities in Canada. Second, the addition of financial information would be useful for any prospective applicant to Massey College who wished to find out information on financial aid. Access to financial aid cannot be underemphasized in the choice of post-secondary institutions.Fmh1964 23:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to restore the tax information for Massey College but unfortunately removed the information regarding the ecumenical chapel. This was not intentional, rather it reflects my lack of ability with Wikipedia. Could another user please restore this information and the links to the Canada Revenue Agency. Fmh1964 02:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Fmh1964. I corrected this, reverting to the last version by Igorwindsor. For your reference, Help:Reverting gives instructions on how to accomplish what you want. The trick is to either "undo" the edit, if it's a single edit and still the most recent one, or to revert to a prior version of the page. Either of those are much easier than trying to hand-edit to restore what was changed. --Jdlh | Talk 20:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Infobox

[edit]

Jackman is not the chancellor; the College's terminology for his position is actually "Visitor." I have made the appropriate changes. Mamboman (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I tried to change it but it didn't work. Any ideas? Mamboman (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Masters of the college

[edit]

Omission of the names of the other Masters seemed curious. I have added them and removed redundant article-linking; three red links remain. Torontonian1 (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Calidum Talk To Me 02:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Massey College, Toronto → Massey College – Massey College is the WP:COMMONNAME. The disambiguation ", Toronto" is unneeded, and Massey College already redirects to the article. Massey University used to be called Massy College, but this can be dealt with by a disambiguation header. The justification for moving the article to its present name in 2011 was: "For consistency of naming colleges in collegiate universities like Oxbridge". All the other colleges of the University of Toronto use the "XXXX College, Toronto" format, but I thought that was for disambiguation—all of the other "XXXX College" names are ambiguous and not the primary meaning. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 06:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add: Other good examples of similar redirect situations are Worcester College, Oxford, Merton College, Oxford, Magdalene College, Cambridge. Jphillips23 (talk) 07:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Such a "general practice" seems to contradict the recommendation in WP:PRECISION. You don't need such "context" in article names if it is the only or the primary usage of the name; that's what the article text is for. In any case, in this instance the current name is just not the common name. No one calls this "Massey College, Toronto"—it's always just "Massey College". Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I am sure that if one lives in Oxford, it's always just "Harris Manchester College", as everyone in the world must know. Is this Canadian college always just "Massey College" in New Zealand, or could it possibly be confused with the university there that went by this name? And if you actually read WP:PRECISION, it is a mistake to blindly go with any unambiguous title: "Bothell is precise enough to be unambiguous, but we instead use Bothell, Washington (see Geographic names), seeking a more natural and recognizable title. (It is also consistent with most other articles on American cities.)" The same argument should prevail here. Naming an article is about much more than finding the shortest possible title. Jphillips23 (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Naming an article is about much more than finding the shortest possible title." Of course that's the case. To a large extent it's about adopting the common name. I have never heard this called anything but "Massey College", including in New Zealand, where I currently live. I have never seen "Massey College, Toronto" used anywhere, except on Wikipedia. I have never seen anyone suggest that the current name is appropriate, except you, who is the user who moved the article here in the first place (without any discussion, I might add). The issue of Massey University briefly being known as Massey College can easily be dealt with by use of a headnote. A name does not have to be 100% unambiguous to be used, it just needs to be the primary meaning of the name, as this clearly is in this case. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, the only argument I have seen from you so far are variations of "Well, I've always called it by this name." I really have no interest in debating that. I will simply reiterate what I already noted:
  • Examples from Oxbridge colleges shows this is a common practice we use on Wikipedia for colleges within collegiate universities (Harris Manchester College, Oxford, Worcester College, Oxford, Merton College, Oxford, Magdalene College, Cambridge, all of which are precise enough to be unambiguous on their own). There is nothing unusual about this at all.
  • Again, from WP:PRECISION: "Bothell is precise enough to be unambiguous, but we instead use Bothell, Washington (see Geographic names), seeking a more natural and recognizable title. (It is also consistent with most other articles on American cities.)" We don't blindly rename articles on the sole reason that it is "precise enough to be unambiguous", and you are basically using it as your only reason. There are other equally important reasons and situations.
I think the above points already provide sufficient grounds to not move this article. Jphillips23 (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If that's how you understand my argument, then you have misunderstood it, since I have presented guideline-based arguments above. I don't mind if I don't convince you here, but I don't want my positions misrepresented. I'm not claiming that I only use this name—I'm arguing that reliable sources typically use the name "Massey College", and that this institution is the primary meaning of "Massey College". (One reason I cited my personal experience is because you questioned whether this name would be confusing in New Zealand, and since I live in New Zealand and read a lot of academic-related materials in my day-to-day life, I can vouch for the fact that the institution is also referred to as simply "Massey College" in NZ sources.) I can re-state the argument for clarity's sake:
The article was at Massey College until it was unilaterally moved, without discussion. I see no evidence that the institution referred to "Massey College, Toronto". An analogy argument has been presented, which justifies the new name by referencing the Oxbridge colleges, but I don't think this argument is particularly relevant given the absence of a specific naming guideline for sub-university colleges. If there's no specific guideline, we follow the general guidelines. I don't find the "Bothell, Washington" example to be particularly convincing either because there is a relevant guideline that is specific to U.S. placenames that suggests the inclusion of the state name in all but a few U.S. placenames. (If Bothell was located in England, or Canada, or South America, I suspect that the article would indeed be at Bothell, per the usual guidelines.) Thus, in the absence of a specific guideline, we apply the general guidelines, and WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYUSAGE suggest that we should use the name most commonly used in sources (which is "Massey College") if the institution in question is either 100% unambiguous or the primary meaning of that name. I'm arguing that this institution is the primary meaning of the name "Massey College"—in Canada, New Zealand, and most everywhere else—and thus the article should be moved back. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, Massey College on its own homepage calls itself "Massey College in the University of Toronto" quite prominently. I am not advocating we move the article to that title, but clearly the college itself finds it necessary to use something other than just "Massey College", at least at the title page.
I haven't seen you present any examples of this being referred to "Massey College, Toronto" -- Actually it is not difficult to find such examples with a simple google search, but that was never my point. The point is that there are plenty of exceptions to the common name practice, and for good reason, such as context and consistency. And in this case, there is naming guideline that applies -- WP:UNIGUIDE: For universities that are part of a larger system, in general the university name is followed by a comma and the name of the city in which the institution is located. For example University of California, Berkeley and University of California, San Diego. Oxbridge colleges follow this guideline, for example - Jesus College, Cambridge and Jesus College, Oxford. Some university systems use at, which is acceptable (University of Colorado at Boulder). Most university websites should provide clarification, but in general it is preferred that all institutions in the system use the same naming convention. This may be overruled by common branding. (Emphasis mine) Jphillips23 (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Massey College in the University of Toronto" is only in the logo name on masseycollege.ca. Every usage in running text is "Massey College", including the mailing address. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If everything else follows this format, it's confusing and unhelpful to the reader to have this page be an exception. Consistent usage is much easier to understand than inconsistent: we need to think of the reader first. Nyttend (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Massey College, Toronto. 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).

  • 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) 03:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Massey_College,_Toronto&oldid=1200961055"