Talk:Queen's University at Kingston/Archive 3

Archives
August 2005 – May 2006 May 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 – February 2011

"In popular culture"

What about a pop-culture section? Ie: In anne of green gables she wanted to go to queen's, in the TV show "ED" queen's grad Tom Cavanaugh wears several queen's university tee shirts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CRAZYBUBBA (talk • contribs) 15:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• I definitely second this notion. My only concern is the lack of information regarding Queen's in pop-culture... Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 6mat1 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that as more people notice more Queen's notes in pop culture we can add more stuff. I've started a section, let's see where it goes. CRAZYBUBBA (talk) 03:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Any content in such a section needs to be sourced to the third party reference to have any encyclopedic value. Active Banana (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This section keeps dissapearing, despite links and third party references. :( CRAZYBUBBA (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Structure

The article should start with a good introduction, giving the full complete official name of the college/university, detail about location (in suburb, downtown, where?), founder and founding name, and affilation with any larger university system, if applicable. Give other names for which the university may be known (e.g. Cal, and bold them, too). Also, add a few facts about the college/university that make it unique.

Next, there is a table about the college/university. A template for the table can be found at the bottom of this page.

Sections of the article:

• Campus -- Describe the overall shape and size of the campus. Mention any famous buildings and their architects.
• Organization -- Mention the administration, including leading officials. If this college/university has a special organizational structure, such as a residential college system, then it should be mentioned here. Then, in bullet point form, list the schools, colleges, etc. of this university. If appropriate, also list the faculties and departments at the university. If there is a special course system or requisits for enrollment, mention them here, too. If the university is part of a larger system (as in University of California), mention this connection and provide requisite links.
• Students and faculty -- State the number (and any other useful statistics) of the students. Distinguish between undergraduate, graduate and postgraduate students; also state the number of faculty members. Distinguish between tenure/nontenured, full- and part-time (if possible).
• Sports, clubs, and traditions -- Mention the sports team(s) of the college/university and what is notable about them. Here is also a good place to mention specific traditions of the college/university, like students' union activities, a student newspaper, fraternities, regular activities, etc. The heading may be changed accordingly in regard to the importance of sports, clubs, traditions, students' unions etc. For example, alternative headings could be Students' Union, Sports and Traditions or Students' Union Activities.
• History -- Describe the history of the college/university, including noteworthy milestones in its development.
• Noted alumni -- Bullet list of Alumni that are notable/famous. Mention the graduation date and degree and give a short description why they are famous.
• Noted faculty -- Bullet list of active and former members of faculty that are notable. If they are alumni/alumnae, mention them here in parenthesis, including the degree and graduation date. For all give a short description why they are famous.
• External links -- Give a link to the website of the college/university, preferable in English language.

Speedystickd 16:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

concerns

hi, the statement "and average acceptance rate is 13.6%" is false. acceptance rate is = (# of people who got aceepted) / (# of people who applied) NOT (# of people enrolled) / (# of people who applied), according to The Princeton Review's The Best 361 Colleges, U of T has acceptance rate of 66% and McGill has 51%. It is very unlikely that Queen's have 13.6%. From INFO Magazine if you devide # of people enrolled over people applied, you get approximately 13%.Therefore i think what he/she meant was the enrollment rate. So, i am deleting that statement.

This is very true. Although Queen's does have the lowest acceptance rate in Canada, it is not 13%. When you look at all those who apply, you must remember that in Ontario, high school students apply to a minimum of 3 schools.

---

Actually the acceptance rate is 41%

http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/profiles/admissions.asp?listing=1037359&LTID=1&intbucketid=—Preceding unsigned comment added by CRAZYBUBBA (talk • contribs) 09:43, May 22, 2007

McGill has the lowest acceptance rate QQ Noob! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.203.235 (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, McGill does not.. the numbers speak for themselves. CRAZYBUBBA (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

macleans rankings

How can Queens University be ranked 2nd when it refused to participate in the 2006 medical doctorate university rankings? 144.214.156.18 06:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• As the article explains, the University refused to provide the information, however, because it is a public institution, Macleans simply issues Access to Information Act requests, and were given the information they needed. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 06:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

criticism section

The introduction cites a criticism of a "culture of whiteness." I think there should be a separate section for criticisms of the school and its policies, among them the 'secret' contract with Sodexho (with perhaps a technical explanation of why this contract is not viewable even though Queen's is a public institution) and also the AMS's involvement and failure to protect student-run businesses from Sodexho. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.38.153.29 (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

There is no secret contract with Sodexho, this is a rumor. Students may read it by contacting the food and beverage director—Preceding unsigned comment added by CRAZYBUBBA (talk • contribs) 09:48, May 22, 2007

"Research Intensive"

I removed research-intensive from the description of Queen's University. The use of the term research-intensive seems kind of redundant considering that most of the larger universities throughout North America are based on the German research universities (like Humboldt). It seems as though this term is being used to add a feeling of intellectual superiority to other institutions. Queen's University is basically a public university in Canada. Thinkstand 19:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Crazybubba's comment: All top Canadian universities are public, all however are not research universities—Preceding unsigned comment added by CRAZYBUBBA (talk • contribs) 19:14, May 22, 2007

The term "research-intensive" refers to those institutions which derive a substantial amount of research funding, and dedicate a significant percentage of their operations to pursuing both pure and applied research. Or, as former Stanford University president Gerhard Casper wrote, "it selects its students; it is primarily dedicated to the search for knowledge; and it is marked by a spirit of critical inquiry [[1]] There is a difference between a purely undergraduate institution and a research-intensive institution. This is a descriptive claim and not a normative claim--both types are valid forms of institutions, but they are not one and the same. It is, a fact, to call Queen's or its peer institutions a research-intensive university rather than a claim to any sort of superiority. Please see http://www.researchinfosource.com/media/2006-top50-sup.pdf.

Concern about Plagiarism in the History Section

It seems as though the entire history section was just lifted off of the Queen's University website. Thinkstand 20:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Here is the URL: http://www.queensu.ca/secretariat/History/genhist.html

I looked back through the edits and noticed that Speedystickd added almost the entire History section in question [2]. I sent him a message on User_talk:Speedystickd asking for some clarification, if he has it, of this issue. He has only made about one edit per month since September 2006 so I am somewhat doubtful of a speedy response. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 01:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the History section text to the previous version until the copyright issue can be resolved. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 02:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Campus Pages

There are pages on Grant Hall and Richardson Stadium - I think it would be worthwile to have pages for the JDUC and Jock Harty, especially as they'll be torn down for the construction of the Queen's Centre. Thoughts? Demosthenes X 20:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Grant Hall and the Stadium are both controversial already. Adding more pages for more non-notable buildings is not what this project is all about. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 20:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on principle, but I also found the page on Grant Hall to be a very interesting read. Perhaps one page on "Queen's Campus" would be a better solution: I think these buildings are important enough to warrant being included in Wikipedia, but to add them all to the Queen's page would make it far to long. A sub-page on notable elements of the Campus might be a good compromise. Demosthenes X 01:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the "Queen's Campus" page. The Clark and ILC could be added to that from the Queen's Faculty of Applied Science page--J2000ca 20:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Endowment

I've reverted the endowment. The 580.6 takes into account the "Other Endowment investments", while the 571 number only takes into account the pooled investment.--J2000ca 15:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

First session of Parliament

I note that the lead paragraph indicates that: "[Queen's] hosted the country's first session of Parliament." The source for the claim is the website of the University of Otago in New Zealand (perhaps not the most reliable source for 19th century Canadian history), which has an exchange program with Queen's.

The claim is not clear. Literally, it could mean the first post-Confederation Parliament in 1867 (which I assume occurred in Ottawa, not Kingston), or the first Parliament to be held on the territory that would one day be Canada (legislative assemblies were held prior to the founding of Queen's, so this is also unlikely). Most likely, it refers to the first session of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada, which did in fact occur in Kingston in 1841 (Kingston was capital of the Province from 1841 to 1843). However, according to 1st Parliament of the Province of Canada, the first session was on June 15, 1841, whereas Queen's was founded four months later on October 16, 1841. Moreover, the Queen's website indicates (at [3]) that classes at Queen's did not start until March 7, l842, and took place "in a small wood-frame house on the edge of the city". Further, Queen's moved from house to house for 11 years, until it acquired Summerhill. Given the dates, and the Queen's facilities in those early years, it seems unlikely that Queen's hosted the first session of the province's parliament.

For these reasons, the claim that Queen's hosted the country's first session of Parliament seems incorrect. The more logical claim, that Queen's hosted the first session of the Parliament of the Province of Canada, also seems dubious. I would be delighted if someone could come up with a reliable source showing that Queen's did host the first Parliament, but otherwise I will tag this claim with a {{dubious}} template, and will ultimately remove the claim unless someone can come up with the source. Skeezix1000 20:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The confusion lies in the fact that the Kingston General Hospital was, from 1841-1844, the site of the first Parliament of the new Province of Canada [see http://www.kgh.on.ca/about/about_history.asp]. During that time, members of Parliament rented accommodation across the street in Summerhill [see http://www.queensu.ca/secretariat/History/bldgs/summer.html]. Thus, Skeezix1000 is correct to conclude that the original author was mistaken to claim that Queen's hosted the first Parliament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.83.226 (talk • contribs)

So, it's actually KGH then that hosted the Province of Canada's (not the country's) first Parliament, not Queen's. At best, Summerhill (which at the time wasn't part of Queen's) was rented out to some members of Parliament. So, Queen's didn't host the Parliament, but the site that would become the campus did provide rental accomodation to some members (presumably a number of buildings/sites in Kingston can make this claim). Given these facts, I am removing the reference from the lead. Skeezix1000 14:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks to the other members who continually guard this page against vandalism and add to the accuracy and range of issues covered.CRAZYBUBBA (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Review

Hello,

I've now completed my Good Article Review for this article.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

This article has been 'quick-failed due to severe referencing issues. Large sections of this article are unreferenced, others contain 'disputed' tags, and the article also contains a couple of expansion tags which should be addressed before this article is re-submitted for review.

Please refer to WP:Verifiability and WP:CITE for assistance in fixing these issues.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 22:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Merger of Society of Graduate and Professional Students at Queen's University

An AfD closed on 22 April 2008 with consensus to merge the contents of Society of Graduate and Professional Students at Queen's University into this article.

The SGPS article is about 100 words (which can easily be pared down), plus an infobox, and a few refs, and I suggest a new section here with this content, entitled simply: Society of Graduate and Professional Students.

Here is the content (without the infobox):

The Society of Graduate and Professional Students at Queen's University, or the SGPS, is the central graduate student society at Queen’s University in Canada. SGPS is a member of the Canadian Federation of Students Local 27.

The SGPS Council is the main decision-making body of the Society. Council meets the second Tuesday of every month in the McLaughlin Room of the JDUC. Council is made up of graduate/professional student representatives from every department or school, the SGPS Executive and aboriginal and international student representatives. Council meetings are an important way in which the SGPS communicates information to its members through departmental representatives.

. The SGPS is listed as a prominent student organization in the article. — Becksguy (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Music

Hi I was wondering if we should add Saki Uchida the most famous musician at Queen's in Queen's Music section. Thanks.Firewal2 (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find a wiki page for them so they may not be notable by some people's criteria. I often see in many university pages that those people are removed because it is hard to verify they exist let alone are notable (to someone outside the music world) Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Don't delete people's comment? OK~ sorry about that. Firewal2 (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Saki hardly qualifies... the Tragically Hip and Bedouin Soundclash both graduated from Queen's. CRAZYBUBBA (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Tom Williams article, disambiguation needed

Note that the new Queen's University principal, Tom Williams (as of May 1, 2008), is wiki'd in the article on Queen's University (located in the box on the right hand side near the top of the article), but: 1) there is as yet no wiki article on him, a situation which I intend to remedy shortly, using what information is available, and others can improve it later; and 2) there is no middle initial available for him (I think it may be 'R.'), so that there are serious ambiguity problems, since there are very many people named Tom or Thomas Williams already on wiki. Cheers, FrankEldonDixon, May 3, 2008, 12:23 p.m., GMT+5, FrankEldonDixon (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

A very interesting phenomenon just occurred! I wrote an article on Thomas R. Williams, linking to referenced published print media sources, as well as to some information on the website of Queen's. Granted, some information I would have liked to include was simply unavailable. I filed my article, and then did a couple of minor changes to it. Everything seemed just fine. I then went to the article on Queen's University, to correct the ambiguity with Tom Williams, as described in the above post. Then, about a minute later, the recently-written article simply vanished from wikipedia!! Now, I have written several dozen articles for wiki, and edited hundreds of others, have the status of a wiki editor, and have received several commendations for my work! Cheers, FrankEldonDixon, May 3, 2008, 2:24 p.m., GMT+5, FrankEldonDixon (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You just misspelt the article name :) I have moved it to the right place. — mholland (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!! Cheers, FrankEldonDixon, May 3, 2008, 2:57 p.m., GMT+5, FrankEldonDixon (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Happy editing! — mholland (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Grad Student Society Merge

Just as an FYI, it was this AfD whose result was merging here. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

jackets

according to the edit by celtus at05:13, 5 October 2008, Queen's nursing jackets are now light blue. Can someone confirm or deny? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CRAZYBUBBA (talk • contribs)

Just to be clear, my one edit to the article had nothing to do with jacket colours. But i found this webpage that says the Nursing jackets are indeed black.--Celtus (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

THES (POV)

I find it extremely interesting that people would want to only now and not previously delete the reference to the THES ranking in the opening section of this article. Wikipedia is about sharing and releasing encyclopedic information. THES is considered one of the preimere ranking systems available for universities. So what if the university dropped out of the top 100 its not bad(most canadian universities did drop by the way). But to delete the reference entirely is just a sign of how bad and biased this article can become. The university stands at tied for 117 this is a fact, and it in no way says the school is bad. The only thing this ranking even suggests is that there is a problem with class sizes (if you even care to look at the article and how the rankings are compiled). If people ever want to see an university article reach a featured status one day you need to stop treating the articles as a 'my school is better than yours' philosophy. 117 is good and I think it should be continuely mentioned in the intro section.Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• That's fair enough, however I think that it belongs in the "rankings" section now. The Intro is supposed to give a brief overview of the school, citing its strongest points (I'm using other universities as models for this). I think it's evident now that the THES ranking isn't necessarily one of the strongest points, and should be put alongside the other rankings. Thoughts?6mat1 (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Very agreed. I said above that the main reason the university appears in the rankings to have decreased is the staff/ student score. If you look at all canadian universities (well excluding mcgill (though they may even have this problem)) they suffered in this category despite ranking high in others (Toronto was killed in the rankings because of it). I think its evident that most schools in canada are trying this 'mass production' of student philosphy where students are taken in on mass and the amount of access to professors is hampered by very large class sizes.Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Despite this I would like to see it back in the opening paragraphs. The way it currently reads "queen's is a non-secratarian, coed institution" puts me to sleep and doesn't make me want to read more. The ranking helped establish from line one that 1) queen's is awesome. 2) not bore you with generic university facts. Thoughts?CRAZYBUBBA (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

We strongly discourage placing rankings in the lead of articles. If "queen's is awesome" then surely you can make that clear without the crutch of flawed ranking systems. ElKevbo (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Cultural and race relations

I have concerns about this section. In the context of "racial" issues/attitudes, etc., it is out-of-place and adds questionable value to the article. It will also be a magnet for those who want to complain about Queen's, have a gripe, or feel mistreated by the school. And, the inclusion of this section gives undue attention and emphasis to a relatively small problem that is not unique to Queen's. I recommend we delete the section completely. BC_{talk to me} 03:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that this section, as it is had developed, was problematic. Rather than history, it was getting to be a focus of current race concerns. On the other hand, the information about Robert Sutherland is an important aspect of Queen's history. I think that the problem arises partly because of the heading of the subsection ("Cultural and race relations") which becomes a catch-all (mea culpa). Also, while Sutherland is an important historical figure, Alfie Pierce probably is not. From there it goes downhill. As opposed to deleting the subsection, I have re-titled it "First black students," included the early history of race relations, and deleted the rest. If anyone disagrees, let's continue to discuss it here. Sunray (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The other option might be to just incorporate those two paragraphs into the main section (between paragraphs 3 and 4) without a separate heading. What do you think? Sunray (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the Henry Report and other things that have happened a few years ago are very important. Just because it is more recent history does not mean we should ignore it. Suggesting that "emphasis to a relatively small problem that is not unique to Queen's" is just insulting to those that endured the issues. It only goes further to suggest the plight of minorities should be ignored when they are so few of them. I agree that the article should not be a place to badmouth Queen's but it should be a place where ALL things related to Queen's should be put including the history of racism and the feelings attached to it in a factual manner. 10 or 20 years from now we will at least have something to compare current attitudes in the future to attitudes of a few years ago and able us to measure progress. Not documenting is just wrong in my opinion and does not further engage the problem but just ignores it. The students at Queen's understand this made most obvious with their Queen's Journal. If Queen's own newspaper thinks it's important I do not see why it should not be included on wikipedia. If it were up to some people contributions by Robert Sutherland and many others would just be ignored as it was. Sugarcoating what happened to Robert Sutherland by renaming it First Black Students just ignores what happened to them and the significance of it. It is very important we examine things with historical contexts but also of things of last year in the same manner. Warrior1867 (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Henry Report may well be worth including. However, we need to bear in mind this is an encyclopedia, not a tract on race relations. Some of your recent edits are presented from a strong point of view. Our policies require that we write in neutral language and that we do not engage in original research. Please familiarize yourself with these policies and then make a proposal here. In the meantime, I'm going to revert your recent edits and remove the title that you object to. Sunray (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the offending title and incorporated the two paragraphs on Sutherland and the expulsion of students into the rest of the history section. I don't really think that it works well in this format, as it seems to overwhelm the history section, giving undue weight to Black history. I could see it in a separate section on the Henry Report. Other views? Sunray (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

History is history. I don't like the distinction you made there about undue importance to Black History. One can argue that it is less important overall but that is all. I certainly hope you don't think President Obama should be ignored in writing America's history because it is Black History. Black History, South Asian History, Native History, Chinese History, Italian History is all the same when you live in a multicultural society where all can affect the whole equally. But you are right about documenting all racism or racial in the history section may not be the best place. A subsection or under Henry Report may be more appropriate.

Warrior1867 (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is an encyclopedia and not a tract on race relations or the problems the Henry Report has brought out. I don't deny that there are problems, but by focusing on race relations and giving all kinds of examples of how certain students, faculty, etc. have been treated or mistreated is definitely giving undue weight to this part of Queen's history or to the issue, and Wikipedia is not the place for this. Lets not get bogged down with dissertations on race relations, the Henry Report, mistreated students and staff and the like. There should be no focus on racial concerns since by doing so there would be POV issues (the implied POV message being that racism is a disease that has permeated Queen's for years and needs to be exposed via Wikipedia). Including a separate section on the Henry report would also serve to give undue weight to "racism' and mistreatment. I like the way that Sunray has incorporated the two paragraphs into the history section, but I agree that there may be some undue weight problems. Robert Sutherland is indeed an important person to include. The story about the black medical students is also relevant as part of Queen's history. It's all relevant and interesting to a reader. I have no problems with pointing readers to relevant external links such as the Queen's Journal or the Henry Report, but lets keep away from summarizing or using quotes from these writings (which would lead to undue weight issues and emphasize POV). The reader should be able to read all of this stuff in the proper context, which would not occur if summaries and quotes or other editorializing were used in the article.BC_{talk to me} 23:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BC on this. The attention given to the Henry Report does seem to be undue weight. I've removed it from the article. If Warrior1867 wants to include more than is now in the article, let's get consensus here first. Sunray (talk) 03:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the Henry Report is very important part of the history of the university. Taking it out is just wrong in so many ways. Well, I guess this further goes to show that for some people Racism should be brushed aside, hidden and history rewritten to suit how we like to think of ourselves. I am not one for such ideas. Should Germany rewrite its history and ignore the extermination of the Jews because it gives undue importance to an issue that isn't "German." Importance of issues differ from person to person. I believe the Henry Report is very important. Brain Crawford does not. I can only surmise he is not a person of colour nor a person who cares for issues of people of colour. Because of this he does not seem to think it important. I do believe it is important and would like it documented as well as what Queen's has been doing to address these issues. It is important to the history of Queens. Surely you agree. It was only a small paragraph and it was unbiased as the findings of the report were agreed upon by Queen's University itself. It also documents how Queen's is addressing the problem. I was going to further expand upon the Henry Report in a separate article along with repercussions of it and what Queen's has done afterwards. I am sure we can add more to it as when there is a Henry Report 2 which finds the exact opposite with all these problems gone. Warrior1867 (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying that the Henry Report is not important. In fact, it may be important enough to have its own article. Why don't you click on that red link and begin one? I am willing to help. Brian has suggested we could link to the report. That could as easily be a wiki link as an external one. Sunray (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That is what I was trying to do when I wrote this.

Dr. Frances Henry, an expert in anti-racism at York University was commissioned to examine problems experienced by faculty members who were visible minorities or aboriginals at Queen's University. It was entitled, "Understanding the Experiences of Visible Minority and Aboriginal Faculty Members at Queen’s University," also known as the "Henry Report." The Report was commissioned after a female professor of colour left Queen's University alleging that she had experienced racism. Five more professors of colour resigned. The commission found that many felt there was a "Culture of Whiteness" at the school. Queen's University is attempting to address the situation and implement some of the report's recommendations.

I was going to add more detailed info for the Henry Report and the Culture of Whiteness. These are things that the Report underscores. The link I have for reference includes the Report but is actually the Queen's University Report on the study itself. It acknowledges the problems and also outlines some of the things they are going to implement to address the issues. I was going to document it myself in time and was hoping others would also help. It is Wikipedia, open-source.

Warrior1867 (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Willing to have it just say:

The "Henry Report" was commissioned after a female professor of colour left Queen's University alleging that she had experienced racism. Five more professors of colour resigned. The commission found that many felt there was a "Culture of Whiteness" at the school. Queen's University is attempting to address the situation and implement some of the report's recommendations.

Warrior1867 (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Another version::

In 2001 the Senate Educational Equity Committee (SEEC) conducted a study of the experiences of visible minority and aboriginal faculty members at Queen's after a female professor of colour left Queen's University alleging that she had experienced racism. Following this survey SEEC commissioned a study by anti-racism expert, Dr. Frances Henry, Professor Emerita, York University. The Henry Report (April, 2006) found that many perceived a "Culture of Whiteness" at the school. Queen's University is attempting to address the situation and implement some of the report's recommendations.

I've made some additions to the text proposed by Warrior1867. The last sentence seems a tad inconclusive. My main concern remains whether this information, presented in this way, gives undue weight to a highly-charged subject. To do the matter justice, one should probably mention that Henry's methodology was questioned. Moreover, systemic racism is a fact of Canadian society (as it is in many societies the world over). There seems to be a strong emotional reaction on the part of many students. However, it is hard to determine whether race relations at Queen's are in some way exceptional or notable. While Henry's report got some coverage in academic news publications, I cannot find any mainstream media coverage.

This information doesn't seem to fit in the "History" section. Does it warrant its own section? Perhaps it does if there is extensive media coverage. I would like to hear from other editors about this. Sunray (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The Report itself is more for academic circles but the culture of whiteness is cited in the papers. Toronto star does like to bring it up since it sells to Toronto which is a white minority city. Globe and Mail covered it also but mostly in the context of the female white student who dressed up in blackface as miss ethiopia. There are also other incidences that have happened. The main difference between Queen's and other university is it's location. It is very far from Toronto with admission averages that rival Toronto and Waterloo. Most non-whites don't choose the school. Their numbers are small and the white population is very high. The white population at Queen's is different in the sense that few are from the GTA, Windsor, Ottawa, Hamilton or Waterloo Region. The other schools get white people that are used to diversity. Many racist also choose the school because of it's racist reputation which makes the problem worse. It is a unique problem to Queen's in this respect.

Warrior1867 (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to defend myself here. First, I never said the report was not important. It most certainly is. And I most certainly care about issues of "people of color" or other minorities. My wife is a "person of color" and she has to carry some racism baggage. And I have seen the concentration camps. So I know racism when I see it. So do NOT insult me and assume I am burying my head in the sand about what's been happening at Queen's or assume I have no experience with racism. You would be sorely mistaken. I am a Queen's alumnus and I care very much about the university; the report is just one way of bringing attention to a problem that hopefully will be solved. The "racism" issue is one thing, but how to include it in Wikipedia is quite another. What I am saying is that in the context of the article, there would be undue weight. I am just following Wikipedia guidelines. As Sunray said, your edits are presented from a strong POV. Wikipedia is not a place to air your POV feelings We know you feel emotional about this, but this is an encyclopedia where content, including contentious issues are written down in a balanced, NPOV, properly proportioned manner. BTW, your last thesis about "whites" vs. "non-whites" and racists choosing the school is a bunch of nonsense.BC_{talk to me} 21:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I was only inferring from the racial makeup of the school. Students of colour don't choose the school because it isn't in Toronto. If one is a racist, Queen's is a good school in terms of universities and it has a small non-white population. So smart racists would probably choose the school. I am not saying racists are of the majority there. Quite the contrary. What I said was the white population of Queen's are not cosmopolitan compared with other top schools in Ontario. They make rash decisions based on a lack of experience with diversity.

As far as POV is concerned. Would like to add that not all minority persons were negatively affected. That Chinese don't get treated as bad as some South Asians. Muslims that don't look it get off a little easier. Blacks get treated the worst. I am willing to have some of those things not put in there because they are POV. I would like the Henry Report and the Culture of Whiteness part put in at least with Sunray's rewrite as a little subsection for history. That is very important and part of Queens. Perhaps a new article on racism at Queens university is more appropriate with link to the main page.

I don't believe it is undue weight. I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of it. If by it you mean that if I were to ask a person at queens at random if they thought there was a significant racism problem there, they would answer no. It does not affect them and they do not commit it nor are the friends with people that do. What I am saying is not all groups are targeted the same. If you ask one of the more targeted groups the answer would be overwhelmingly yes. The ones that stand out more for one reason or another. So it is not undue weight. Make sure you understand the difference. The report sure does.

Queen's is different in many ways, you must concede that. Don't let your personal pride get in the way Warrior1867 (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Your comment that "smart racists would probably choose the school" is pure speculation and I cannot see any basis for it. One could as easily make the opposite claim. What evidence do you have to support this statement? You go on to state that "the white population of Queen's are not cosmopolitan compared to other top schools in Ontario." What evidence do you base this claim on? Sunray (talk) 07:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I am basing it on it's location for the less cosmopolitan nature of the school and articles I have read in the past where professors of woman's rights have commented on how the female students get upset when they start talking about minority rights which they don't care much for. If one had lived in Toronto, Ottawa, Windosr, KW, Hamilton, one would have a different perspective.

I am basing the idea that racists go there because U of T president had commented in the past how white students have been avoiding U of T because they are not comfortable with the diversity. A white student at Ryerson was upset because she was of the minority in engineering being a woman and white. They tried to start a white student's association but that didn't work out. Many people know of Queen's racist nature through the papers and choose the school because of that. It is conjecture but not without basis. The papers have commented on the rural nature of the population at Queen's. u of t is cosmopolitan by its location and its composition. Warrior1867 (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Kingston is a small city compared to the others you have mentioned. However, it is far from being a backwater. It has two prestigious universities and a degree-granting community college which contribute to giving it the most PhD-holders per capita of any city in Canada. Its strategic location mid-way between Toronto and Montreal and close to Ottawa has always given it interesting political perspective and history. Queen's is a big university, long considered one of the Canadian Ivy League. With a university of that size and stature, it is hard to make sweeping generalizations about its culture.

That said, there are significant differences between Queen's and major urban universities, which as you correctly note, tend to have more diverse student populations. But your evidence for racism seems circumstantial at best. You say: "Many people know of Queen's racist nature through the papers and choose the school because of that." Would you be able to provide some sources for this? Sunray (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I was only surmising. Other than people at stormfront taking notice of the fact, there is no factual evidence for it. But I would not be surprised it was happening. Let's get back to the article at hand. I want your alternate version put into the Queen's article. I think I have demonstrated that Queen's is different and that it should be put in as Brian Crawford had asked. Warrior1867 (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Brian has said that he thinks that putting this information into the article would be a case of undue weight. I've also questioned its notability. Let's see if we can find media coverage of the Henry Report so we can determine its notability (and thus how much weight it deserves). Sunray (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Noted well in Queen's Journal of course since its queens. Toronto Star and National Post don't keep articles online afer a point. Globe and Mail requires people to pay. Here are links to websites that copied the articles that I can find. You can try looking some more. http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/04/queens_u_confro.php http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=970266 I can't find the others because Toronto Star takes down old pages. The white girl dressed up in blackface as miss ethiopia was front page news. very sensational. I'm sure it sold well. it talked about the culture of whiteness.

It's time to make a decision. We all agree it's important. I've made case for the undue wieght charge and notoriety. Quit stalling. Warrior1867 (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Quit stalling? Surely you don't think that statements like that will convince other editors to work with you. As should be clear from this discussion, the text you have proposed won't fly as far as other editors are concerned. It needs sources to show the notability of the subject and then re-writing to conform to the sources. You have two sources that could possibly be used. I said I would help, but I will quickly lose interest if you accuse me of "stalling" or want to make this into a rant about racism. Would you be able to assume good faith? Sunray (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! Comments like "Quit stalling" do not help. And why the big rush? This discussion is indeed turning into a rant, and other editors do not like helping ranters. After a while the discussion will just stop. Notability is paramount, and I'm not convinced that this is notable enough to include. Racism is indeed serious, as I have stated, but is this truly "racism". And is it unique enough to be focussing on Queen's? Why, Mr/Mrs/Miss Warrior, do you have this bee in your bonnet about "racism" at Queen's, when it is not unique to Queen's? As Ryerson professor Michael Doucet said in one of the linked articles, “It’s not so much active racism, as a lack of sensitivity about diversity.” “Diversity has become a concern on many campuses - Queen’s is not alone ... it’s the first campus where diversity has erupted into the public spotlight." So the true issue is lack of sensitivity to diversity. But is lack of sensitivity to diversity truly an insidious social disease that needs to be dealt with in this article, when it is not a unique problem to Queen's? BC_{talk to me} 01:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess I give up. I've made my case for why I think it's important. Clearly you don't agree. My arguments don't seem important enough. The Toronto Star articles are no longer up anymore. I guess I could go to the Toronto Library through their records and find them. But it's just too much work as important as this is, there are other just as important things I am doing right now. I just wanted to document what's happening at Queen's because I felt what was happening there was unique in many ways and very important. Henry Report was only commissioned at Queen's. The cultural and racial dynamics are very interesting in province where visible minorities make up a great percentage particularly in Toronto CMA where half the population of Ontario lives and which is a white-minority city.

I guess that's that. Can only spend so much time on one cause as important as it is. I am also working on other equally and some more important things right now. At least the Queen's Journal is documenting this extensively. I always felt that Wikipedia should be a repository of all knowledge. Brian Crawford, I guess you win. Guess your pride will get in the way of doing what's just and true. So be it. It's a good thing that people like you are of the minority or else we would not have made the progress that we have made so far.

At least you don't get to remove the contributions of sutherland and what happened to the 15 black students at Queen's although you did try. Warrior1867 (talk) 04:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: A section on the Henry Report has been written from a neutral point of view, properly sourced, and added to that article. Sunray (talk) 10:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hockey team

Ive come accross a team photo from 1909. Apparently thy won the Allan Cup that year. The interesting thing about the photo is Alfie is in it. Ive noticed the article mentions nothing of him right now. What do people think of adding this photo to the article? Please post, it may look like clutter and also may not be too significant Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

come to think about it it would be good to have a small section on alfie Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Image sizes

Recently, all images have been relegated to thumbs. This was justified on the basis of Wikipedia's MoS. However, the MoS clearly specifies that no image should be larger than 500px tall and 400px wide; it makes no indication that all images on a given page should be thumbs. In my opinion (and in accordance with the MoS), the images should be larger than thumbs, but small enough as to not obscure the article. Additionally, I think that we need to update and re-haul all images of the page. For example, images of the Richardson Stadium are infinitely less important than images of the campus, etc. The aesthetics of the page are simply outdated and generally unappealing. Thoughts? Contributions? 6mat1 (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The image use policy states: "In articles, if you wish to have a photo beside the text, you should generally use the "thumb" (thumbnail) option available in the image markup." [4]. As 6mat1 has pointed out, above, the MoS does allow exceptions. In a way, I suppose it depends on whether we ever want to go for Featured article status, which requires that we follow the image use policy. I suggest that we go with thumbs as a rule and discuss exceptions (which should be few) here. Sunray (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There should be very few exceptions to thumbs and these exceptions must be notable. More importantly, I think that the images themselves need to be revised. Take a look at the McGill page; while not the best example, it does demonstrate the proper use of images and their respective sizes.6mat1 (talk) 05:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the McGill article has a pretty good approach to images. As others haven't spoken, I assume tacit approval of the approach you have summarized, succinctly, that there should be very few exceptions to thumbs and these exceptions must be notable. I agree that the images themselves need to be revised. Do you want to take the lead on that? Sunray (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I will attempt this task. It will probably take a few weeks, as I would like to add my own image files. 6mat1 (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Cultural and Race Relations (Continued)

Somehow, the section regarding the "Henry Report," etc. was reinserted into the article. The previous discussion favoured deletion, as the article lacked the notability necessary for an encyclopedic entry; based on this discussion, I deleted the section entirely. Personally (as a student of colour), the section seemed completely out of place and counterproductive to meeting standards of quality. Please air concerns and comments in discussion before reediting. 6mat1 (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The Henry Report was certainly significant for Queen's, and received attention in the national media. If you read the discussion above carefully, you will note that both Brian Crawford and I objected to the strong POV presented about the Henry Report and the weak sources provided. We both said we would assist in making it more neutral. This has now been done and a brief section added to the article with sources. Please don't delete it without further discussion here. Sunray (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for my density, but I remain unable to see the notability of this section. If we scoured news archives, I'm sure that there would be thousands of controversial/'important' topics of contention at Queen's. This is not to say that the incidents, etc. surrounding the 'Henry Report,' etc. are not significant; rather, said events lack the significance (in my opinion) to justify a section within the article. 6mat1 (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the section, as it is currently written, is that it clearly ignores the various articles, columns, op-ed pieces, etc., that were written at the time that took issue with the Henry Report. It is unbalanced. There were those who felt that the the problem with the selection of Prof. Henry is that, as a so-called “anti-racism expert,” like a man with a hammer, he would be sure to find a nail. As it now stands, the section violates Wikipedia policies vis-à-vis NPOV because it focuses solely on the Henry Report. At the very least, the section heading is misleading since the section is not about race relations so much as it is about presenting the Henry Report. This is akin to a writer presenting an appeals court majority opinion without any regard for the published opinion of the dissenting side of the court. Where is the rest of the issue? The section, as it now stands, is biased. I can only hope that WP:BALANCE will prevail. — SpikeToronto (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You have a point. As the history section notes, there have been racial tensions in the past at Queens. The Berry Report and then the Principal’s Advisory Committee on Race Relations in 1991, brought systemic racism to light - the latter making Queen's the first university in Canada to study concerns of faculty about discrimination. That should probably be mentioned. The Henry Report arose out of this background. Perhaps some critical commentary should be added about the Henry Report as well. The only problem I have with this is that we do not want to overweight the issue. While it is important to Queen's culture and social relations, it should not overwhelm the article. I focussed on the Henry Report because it was significant and seemed to highlight the issues currently in play at Queen's. Sunray (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

How about creating a full-fledged wikiarticle on the Henry Report with everything that you just mentioned? Then, in the Queen’s University wikiaritcle, one could write a smaller, well-balanced Henry Report section that has at its top the {{main}} template directing wikireaders to the larger, main article on the Henry Report. — SpikeToronto (talk) 02:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a viable solution. I would only amend this proposal; if an entire article regarding the henry report is created, the Queen's article should mention the issue either in passing (with linked text) or in the 'see also' category. Rewriting and scaling the section would be redundant. 6mat1 (talk) 07:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that SpikeToronto is suggesting the use of summary style, which would involve writing a short summary in the main Queen's article. Sunray (talk) 07:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sunray is correct as to what I was suggesting. Although, to be one hundred percent honest, at the time I made the suggestion I was completely unware of the WP:SS guideline. I still think that WP:SS is a good idea. However, I think that 6mat1’s suggestion is also valid: If a larger, more thorough and balanced article is written regarding the Henry Report — and Sunray since you know so much of the background, you’d be a perfect candidate for the job! — then in the main Queen’s University article it could be mentioned only briefly. Perhaps, in one of the paragraphs where Robert Sutherland is discussed, a tie-in to more recent issues could be made by reference to the Henry Report. Perhaps right around the paragraph that begins “Queen's University's attempt to open its doors to students from other cultures …” could be inserted a one- to two-sentence mention of the Henry Report with a wikilink to the newly created, balanced, and thorough article on the Henry Report. Either solution would be satisfactory to me. Although, I might now be leaning more towards 6mat1’s suggestion than to my own, earlier WP:SS suggestion. — SpikeToronto (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You've suggested a couple of options. I'm not sure how they sit with 6mat1. I have to say, though, I don't have much extra time right now to write an article. I had hoped we had solved the problem with the current short section. Sunray (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

For the time being, I propose that we integrate a wikilink to a 'Henry Report' article somewhere around the Robert Sutherland/1918 medical students expulsion. The article would probably begin as something of a stub; however, this will open the topic to further research, analysis, and developments. Yeas? Nays? Amendments? 6mat1 (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You have a yea from me 6mat1! — SpikeToronto (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the link should go with the Robert Sutherland reference. The two stories are separated by 150 years and are completely different in nature. If the addition is not in summary style format, I think that a short paragraph should be added to the history section, in the appropriate date order, with a link to the new article. Otherwise, I think we would be better advised to go with summary style, keeping a separate section. Sunray (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It’s not inappropriate there. Sutherland comes only one paragraph from the end of that section, and it makes a logical connection between Queen’s first student of colour and more recent race relation issues. A mention there with a wikilink to a complete Henry Report article (née stub) is a perfect fit locationally. — SpikeToronto (talk) 04:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Finally have a chance to wade into the topic. Everyone has some very good points. At one time I didn't think that inclusion of this subject was notable or significant, but it is a valid part of Queen's history that probably should be mentioned. So, Sunray and I collaborated to put together the section. I thought Sunray's writing was fairly neutral. It's merely a short summary of the Henry Report issue; any more than that, we would be getting into an overweight problem. I wouldn't say it was a violation of "NPOV policy" either. The section as it stands basically says that the Henry Report was written because of some perceived problems, that there were some problems discovered, and action has been taken. Nothing unbalanced or POV about that. The section is just stating what happened. It seems to me we are making an issue more complicated than it needs to be. Do we really need more? Talking about the "rest of the issue" such as whether Henry was suitable for writing the report because she specializes in racial issues (and hence would likely find something), or evaluating op-ed pieces, articles or columns is beyond the scope of an overview article. Would this lead to a more balanced coverage? We can always have more balanced coverage for everything that is written. It's a matter of how long and drawn-out to we need an article or section to be. Which boils down to a weight issue. So, what do we do? I think we can leave the section as is with a change in the heading perhaps, and we might want to include something in the section that says there are some who disagree with the some of report's findings or there has been controversy about the report's accuracy. This may "neutralize" it a bit more. This could be backed up by a separate article on the report, as has been discussed. Such an article could include more coverage and detail of disagreements, and could include discussion of op-ed pieces, columns, etc. and could even dissect the report utilizing published dissenting opinions. This would be quite a job to ensure that something is squeeky-clean balanced, however.--BC_{talk to me} 18:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Brian recommends keeping the section on the "Race and ethnic relations," tweaking it and re-naming it. If we were to do that, what would be a good heading? Sunray (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

What if we created a section titled "current events" (or similar), then included several other important issues on campus? It solves the problem of weight and adds another (applicable) dimension to the article. 6mat1 (talk) 14:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

What other issues would you want to include? Sunray (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Remove Reference Links to Queens.ca?

A lot of the citations and references link to the Queens website. This seems like a dubious and inappropriate source--should they be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbarefoot (talk • contribs) 00:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Dbarefoot, the policy/guideline that would apply here is WP:SELFPUB, which states the following:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;

2. it does not involve claims about third parties;

3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

I think that points #2 through #4 are satisfied, which leaves points #1 and #5. So long as the links to Queen’s websites are to stated facts about the institution and not promotional, then #1 would appear to be satisfied. Finally, as regards #5, is this article based primarily on Queen’s itself as a source? To me, that’s a tough one since, naturally as regards an educational institution, the institution is the best place from which to derive information such as enrollment, class sizes, student-faculty ratios, educational philosophies, institutional history, etc. So, if Queen’s is the primary source for most of that information, then the consensus should be to relax #5 in such an article, especially as, in this case, it seems to dovetail with #1. — SpikeToronto 02:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I guess my feeling is that a lot of the facts are unduly self-serving. Case in point: "The average entrance grade for 2007 was 88.3%, the second highest in Canada". Also, the first paragraph under "Students and faculty" is extremely flattering. In fact, the whole article is rife with peacock terms. I'll work on cleaning those up, but I still think a number of the facts stand out as pretty self-serving. Opinions? Dbarefoot (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A fact is a fact is a fact. That fact that the fact may also be self-serving may, in many cases, be mere coincidence. It is a fact that the average entrance grade for 2007 is 88.3%. That is a fact that should be acceptable, even if it is provided by the institution. After all, who else but it would be able to provide that since it is the one in possession of all the data. I agree that the statement that it is the second highest in Canada — one wonders which institution had the highest … — would be less self-serving if it came from an independent source, such as Maclean’s annual university ranking guide.

I looked at the “Students and faculty” section and am not entirely sure that there is all that much wrong with it. For instance, I would think that one would find it informative that the Alma Mater Society is the oldest student government in Canada. Such a statement would not appear to be puffery. Although, like you, I agree that an additional, third-party source would be nice and would not be gilding the lilly. My concern, which I think may also be yours, is that some of it reads like its ad copy or promotion, the sort of thing that might draw an {{Advert|section}} tag.

This article is a former featured article (FA) candidate. This is the link to what it looked like at the time of its failed FA candidacy (20:27 December 17, 2006). This is the link to the discussion of its FA candidacy with suggestions for improvement.

A few months later, it was submitted for good article (GA) peer review. This is the link to how it looked at the time of its GA candidacy (13:11 May 7, 2007). This is the link to the GA peer review with suggestions for improvement. (I do not understand why so much of it is struck out. No reasons given in edit history.)

Has it changed dramatically since then? If so, it would be nice to get up up to FA (or at least GA) standards again. This article does see a lot of IP-only traffic at the start if every school year, from friend and foe alike. So, a lot may have happened to it since it was last an FA/GA candidate.

I would like to see the changes you propose made to this article with an aim to helping it achieve good article or featured article status. I do not want to see such changes made merely to achieve the purpose of cutting Queen’s down to size. (Not that I am suggesting in any way that that is your intenetion. I am, as always, assuming good faith.) Thanks for your interest in wanting to improve this wikiarticle! — SpikeToronto 19:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)