From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Ontario, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to Ontario. For guidelines see the project page and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.

London, Ontario has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents 1 distance to toronto? 2 Miscellaneous 3 London as a test market 4 sports teams 5 Bill Brady 5.1 Outside view 5.1.1 Comments 6 Ad-hoc peer-review 7 London Skating Club 8 Disambiguation 9 No such thing as 'hebrew'religion 10 Notable Londoners, Miss Universe 2005 et al. 11 Thames River Art Collective??? 12 Western Fair Slots and the economy of London 13 Trimming the list of notables 14 Peregrine Falcon 15 Demographics 16 London is known for its public elementary and secondary schools 17 Street name similarities and duplications 18 Municipal Wards 19 In French 20 Trimming the list of notables part 2 21 Incorrect link and statement 22 crime

[edit] distance to toronto?

How far is London from Toronto in km? Can you add it to the article?--Sonjaaa 19:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a little less than 200...about 180-190 or so. Is this relevant? Adam Bishop 20:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps when the second paragraph of the article notes that London is the halfway point between Detriot and Toronto...BTW--by Highway 401 interchanges, which do not pass the centre of either cities, we're looking at KM 186 for the Wellington Road/Exeter Road exit, and 369 at Yonge Street in Toronto; although, Greyhound uses Hamilton Road to/from Highbury (on most trips) in London, and 427 and Gardiner Expressway into Toronto.... Bacl-presby 18:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellaneous

Hi, buddy, please sign on using a username. Good to see someone representing London Ontario in wikipedia. Any news of political activism from that area?

四人帮万岁 毛主席万岁

• Notwithstanding the response below, there's been plenty of political activism in London, Ontario, over the years. I've personally organized half-a-dozen protests over the years on a variety of causes. Barry Wells 22:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

From London? The populace of London must be the most docile in Canada, and that's saying something. What's the deal about signing in with a username, by the way? What benefits does one receive by doing that?

It's not POV that VIA Rail costs more than the bus. The VIA fare to London from Toronto is about 50% more than the bus fare. That is a substantial difference and it seems fair to me to say that that may drive passengers to the bus for a two-hour trip. I'll leave it to others to decide whether the comment should go back, though. And although VIA's reliability is a laughingstock round the world, I'll look for some public evidence of the public's disdain for it. Jfitzg

I changed my mind. Whether it's POV or not, it's unnecessary. Jfitzg

I may be able to dispell some myths about VIA vs. Greyhound because I use either one every weekend. But I don't know the full story, because I pay student fares! Here's the deal for me: $11.?? for Greyhoud from Kitchener to London. $11 for VIA from Kitchener to London WITH a 6-pack (it's called a student GO-pack). So if you don't get the GO-pack, VIA is more, and it might be 50% more, Jfitzg, so you're probably right there. I suspect this is like adult fares as well, 50% more. I don't know if 6-pack are available for adults. The tardiness of the trains is a problem, however, curiously it is only in one direction. From Kitchener to London, it is 15-45 minutes late for me to arrive because it sometimes has to wait will a different train passes it. From London to Kitchener it is usually on time and it is on an EXTREMELY comfortable Amtrak train which has TONS of leg room, and comes up from Detroit I think. I took the train exclusively for a long time, but I had to walk from the city bus stop to the train, whereas Greyhound left directly from the city bus stop. And it does arrive about 15 minutes earlier. But as a whole, for someone going from London to a further distance, like Toronto or Ottawa, I'm not sure which one is better, and I don't think it would be much different. I took the train to Ottawa once, and seemed a bit faster. Although that would depend on which train as well, since they do have some faster ones now. Anyways, enough of my rant.

It is appropriate to quote the prices and some statistic about tardiness in the encyclopedia article, but it's not appropriate to give personal opinions, or present a stereotypical view about something. It's been a while since I read the wikipedia policy, but whatever... dave 02:39 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Kitchener does not seem to me to get good intercity bus service. Lots of local stops and diversions. The last time I checked the train fare from Toronto to London it was over $90 return; the bus at the time was less than $65. It's $65 now. I travel the route a lot so it makes a big difference to me. VIA Rail is starved for cash. They have no replacement stock, so their service pretty well has to be bad. Jfitzg

Toronto-London VIA economy return is $96.30. Bus is $65.70 (both with tax). Difference of 46%. The VIA fare is Friday-Sunday. Both have cheaper fares, but Friday and Sunday are the most heavily travelled days.

In terms of London-Montreal, VIA economy return is around $225, whereas Greyhound is around $250. VIA is cheaper for longer distances. Regardless, these matters should be discussed on Wikitravel: London (Ontario) -- Robojames

Looking at the list, "Arts and Culture" might be a better heading than "Sports and Recreation" since it is a big enough umbrella to cover sports & recreation, and the list seems heavy with museums, theatres etc.
Moss Hart

That makes sense...are you from London, by the way? If so, there seems to be a lot of London/western Ontario people around here :) Adam Bishop 00:43 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I am indeed from London (Ontario as we must continually add!) I will make the change.
Moss Hart

Jfitzg: is it really all that inappropriate to include crops? I guess they would fit better on the Western Ontario page, although there is still a bit of farmland within the city (I can often smell manure from my house :)). Also, the surrounding cropland does affect the city, since there are lots of people who take jobs picking crops in the summer (well...maybe just students picking tobacco...). Adam Bishop 00:45, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's inappropriate, but I'm leaning that way. I think they're mentioned in Western Ontario. If you think they should be put back in, I won't revert the article.

Perhaps you can confirm or disconfirm something for me. Since you are a recent Western grad I guess it's likely you don't remember the tobacco harvests of the 60s, when people came from all over North America. That really was a major source of employment for Londoners. I've been told that most of the picking now is done by poor Mexicans who are imported for the duration of the harvest and paid considerably less than used to be paid -- a strange thing for all those anti-tobacco governments to allow. But perhaps I've been misinformed.

I was out in the Western Ontario countryside last weekend and it's looking lush. Jfitzg

Yeah, I wasn't born in the 60s, and I didn't even move to London until the 90s :) I don't know about Mexican workers, but when I was in high school I remember some students having summer jobs picking tobacco, and there was some discussion about whether or not they should be allowed to miss the first few weeks of school in September. But I really don't recall what the situation is now...and since the crops on the Western Ontario page, it's fine that way. Adam Bishop 21:52, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Could we get some articles started about London neighbourhoods? Other cities seem to have such pages!

[edit] London as a test market

I've noticed some back-and-forth with describing London as a "test market". While it is true that London, along with many other similar medium-sized cities, is popular for test-marketing new products (I remember Macdonalds testing its pizza there back in the early 1980s), I don't think that information is especially noteworthy -- we could add the same thing to many, many other city articles. I recommend removing it. Dpm64 12:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As far as I understand it is notable in Canada (or at least Ontario) for being a test market, but it's not that important I guess. I thought you were disputing whether it was factual, sorry :) Adam Bishop 17:35, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I made sure to remove the line, mainly because someone vandalized it saying London was a testing ground for Viagra--Will2k 17:49, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

• London had the first Canadian McDonalds restaurant. Located at the interesection of Wonderland Rd. and Oxford St. it opened in 1969. Hamster Sandwich 06:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] sports teams

I dont know about other city aticles, but might it make sense to at least reference to the University sports teams? I know Western has some pretty good teams. This may just be standard not to include throught wikipedia, but oh well, just my thoughts. say1988 17:55, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Well, they are sort of mentioned under the Sports section at the moment. Logically, it points to the university article, where that information would be more relevant. Adam Bishop 17:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea how I could have missed that. sorry for wasting anybody's timesay1988

[edit] Bill Brady

Someone just removed Bill Brady from the "Notable Londoners" section saying he's not notable. Not True! He's actually notable for myriad reasons,as shown here [1] . I didn't make his entry here, but hopefully someone else will follow this link and restore him in the appropriate section. Actually I changed my mind, I just read the link again and decided to make the re-addition myself. See ya 'round the wiki! Hamster Sandwich 20:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Bill Brady is removed because by no objective measure is he notable. This is not about him having a well rounded life, that is all good and fine, however there is nothing of significance about him or his career. He is not well known and from the point of view of an encyclopedia there is a reason for not including him on those grounds. I think if you were honest by the standards of saying Bill Brady is notable there would be hundreds more that qualify for inclusion in this category. I'm not disputing that he's a good person, but he has not had any impact outside of London, and is only known within London, by a few because they were around while his broadcast was on or have read his column in the LFP. Many many Canadian's have received the order of Canada, often it merely recognizes a life well lived, but that is not sufficient grounds for inclusion as notable in an encyclopedia. Please Hamster Sandwich I plead of you remove your London bias on this and consider it from the point of view of a global interactive encyclopedia, how significant really is Bill Brady? He's not, he's pretty insignificant and therefore should be left off of a list that includes Suzuki, Banting etc. unknown contributor 17:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Well have you read any biographical material on the man? Not only is he an Order of Canada recipient (canadas highest civilian honor), and a member of the Canadian Broadcast Hall of Fame, he had the first call in talk show in the country. That in itself should secure his notabilty. I think you should do a little research before you dismiss him. There are a lot of entries in this wiki of people who are not globally important. The point of an entry here in notable Londoners is that it is about London, not the world. Does Brady deserve his own separate stand alone entry here in Wikipedia? Probably not but if someone wrote one, I probably wouldn't tag it for VfD either. Wikipedia is not paper. So thats my reasoning for his inclusion. I think I've addressed all of your arguements from the statement you made above. Feel free to continue this corespondence in this space. Hamster Sandwich 17:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Good point, Hamster Sandwich. It is not troublesome to create a short entry on an individual under his own community. I could understand the other individual's opinions if there was an entry on Bill Brady separate from London. Bill Brady is notable, and not just the city, but the whole CFPL broadcast area; his first "Breakfast with Brady" was in Clandeboye near Lucan, some 10 miles out of the city. Brady was long associated with the Open Line, with Bunny Bundle, and continued to host talk programs for many years, staying on the air when blizzards tied up the city, tirelessly talking on the phone and taking cancellation notices. Um, what rank does Bill Brady hold in the Order of Canada? Member, Officer or Companion? I'd hope he's at least an Officer. GBC 02:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Look it would be great if he was more than he is, but he is not, he has led a decent life, and may be a nice person, I am not disputing that, but he has done nothing of significance. He was one of the first to do call in shows in Canada, but not the first unless you have evidence to the contrary, and he did do broadcasts about school closures but that is not grounds for inclusion as notable. I will continue to remove him because he does not deserve to be listed here, not forever, but for the rest of my life, which I estimate at being the next 60 years. He is a member of the order of canada, the lowest ranking for the order, and that award is given out to a fairly large number of people. A lot of Londoners have had involvement with charity and so forth, if we were being fair many more people would have to be included. Merely because he is a familar voice to some because he was a broadcaster does not make him notable.

I do however remain open minded, if there is something of significance that he has done I am ready to hear what that is.

I don't even know why I'm disagreeing with you about this...but why are you picking on him specifically? Out of all the other people listed here? Adam Bishop 17:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Adam I am a very proud Londoner and think despite the fact London is modest in some respects it has produced surprisingly many varied and impressive people. Therefore on a list of who is notable from London to include people with very weak notability degrades the quality of London notables. Again Brady may be a respectable person but it is wrong to confuse or conflate that with notability.

• Re: Comment of the above anon user who has the agenda of removing Brady's entry, I have provided the proof, I did it when your removal started to go against the concensus here that he should be included. You did follow the link I provided, right? I mean its right there on that page, where it says he had the first radio call in show in Canada. So I have provided evidence. I have further shown that he was a president of the organ transplant service in Canada, Director of the Multi-Organ Retrieval Exchange Program of Ontario, the organizer behind a London centre for juvenile diabetes research and past National Director of the Canadian Heart Foundation. You seem to have an agenda for his removal from this list and quite frankly there are others on that list far less notable than Brady. I won't point them out to you though, because this has taken up too much of my time already. It might be that an RfC is appropriate in this instance, but I will guage the matter after advisement of some of the WP administration. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Hamster Sandwich 18:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

William J. Brady, C.M., LL.D.

Full Name Honour Received City and Prov. or Terr. Brady, William J. C.M. London, Ontario Honour Appointment Investiture C.M. (Member) April 19, 1991 October 30, 1991

Founding President of Transplant International (Canada), this London broadcasting executive is largely responsible for educating the public in the field of organ retrieval and is a spokesman for organ retrieval programmes across Canada and in many other countries. He is also a Director of the Multi-Organ Retrieval Exchange Program of Ontario, the organizer behind a London centre for juvenile diabetes research and past National Director of the Canadian Heart Foundation.

For your consideration. Hamster Sandwich 03:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Hamster Sandwich you are welcome for the consideration. However you are not reading carefully at least with that one page you cite that refers to Brady, it says he was an early "innovator," and "developed" it, that is not the same as the first. In fact there is a critical difference. I'm not sure what RfC refers to but I will interpret it as an extremely hostile act and accordingly dig in for the Brady battle.

If there has to be some middle ground I would like a warning label over the entry for Brady noting that his inclusion is controversial as he is not worth including. I don't think you can cite the "consensus" as being representative of more than yourself and two other users who are by no means the final arbiters of whether Brady is worthy of inclusion. He is not.

Moreover if you think that there are other unworthy people listed as notable then they should also be removed, but I know Brady should be so that's why I will remove him, and continue to do so until I die

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. Here is a tip: don't say you will "revert until you die". There is always a better way, don't be idiotic. Now, clearly this guy is on the border of notability; I don't know what the solution is, but whatever it is, the current war is stupid and we will all stop reverting each other. Adam Bishop 21:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• An RfC is a Request for comment. Its not a hostile act as it gives the Wikipedia community an opportunity to comment on the behaviour of particular users or situations. Your last statement proves that you are pushing a personal point of view concerning this entry and this is unacceptable by community standards. Thus the request for RfC. A warning label over the entry for your own personal reason seems on the surface to be a completely unresonable and ridiculous demand. The proof has been provided that he has achieved a certain modicum of notability. Further your challenge that you will continue to remove this material seems to me to be overtly hostile. I suggest you get over your personal bias against Brady and move on to more productive editing. Also I would suggest that if you are going to be a long term contributer to the Wikipedia project that you establish a User account. This makes dialogue between yourself and other wikipedia users possible and also holds you to certain level of accountability and credibility for your edits and actions herein. Food for thought perhaps. I would hate to see this page protected against further editing merely because of one user pushing point of view concerning the removal of a clearly credible addition to this article. Hamster Sandwich 21:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Your statement that the addition of Brady is "clearly credible" is incorrect. If it was so there would be no dispute over his inclusion. Unless you provide compelling evidence, which you have failed to do so to this point, I strongly disagree with his inclusion. Having some modicum of notability, which he may or may not have, is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being listed as notable. He does not meet the threshold, and to include him does a disservice to others that really are worthy of being listed as notable.

[edit] Outside view

If I might offer an outside view on this? I'd like to offer a message to the anonymous editor first. You evidently interpret hostility in the situation. From reading this talk page, I do not see hostility from other editors — you have attracted some irritation certainly, but much of that would no doubt vanish if you were to consider a more conciliatory approach. Suggesting that you will fight to the death (almost literally) is hardly likely to help things out. On a more procedural note, I'd remind all involved not to revert a page more than 3 times in 24 hours, per the three-revert rule. Note that this applies to a person not an IP address, and editors are expected to adhere to the spirit as well as the letter of the rule. It would be a pity if it came to placing blocks on users over such a minor issue. Thus, I would not expect the anonymous editor to revert again until at least 24 hours after your most recent edit, which is already your 4th revert.

The anonymous editor's last comment is intriguing: what would be a sufficient condition? Also, since the list can be expanded at will, I wonder what the disservice a possible inclusion does to others is?

I think this, fundamentally, is a fairly minor issue. We are only talking about a name next to a bullet point in one sentence of one section of the article. I also think that it is a binary one since there is no precedent for including someone's name in an article and saying "shouldn't really be here" — it would certainly ruin any chance of making this a Wikipedia:Featured article.

It is worth remembering that the standards for notability are usually set rather lower for a simple mention in an article than they are for a standalone article. We include mentions for all kinds of random cartoon and movie characters in their articles, but, where an article on such a character is created, there is usually a consensus to merge it back into the original article. For a more human example, CEOs of companies are often simply mentioned in the company's article unless they have some independent notability. Also, of course, we have tens of thousands of articles on people who are (in my personal opinion) of really rather little interest but have done something that means they are not completely 'ordinary'.

However, I note that Hamster Sandwich's reference above says "A native of Windsor, Ontario..." and calls London, Ontario "...the site of an earlier conquest." This is cause for concern — does he, or has he had, a significant attachment to London, Ontario while collecting his achievements? Has he spent a significant period of his life there? He's been there since 1983, but how long did he stay? Why does he come to be associated with London rather than Windsor?

On the presumption that we can discuss his (non-)inclusion with respect to either or both articles, I would observe the following:

This particular person (in no particular order):

1. Is a Member of the Order of Canada — the junior rank in the Order;
2. Is (or has been) a Director of the Multi-Organ Retrieval Exchange Program of Ontario;
3. Is a past National Director of the Canadian Heart Foundation;
4. Has served as a president of the Central Canada Broadcasters Association;
5. Has served as a chairman of the board of University Hospital and London Health Association;
6. Has been CFPL-Radio general manager;
7. Has a collection of less important involvements.

#1 is troublesome: it is not something that the majority of people have, but an approximate equivalent in the UK (the MBE, Member of the Order of the British Empire) is handed out to a variety of people that I do not think warrant either articles or mentions in articles. #7 is not useful here: very many people collect minor engagements without collecting any notability for them.

#2 – #6, however, are activities that provide for the individual having held positions of considerable responsibility in organisations known by and affecting many people. Objectively and hypothetically speaking, if an article were written on Bill Brady, and it were taken to Votes for Deletion, I would expect it to be kept by near-unanimous vote. It would not be unanimous I am sure, and I imagine the anonymous editor in particular would vote strongly to delete the article, but I am certain that it would still be retained. Given that I would expect an article to survive, it is entirely reasonable to expect a mention in the relevant geographical article.

If there is a good answer to the "However" paragraph, then Bill Brady should have a mention here. If there is not a good answer to the above, he should probably get a mention in London, Ontario instead.

If people simply cannot agree to that at all, then perhaps in experiment is in order (without wanting to make a WP:POINT). Someone write a decent article on Bill Brady, someone else take it to VfD and see if it survives. If he does, he gets a mention, if he doesn't, he doesn't get a mention. That sets the bar rather higher than the usual level for a simple mention in article, and should be a rigorous enough process to satisfy both sides. I would urge the avoidance of experimental inclusion if at all possible, however, since it will lead to further heartache over what should or should not be in the test article. -Splash 00:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

we are living on different planets if #6 is notable. If that merits notability and there is any consistency here then I think all CFPL-Radio managers should be listed. That I think would lead to an absurd result and therefore discount #6 has having any objective notability whatsoever. As for the other posts, often people can sit on boards but that is entirely different than contributing. The mere fact he has held some potentially figurehead only positions says nothing of what he actually contributed or accomplished. Provide evidence of his direction or creativity as responsible for something unique and I'm all ears, otherwise he has not provided any function that merits the label notable.

You make a good point about #6, and generally I would vote to delete an article if that were the persons only 'claim' to 'fame'. You make other good points about 'figurehead' positions; these sorts of opinions would make for an interesting debate over at VFD (you should get an account and call by; I think you'll be horrified at the kind of stuff that goes through there). Nevertheless, from experience, I would still think that the article would be kept for at least most of the reasons in the list: Wikipedia is, at its heart, quite an inclusionist place.

Since we're only talking about a passing reference in a bullet point in a list in one part of a much longer article, I don't think it's much of a problem to include or to exclude; given that I hypothesise (quite strongly) that the hypothetical article would be kept, we can probably stretch to a bulleted mention. No? -Splash 01:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Splash I’m glad you agree that there are good reasons to not include Brady. I am all for inclusiveness but not to the extent that it degrades the quality of the main article. Including Brady and his lack of accomplishing or being anything significant places London Ontario below where it rightfully should be, and that matters to me. I don’t think the onus should lie on why someone should be excluded but rather why they should be included in the first place, and to date I have not heard anything convincing about why he should be listed as notable. Furthermore you mention that there are far more egregious inclusions in Wikipedia that are in the process of being deleted. That’s too bad that people put so many extraneous entries on here and its great that there are those such as yourself that are committed to cutting those out and making an excellent and comprehensive public resource, but that doesn’t make it any more legitimate to include Brady in fact I think it militates in favour of leaving him off until he does or is part of something significant. And to answer your question directly: at this point he has not done anything that warrants including his name under notable Londoners.

A Londoner who is a member of the Order of Canada is pretty notable, it seems the University of Western Ontario felt he was notable enough to be bestowed with an honourary degree, and I'm sure the amount of influence he had on London media was notable (though it may seem transparent). I fail to see any reason to consider him not notable enough to be considered a notable Londoner. I believe his name should be included in the list. --Will2k 19:22, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

One chief reason would be that the world and specifically London would not be any different had Bill Brady never existed. Brady was involved with media, but his style or substance of what he contributed was nothing more than generic. Any schmo could have filled his place and it wouldn't have made a difference, that is the hard truth, and that is why he shouldn't be included. Western may have at the time had a derth of people to give awards to so they gave an honorary degree to a good local citizen. I find your reasoning specious that because he has recieved 2 honors that qualifies him as notable. There are 20 Londoners that have received the Order of Canada, 13 share the lowest designation with Brady only one of which is listed as notbale, but the other 7 have acheived higher status, and yet none of them are on the notable list. The list of notbales should be determined on merit not on proxy indicators that may not mean the same thing as notable.

You are welcome to add those people to the list. And now that Brady actually has an article, as unnecessary as it may be, you have no justification for removing him from the list. Adam Bishop 15:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Adam I respectfully disagree with you wholeheartedly on this matter, I think the fact that he is mentioned somewhere else obviates the need for his name to be listed under notable Londoners, the inclusion of which sullies and denigrates the notableness of the others listed. Please address my arguments, one of which is that qualifying for the order of canada is not synonymous with being a notable Londoner. In your mind it is maybe but not necessarily to me and I would like an explanation as to why you think so. To cut to the chase, something convincing needs to be said as to why Brady should be added or I will continue to remove him, until I am no longer physically able to do so.

He's got an article now, and he's from London, therefore he will be included in the list. It's pretty simple now. I don't think he needs an article and I don't think he needs to be on the list, but he has one, and so he is here. Are you Bill Brady and you are trying to be humble or something? I don't understand this completely irrational aversion...and I don't really care either, you are wrong, and you cannot win this battle. I suggest you move on to the Bill Brady article itself if you want to effect a change of some sort. Adam Bishop 16:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Talk about obtuse rhetoric! You've come down to my level, but this is a game you don't usually play, I assure you of that Adam Bishop, and contrary to your bold statements: YOU WILL LOSE. If you really don't care, why not let it go? I think you have an irrational affinity for Brady that is not merited by the facts. I think that you should make a convincing case for why Brady should be included if you really believe he should be included, but to be fair that simply may not be possible because what has been mentioned to date does not justify including him. He is probably a good person, but that is not the same as notable. Convince me otherwise or he will continue to get removed. Is this significant enough to devote time every day to defending Bill Brady's inclusion on this entry when he doesn't deserve to be included? You will lose this war of attrition, because for me I definitely think its worth it. Recognize this situation Adam: it’s analogous to you being a soft American GI who thinks Betty Crocker is what you deserve to eat, whereas I am like the Viet Cong and I can subsist off of rice and grass, a little rat meat is like a feast for me. In light of that think about how much longer you want to persist with this misplaced defence of Brady being on a list he does not deserve to be on.

Odd to see such passion regarding something so trivial. You may present some truth, but then your reasoning could apply to other individuals on the list, yet you make no mention of them. Why is Bill Brady on Wikipedia such an issue for you? Sounds like someone else might have an "irrational affinity" with Bill Brady. Unfortunately, you will have to realize that wikipedia is driven by popular opinion and not the percieved truth of one individual. You are free to believe that he should not be included here, but you will have to learn to accept it. I also recommend being cautious with your language. Anonymous users who do not follow Wikipedia procedure for disagreement and who make bold statements against users in good standings such as "obtuse rhetoric", "YOU WILL LOSE", or "irrational affinity" is an easy target for blocking. If you want to get him removed, I recommend you register and put up a vote for deletion on the Bill Brady page. If that passes and does get deleted, we can certainly come back to this discussion. Until then, please do not hinder the development procedure. It is hard to get the article to Featured Article status when the page is locked. (Let me also note that it is a slap in the face of all Wikipedians who work hard to resolve disputes properly to just edit the article in direct defiance of the talk page discussion.)--Will2k 03:06, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I don't object to him having his own entry, on the contrary I see that as a solution. Now that he has his own page maybe HS will relent and permit his name to be dropped from the notbale Londoners list, that way he still gets his place on wikipedia but doesn't simultaneously sully the list of notables. Obviously this isn't a trivial issue because if it was you think either side would relent. I'm mostly not serious with the oh so "bold" language but I do strongly object to his inclusion, (you even acknowledge that I might be right), but I will be dogged in my pursuit of justice in this matter. Wikipedia, and London's entry specifically, will be strenghtened for not having Brady on the list of notable Londoners. In response to your point: 'you're right but then why not go after less notables that are listed,' I'm all for that, I didn't see anyone that stuck out as much as Brady and therefore object to him, but this is not to say others couldn't be removed, I wouldn't oppose that if good arguments were made. However for the moment I see Brady's name on the list as a significant mistake and will remove it accordingly.

However for the moment I see Brady's name on the list as a significant mistake and will remove it accordingly. I will comment no further on the matter except to say that this is the biggest problem of all. Say whatever you like but you are the only one who clearly argues in favour of removing it. In accordance with wikipedia policy, this is to be removed only after a consensus has been agreed upon by all participants. You are NOT to remove the entry because YOU think it's the right move. You are to remove the entry ONLY if WE think it's the right move. Since consensus is to leave his name up there, it will stay up there.--Will2k 04:34, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Wil I take that to mean that in your opinion majority rules no matter what. Therefore if get enough contributors to support the Brady stays off the list then you will agree he stays off correct?

<carriage return>

The anonymous editor has suggested on my talk page a compromise: since Brady has his own article, his entry should now be removed from the list in this article, and, in exchange, the Bill Brady article will be "free from interference or deletion". My personal opinion is that this is unlikely to be a good compromise rout. Two main reasons: 1)it effectively holds the Bill Brady article to ransom: a ransom that is easily dealt with if executed and 2)having an article makes a stronger case for keeping the name in the list. Nevertheless, I would ask the editors here to consider the suggestion for themselves. -Splash 13:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Entirely agree. A poor compromise. Since an obvious agreement is to keep the name in the list, there should be no change whatsoever to what is currently in place.--Will2k 17:26, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with anon user, Brady is unworthy of being listed. -terminousbandage 01:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

You agree with yourself don't you.--Will2k 18:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Easy there. My talk page indicates that the anon has now registered an account. In fact, it would seem to be the account below, which has a name that could be be improved. I've suggested s/he stick to the terminousbandage account. -Splash 21:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I also agree Brady should be removed.--Consensusbuilder 19:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The remarks below are a copy from those that appear on hamster sandwich's page: Hammy, I appreciate your toned down rhetoric, mildly condescending as it may be. I convinced terminousbandage to sign up to oppose the Bill Brady inclusion. I appreciate your efforts in trying to improve wikipedia and agree it is very terrific. However on this matter I think it is a mistake to include Bill Brady. I think maybe because you are well intentioned and know Brady to be a good man, you are incapable of seeing why he does not deserve to be included. By virtue of his profession as a broadcaster and columnist he has a degree of name recognition within London, but that is wholly different than being notable. To achieve notableness he must be responsible for some significant work or achievement that to date he has not been responsible for. A hodge-podge of involvement, while making him a good citizen, does not qualify as notable. As AB brings up, why not Jim Chapman if Brady?

To anticipate you might say that Brady was recognized by the Order of Canada. However the Order of Canada is not synonymous with being notable, which by the way is borne out by the fact that fully only 1/10 to 1/20 of London recipients are notable (1/10 or 1/20 depending on the inclusion of Brady)

Furthermore I have questioned the import of the organizations you cite Brady being involved with as responsible for or contributing to his notableness. For example: Transplant International. I checked and found this group to have never been incorporated (let me know if you don't understand the significance of not being incorporated). The name to my mind is only a name until there is some evidence of it actually doing something and if Brady is to get credit towards notableness for this and other involvement he must have been responsible in some way for what, if anything, the group has done.

All that said, I think what you have done in soliciting other users to support your position and slanting the issue your way when you solicit their support creates a highly artificial consensus. I think a consensus should be determined by those that are independently interested in the London page. Be that as it may I ask you, if I am able to convince more WP users to support my position will you agree to drop Brady from the list? .--Consensusbuilder 08:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

All that said, I think what you have done in soliciting other users to support your position and slanting the issue your way when you solicit their support creates a highly artificial consensus. I mentioned it on my talk page and will mention it here that is terribly unfair to myself and especially to Hamster Sandwich to suggest that asking others to offer their opinion in what was a one on one discussion was done with the sole purpose of supporting his point and to degrade yours. Read the messages HS left for us again. He asked for more participants to the discussion because it was his word against yours. It's very difficult to formulate a consensus when exactly two individuals are involved in the argument so asked for more to put in their personal opinion. Again, I resent the implication that my opinion was not really mine but the result of being suckered into accepting HS's opinion. I stand by my position and while you have presented valid points, they do not warrant non-notability (if that's a word) and I have not been convinced otherwise. Further, your "die hard" attitude towards the whole issue has led me to believe this is more of a personal issue for you rather than in the best interest of Wikipedia and thus am less inclined to agree with your position. Let me also mention that the fact that an organization is not incorporated by no means calls into account their credibility. Incorporation is not for everyone and many organizations choose not to become incorporated. There are credible organizations who are not yet incorporated.--Will2k 20:13, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

At no point did I say your opinion was not your own, but allow me to cite some of what Hamster has said in solicting support for his view:

-to Adam Bishop he said: that I was "deleting his [Brady's] entry [name on list] for spite" -to Splash he said in appealing for help: "His reasoning for doing so [removing Brady] is very weak" -to Splash "They have offered no real explaination for his actions other than the personal opinion that Brady might be a nice person etc etc. but not notable" -ingratiating himself with Splash: "Theres three or four admins that I seem to be learning the most from, and you have consistantly been one of the best." -that I am "a coward. (grumble,bitch, moan...)"

Will2k, please keep an open mind. Humans can be biased based on the information they receive. For example do you want a "tax increase" or a "tax adjustment"? How information is presented and framed affects how we view it. That is a tautology. The above comments hamster has made are not by any stretch a fair characterization of what has gone on. He has ascribed my motivation to "spite", that my reasons are "weak", or that I don't have any, and associated "bitch" and "coward" with me. Additionally he made obseqious comments to virtually all of those he approached. Now all that said...

I encouraged a fellow Londoner to sign up the other day under the name terminousbandage, explaining the situation at least as fairly as hamster has, they signed up, and I don't get why their opinion is less valid or discountable than anyone else's. Furthermore, I have the ability to sign up more Londoners to weigh in on this, and I'd like to know from you if you will agree that numerically if that happens you will agree consensus rules. In truth this list of notables is too expansive and there are other people that should be removed to strengthen the entry. I am open to removing others but Brady is where I draw the line. My London Ontario does not include Brady as notable. Let me know if majority really rules in your opinion, because if it does I will obtain said majority and this matter will be closed and the article can go forward to be a FA. -Consensusbuilder

Will2k could you please cite some examples of significant international organizations or even national ones that are not incorporated as charitable or non-profit organizations?Consensusbuilder 16:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

No because no good examples exist and it contributes nothing to the discussion. The point is, just because an organization isn't incorporated doesn't mean you should attach a stigma to it. An organization can be a sole-proprietorship or partnership and still be considered a fine organization.--Will2k 16:43, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

The tussle here is ridiculous, even infantile. Earlier in this matter, I was tempted to think that the individual who wanted Brady out had been personally felt "snubbed" by Brady. I don't expect that is the case. My view is this: 1 - Brady's a known public figure in London and area, my brother, mother and uncle are not (and I'm not going to add them); 2 - inclusion of Brady isn't going to do grievous harm. Since he is a known public figure, can those who prefer removal please state the harm that will be done by including a known public figure? GBC 19:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

That is a fair question: why not keep him on since he is a known public figure? The answer is that he is not notable and his presense on the list degrades the quality of Londoners that are notable. Let me elaborate to be clear, if Brady is allowed on the list that effectively means that in London you count as notable if you discover insulin and save millions of lives - or - if you have been a broadcaster that has done some volunteer work who is not known outside of London and known by only some inside London. The problem is that it sets the threshold so low it makes it seem like London is less than the city it is. He may be known to some (but most of my friends, that have lived in London their entire lives, have never heard of him) but being well known is not the same as being notable. For example the mayor may be well known but that does not make them notable. In Christian language: humans are not gods and we should be careful who we elevate to the status of notable (ie. cautious of false idols). -Consensusbuilder

How many people living in London are aware that actor Hume Cronyn hailed from London? If few know, does that mean Hume Cronyn is not a notable actor and notable Londoner? How many people remember that Guy Lombardo is from London, even if a bridge is named after him? The fact that contemporaries don't know of Brady doesn't invalidate the man, and Brady did his work in London, while Hume Cronyn did his work in Hollywood. GBC 20:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• At this point in the discussion, I feel the only recourse to have anything like closure on this issue is an to have an RfC regarding content. The debate has become interminable, and frankly ridiculous. Solid proof has been provided that Brady is a notable Londoner. The arguement that Concensusbuilder offers is that his friends and family don't know who Brady is. I think he should take this defence to RfC and see if that holds water (so to speak) with the WP editing community at large. This is my opinion, and of course I welcome input from other editors regarding the idea.

Hamster Sandwich 15:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Would definately like to see the matter resolved clearly and concisely.--Will2k 15:30, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

As someone who has just read all of this debate, I have to say that Bill Brady is definitely not up there with the ranks of Banting or Suzuki. Bill Brady is an intelligent and innovative person who has done a lot of notable work with charities. In that case, why don't we just add Alan Thicke to the list of whatever Ontario town he is from because he is an actor that has done some notable work on a sitcom and also with charities? People should stop taking the debates personally and look at the issue objectively. UNBIASED READER

Someone already beat you to it - Kirkland Lake, Ontario has Thicke and several other people listed (Thicke is also listed as an alumnus on the UWO page). Adam Bishop 01:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

<prods the talk page> Do people think we can unprotect this now? It's been a considerable while. I'm hoping that, even if User:Consensusbuilder would prefer not to have The Brady Bullet, he might have relented on his determination to revert it indefinitely. Is that the case, Consensusbuilder? Can we go back to trying to take this to a featured article? -Splash 01:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I hope we can...discussion seems to have died here and at Talk:Bill Brady. Adam Bishop 03:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Hopefully the page won't be the scene of another edit war. Hamster Sandwich 04:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with the inclusion of Bill Brady, a London broadcaster with approximately 50 years under his belt, philanthropist, MC, Order of Canada recipient, member of the Canadian Broadcasting Hall of Fame, TV personality (Act Fast) etc. etc. but I do question the inclusion of * Natalie Glebova, 2005 Miss Universe, as it is my understanding that she's from Toronto. Deleting Paul McKeevor, Freedom Party politican who's never been elected (less than 2 per cent of vote) was also a good idea. Barry Wells Barry Wells 19:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, mention has been made that Mr. Brady has only been a fixture in LOndon since 1983 -- try the mid to late 1950s. Barry Wells 20:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

A Member of the Order of Canada is always notable enough for a Wikipedia article, by virtue of being a Member of the Order of Canada. There are no exceptions. Bearcat 00:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ad-hoc peer-review

While reading the article, I spotted a few things that ought perhaps to be fixed before going to WP:FAC. I should {{sofixit}}, but I thought I'd leave to the present editors. Overall I think this is a good article. Things that might want fixing include:

• The lead-in — the article doesn't justify the claim "..a leader in education, health care, tourism, and economic prosperity."
• In #Geography : can you provide a reference for the weather/seasonal claims, or a comparative Wikipedia article or something?
• In #Racial make-up
  1. What exactly is meant by "racial makeup" in the first sentence: immigration, or descent, or both?
  2. "the population is predominantly Christian" — is that the whole population or only those expressing a religion? Same question applies to the raw percentages.
  3. The section generally needs refactoring a bit. It goes from origins to religions, to origins to religions.
• #Crime asserts many facts but does not give a reference for any of them. The bit about EoA is ok, since that's a local phenomenon, but the other claims do need some backing. This is particularly true of the final sentence in the section!
• #Arts and culture:
  1. To which geography's tourism does it provide a boost?
  2. What's a rib festival?
  3. The X-Prize team bullet needs cutting down to the facts.
• #Notable Londoners needs the first sentence excising as POV. The list should also be checked carefully to make sure that each entry has some clear attachment to London, Ontario. I'm not saying there are some that don't, but it's worth checking, independently of the Bill Brady discussion.
• I personally am not a fan of external links, and would suggest a consideration of whether each entry in the list adds something of encyclopedic interest to the article or serves to provide references to the article (in particular the 'zines one).

I've decided not to action those myself so that the regular editors can see to what I am referring. -Splash 00:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• I am amienable to all the suggestions you have discussed here. I should mention that my involvement with this article is only the most cursory and minor of edits. I would ask you to look at the previous edit of the religion section, I was just trying to clean up the grammer and clarify the issue somewhat. It should read "The religious community in London..." or "the church going population.." although the latter, is less than satisfactory on many levels. I'll try to get some of the things you've noted taken care of. As for the independant Bill Brady article, how long would you consider that it exists before an inclusion as a bullet in the notable Londoners section of this article could be made. Presuming it survives a VfD (again presuming it would be nominated for VfD). I thank you for the consideration you have given to these issues and the balanced and impartial approach you have taken. Hamster Sandwich 00:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, I noticed your username isn't a major part of the article's history. I did also look at the diff for the religion/ethnicity section (because I was looking to see what you'd done in your edits), and it was certainly better after your edit. My comments above aren't a criticism, they're just a review. I did read the peer-review, but figured that, since there wasn't much in it, I wouldn't be totally out-of-line to offer another one without actually fixing it myself.
  • If it survived a VfD, I would say immediately. If it were not nominated for VfD within a day (new pages patrol is quite efficient), it could be added then. Even without the article, I think a redlink should be allowed to stand. I think, give this discussion another day and then decide what to do. -Splash 01:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Did some editing to meet requests. I wish to argue the following points:

1. Ribfest - A rib festival is common enough to pass on an explanation. See Google
2. I don't see how Notable Londoners lacks NPOV
3. To which geography's tourism does it provide a boost? - ??? To the tourism of London. I don't get this question.

--Will2k 18:24, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

A rib festival is common enough, but this is a pretty big festival, probably the biggest in southwestern Ontario anyway (and I have no idea but I would imagine only something like A Taste of the Danforth in Toronto would be bigger). It is definitely one of the most important annual festivals in London. Adam Bishop 20:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I meant the article doesn't have to describe what a "rib festival" is as suggested by Splash. Not that we should remove "London Ribfest" altogether.--Will2k 04:18, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I guess I just revealed my ignorance of what a rib-festival is! Pity there's not even a bluelink for rib festival; I'm not sure the term is in common use in the UK. Or I could just be spending too much time indoors. Calling Notable Londoners 'POV' was wrong; I meant that it used so-called peacock language. You'll have spotted by now that I did some editing along the lines of my own comments and removed that sort of thing for the most part. I think the section that still needs work is Crime, and the lead-in still needs to have some reason to claim a "strong focus". If you're going for FAC, I would wonder about those lists, too. They might either want pruning heavily or spinning out into separate articles with just the really important entries left behind. -Splash 05:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] London Skating Club

I'd like to see the London Skating Club added to the Sports section of the London, Ontario page. The club is about to begin its 99th season in September. The webpage is www.londonskatingclub.com.

Thank you for your suggestion regarding [[: regarding [[:{{{1}}}]]]]! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.--Will2k 16:34, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

But the page is protected, remember? :) Adam Bishop 17:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah. *grumble*--Will2k 18:02, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

When y'all have worked out your editing dispute, please disambiguate the link in the infobox next to population from metro to metro. Thanks. Al 14:01, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Will do--Will2k 14:56, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Also, please disambiguate "Hebrew" - should link to Judaism in this context. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No such thing as 'hebrew'religion

The correct term is 'jewish'... I thought this was well known... I'm going to try edit it myself but I must warn you that this is a first try for me... dj

[edit] Notable Londoners, Miss Universe 2005 et al.

• Natalie Glebova, 2005 Miss Universe is included as a Notable Londoner, yet her bio says she was born in Russia and moved to Toronto at age 12. Has she ever lived in London? It's my understanding that all media reports referred to her as a Torontonian. I don't think that she belongs on the list but will leave it for a few days for comment. User:Barry Wells, November 13, 2005.
  • Glebova is from Toronto. My best guess would be that she got added here because somebody confused her with Karen Dianne Baldwin, the other Canadian Miss Universe, who was from London. Bearcat 06:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure that Natalie Glebova went to high school in London (at Central). Let me know if you want me to try to find some corroborating evidence. By the way, Barry Wells, if you type ~~~ it will automatically sign your name, and if you add a fourth tilde it will also add a timestamp. There's also a button on top of the text area that signs your name (with an added pseudo-em dash). I forget if you were one of the Sceners whose writing I enjoyed, or vehemently hated... --Daniel11 06:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
      • This was discussed on Talk:Natalie Glebova, and a yearbook image was produced showing that she went to Central. I don't know though, the Free Press never mentioned it at all, and they're usually pretty enthusiastic about anyone with any remote connection to London. Toronto has certainly claimed her, it was on the front page of the Sun for example, if I remember correctly. Adam Bishop 07:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Well, if she went to Central (just like Karen Baldwin), I'll leave it as is, as she probably got swacked on Labatt's beer and did the party thing in Gibbon's Park with the rest of us heathens. The criteria for "Notable Londoners" appears to include living here for a few years. Regarding SCENE, Daniel11, my only hope is that I got your blood coursing thru your veins on occasion. I handled the so-called news section for eight years at the front of the magazine. Thanks for your assistance and comments. Barry Wells 23:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • CFPL News(Now) did a 2-minute story on her; (I believe) she was in London for about 1.5 years wherein she (amongst other things I'm sure) attended Central High School. The story ran the day after she was awarded the Miss Universe crown. This corroboration notwithstanding, I think an 18-month stint in a town hardly qualifies you as a famous person OF that town. I think we're guilty of overreaching in claiming her as one of our own. That being said, let me launch into the actual reason I came here...

• Julian Fantino came from Toronto to be the Chief of Police here in London. His coming to London (and his stay here) was purely for career purposes as he used this as a stepping stone on the road to becoming C.o.P. in Toronto (where, I believe, he lives to this day). This hardly makes him a notable Londoner; it barely makes him a notable person for Londoners! (it may make him a notable Torontonian but that's not the same thing at all!). IMHO the time and things he did here warrants a line(or two) on his resume, but not an entry in this category. Mr Wells point above about the dilution of this list seems to be a softly-worded acknowledgment of my point, which is that the "Notable Londoners" category is becoming more and more a "List Of (In)Famous People Who've Been-Near/Passed-Through/Heard-Of London" than an actual account of people born (or having substantively lived) in, or contributed-to, the City and/or People of London, Ontario. My feeling is that this result is directly attributable to a slide down the slippery slope that we fell upon after the Bill Brady battle. Nevertheless, Bill at least came from here and had his greatest notoriety during the time he spent here; demonstrating a combination of traits that are shared by surprisingly few of the other names since added to the list. Now, before I re-ignite the bonfires of last summer, please be aware that I am not saying whether or not Bill should be on the list >> that battle has already been waged and decided. What I am saying, however, is that the decision to allow someone of such nebulous "notability" to be listed has thrown wide the floodgates for the addition of others with similiarly little or, as has become the case, eggregiously less, reason to appear (as with, but not limited to, the two examples previously mentioned). This list is certainly in danger of becoming (if it isn't already) rediculously overstretched in its scope. I honestly feel that some sort of criteria must be established before this turns into a "7-degrees-of-London" situation.64.201.173.205 15:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • ...too late. 216.240.7.149 02:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • As a jumping-off point, I'd make the following recomendation for minimum criteria for someone to be considered a Notable Londoner.
    Part (a) goes to define being a "Londoner", part (b) goes to define being "Notable" (comments welcomed):
    • (a) Must have been born in London or have lived within the greater London area for a substantial period.
    • (b) Must have made a substantive contribution to society (cultural, scientific, athletic, etc.) whose impact exceeds the greater London area.
      • Living "substantively" means either for a greater portion of their life, or during the period of their lives in which their substantive contribution(s) occured.

I agree with much of what you say, whoever you are, but I must also add that Bill Brady is clearly a notable Londoner for a number of reasons (I know that's a decided debate) -- even if he was born in Windsor. Why not identify the names on the list that you have a problem with and everyone can get to work discussing it? Barry Wells 03:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, after watching the disaster that the Bill Brady "discussion" turned into, I'm not going to start another fight (or, god forbid, whole series of fights) by listing off all the myriad names that I don't agree with. Suffice to say that there's a plethora of names on there that I am SURE are recognizable to an extraordinarily small percentage of people no matter where they're from... (I suspect that in some of those cases, the only person who deems the individual listed as "notable" is whomever posted the name to the list.) At least instituting some standardized criterion would enable moderators to filter the chaff without an appearance of bias. 216.240.7.149 03:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thames River Art Collective???

This paragraph from the Arts and culture section on London, Ontario, is curious given that I've never heard of this organization, nor has anyone else from the local arts' community that I've spoken with (one of the publications I write for is a local arts publication):

"The Thames River Art Collective, known in London as the standout progressive artists collective, was formed in 2005. Drawing from historical artistic themes of the London area, TRAC encorporates multiple artistic forms and mediums to deliver a comprehensive meta-artistic understanding of the city."

Before it's deleted, I thought I'd invite some discussion. Barry Wells 23:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

At the Alex P. Keaton, I have seen some sort of notice about it. But I don't think its significant, more likely this was just somebody's personal ad. Let's delete it.

[edit] Western Fair Slots and the economy of London

Regarding the recent edition of the Western Fair Slots to the "economy" portion of the London, Ontario page, I wish to point out that not everyone feels that video terminals/ slot machines are a major boon to the economy, as they bascially drain the pockets of individuals who may well spend that money on something else in the community.

Basically I believe that the present wording exhibits POV on the matter and before a snorefest editing war re-breaks out, let's discuss it here to come to some form of a consensus. Barry Wells 16:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think either point of view needs to be mentioned. All we need to say is that slot machines exist. Adam Bishop 17:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree Adam and that's what I inserted, but someone keeps altering it with the POV statement that it boosts the local economy. ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzz 209.239.6.111 00:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC) Barry Wells 00:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There is much proof that the money from these facilities are being wasted terribly on bad construction and investments example the terribly build Imax on the same property. There is no boon to the general public from casino's in London. 209.195.113.254 08:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trimming the list of notables

I've cut a lot of what I would consider deadwood from the list of notable Londoners. Feel free to restore anyone you think I've deleted unfairly. I'd ask though, that no-one does a mass restore: the list was clearly overlong, including many people who are not notable by any reasonable standard (not Bill Brady, though!)-- CJGB 20:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I really hate the idea of deleting something from Wikipedia when it's still correct. How about List of notable Londoners instead? Similar to List of famous New Yorkers--Will2k 21:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, I have no opinion on the existence of such a list, but you would probably want to disambiguate "Londoners" from the other Londoners; you know, the ones in England. --Saforrest 04:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've got a major problem with several of the deletions, including Richard B. Harrison, Paul Lewis, MLB player Tim Burgess, Vic Roschkov and several others. Barry Wells 00:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not approve of the removal of Alexander Dewdney. I strongly recommend the creation of List of notable Londoners. The page will include an introduction indicating this is for London, Ontario and not London, England. Also, the existance of an article dedicated to the person should guarantee them a spot on the list. I would be ver interested to know exactly what criteria CJGB used to trim the list.--Will2k 13:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I authored a fairly long post about exactly this subject in the "Notable Londoners, Miss Universe 2005 et al." section and openly asked for comments and got just about nothing except an invitation (from Barry) to begin a hundred-and-one-thread debate on the myriad names on that list that are rediculous. I still say we should hammer out a standard set of criteria for what makes someone "Notable" in relation to a given location vs to the world at large. Personally I don't think people who are barely famous enough to be known in the location qualify for such a list (nor people who are famous for something and just so-happened to pass-through/sleep-in/know-someone-from a place (ie Natalie and Fantino). Carpet baggers need not apply. 216.240.7.149 23:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peregrine Falcon

London's article needs to have a snippet on the annual Peregrine Falcon nesting, as that article links to London, but people following that link will find no further information. -Andrew 17:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics

I dont know who changed the demographics section, but it look cluttered with the massive chart on the city's ethnic groups. The one before had the Top 5 ethnic groups, and the percentages and numbers of the population racially, and they were accurately from Statistics Canada. I think it would be more appropriate. -Galati

I made the change, and I have now once again changed over the racial statistics to ethnic origin ones. This time, I have shortened the table (with a cutoff at 5% rather than 1%) and tried to make sure it doesn't end up affecting other sections' formatting. However, to use formatting as a justification for substance change is irresponsible. So hopefully that won't enter further. The reasons I have changed the substance are multiple, but here are some:

• Unsourced and questionable statements: "London also has a significant Italian, Polish, German and white-Spanish (mostly from Argentina and Chile) populations" There was no source to that statement, and the assumed distinction between "white-Spanish" and, I guess, non-white-Spanish smells of some sort of racial agenda (TO BE VERY CLEAR, I am NOT accusing you, Galati, or anyone else of such an agenda. However, if you read something and it looks like such a thing, it shouldn't be in Wikipedia regardless of the author's motive.)

• Stats Canada's racial statistics have been criticised other places (such as Talk:British Columbia) for being internally politicized. For example, "East Asian" has internal divisions, while "White" does not. The "ethnic origin" data does not suffer from the same problem, primarily because it is entirely self-reported.

• Unsourced statistics: the racial statistics themselves, even though they are listed as being "from the 2001 census" have no accompanying explicit reference, which, when dealing with sensitive issues, I believe to be a must.

AshleyMorton 20:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC) ___

Well considering that I am half BLACK, half European, I wonder what type of agenda, I am trying to further? I dont see how I could be racist, but sure, whatever you want. The reason why I put white-Spanish is because people these days dont differentiate a Spaniard from a brown-skinned Mexican to a white Spanish person from Spain.

You said: "Unsourced and questionable statements: "London also has a significant Italian, Polish, German and white-Spanish (mostly from Argentina and Chile) populations." It is not unsourced. If you actually went to Statcan.ca, clicked on community profiles, then additional data, and selected ethnic origins, you would see large population numbers Germans, Italian and Poles etc. so these are not unsourced, just in this case overlooked.

Statcan concludes that those who listed Canadian were most likely of British, irish, French descent. Therefore, how is "Canadian" an ethnicity.

---

1. I didn't say that you (I assume this is Galati speaking, but there's no signature on the immediately preceding comment - it was added by someone who wasn't logged in) had an agenda. In fact, I went to great trouble to be clear that I was not saying that. What I was saying that we (me, you, and anyone else who tries to make Wikipedia better) can't look like we might have one.

2. You may be correct that many people do not distinguish terms such as "Latino/Latina" from "Spanish", from "Spaniard" from "Hispanic", etc. However, I had three problems with this term. First, I thought it made it look like we might be stretching to "find more white people" in the statistics (again, not talking about your intentions, talking about the effect of the writing). Second, it is not a commonly used term (at least amongst governments and other formal institutions) that I am aware of. Finally, *that* part of that sentence was completely without a source - nowhere in StatsCan's material that I know of can you find either a division of the term "Spanish" into subcategories, nor an indication that there is a significant white-skinned, Spanish speaking population in London that has it's root in Chile and/or Argentina. It may, in fact be correct, but it needs to be sourced.

3. When I say "unsourced", I mean "without a source referenced in the text". I still suspect that there is no source for the "white-Spanish (mostly from Argentina and Chile)" part of your statement, but even for the first part, there needs to be an explicit source referenced.

4. Canadian is an "Ethnic Origin" because StatsCan lists it as one. Really, it's that simple. As soon as we start fiddling with data from our source, it becomes POV (what counts, what doesn't?) Now, if there is a better source that does not include "Canadian", that's cool, it's just that the source can't be my own head or yours. I agree that "Canadian" is a bit odd as an ethnicity. However, I'm not sure that it's entirely out of line. At some point, a country (or region, or whatever) develops it's own ethnic identity. When did Austrians stop being Germans? Are all Germans Germans, or are some Bavarians? Are Scots Scots or Brits? Or both? There are loads of internal divisions amongst the population of China, but many people simply call themselves "Chinese" when they leave the country. Therefore, if someone's belief in their origin has become "Canadian", it's probably true. In addition, many people of smaller ethnicities "hyphenate" their ethnicity ("Japanese-Canadian", for example, would give a tally in "Canadian" and "Japanese".) I don't believe this is wrong, as it indicates something important about the person's ethnicity - it is, quite possibly, different from someone in Tokyo who gives his/her ethnicity as simply "Japanese".

For all those reasons, I believe that StatsCan's "Ethnic Origin" data, spit out directly from their tables, is the best to discuss this topic. Clearly, though, there could still be significant discussion on how far down the list to include. AshleyMorton 15:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] London is known for its public elementary and secondary schools

Huh? Ggbroad 21:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that's odd...I removed it. Adam Bishop 04:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Street name similarities and duplications

When London underwent its major annexation circa 1993, it picked up several duplicate street names. At the time, it was decided to eliminate the duplicate names by changing street names. I wrote to a city council member at the time, suggesting that instead, due to London's growing size and the increasing likelihood of identical and even confusingly similar street names, that London adopt a quadrant system, suffixing street names with NW, NE, SE and SW. This would have eliminated most or all of the duplicate and triplicate street names.

The division between SE/NE and SW/NW (the north-south line) would have followed Richmond St south to the Thames River North Branch near Broughdale, then followed the Thames to the Forks, west to Wharncliffe Rd, followed Wharncliffe Rd south to Southdale, followed the south side of Southdale Road properties to Wellington, then followed Wellington south to Elgin County.

The division between NE/NW and SE/SW (the east-west line) would have followed the south side of Oxford Street West from the city limits to the Thames River, then along that river to the Forks, then followed the South Branch east to the city limits near Crumlin Road and Veterans Parkway (Airport Road as it was then known).

The diversion of the north-south line along Wharncliffe, though curious-looking, preserves the London South-Manor Park area street name separations. If Wellington was followed from the South Thames, you'd have "Emery Street East, SW" and "Emery Street West, SW", as well as the same for Commissioners, Base Line Road, Langarth, Briscoe and so on. With the diversion, Emery Street East becomes Emery Street SE.

The lines cleanly separate all East-West and North-South streets: the aforementioned Emery St, Langarth St, Briscoe St; Tecumseh St, Ridout St, Base Line Rd, Commissioners Rd, Oxford St, Southdale Rd, Highview Ave, Fanshawe Park Rd, Sunningdale Rd, Wonderland Road, Wharncliffe Rd, Adelaide St, Highbury Ave. Horton St would have been a slight oddity, changing between NE, SE and SW due to it crossing a boundary twice, but as far as I know, there are no properties addressed on Horton St West east of Wharncliffe, so it would be Horton NE and Horton SW for actual addresses. Streets that form the boundaries would have both, e.g. Wellington Rd SE and Wellington Rd SW.

This could still be implemented, although the street name duplications have been eliminated for now.

Do any Londoners on Wikipedia have any thoughts about this? Any thoughts about renumbering so that addresses are predictable on parallel streets (e.g. Adelaide as the 1000 mark, Highbury as 2000, Clarke as 3000, Crumlin as 4000, etc.)? GBC 20:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to discuss this. Adam Bishop 21:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Municipal Wards

I am tired of editors who prematurely change the alterations back to their original form. Recently a motion was passed that London, Ontario will now consist of FOURTEEN municipal wards (not seven) and therefore only ONE (not two) councillors will represent each ward.

andrew.lawton@hotmail.com

Will consist, or currently consists? There will still be seven until after the election, right? Adam Bishop 16:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In French

Is London known as 'London' in French, or is it 'Londres' like the citys British namesake?

It is London, as in the French Wikipedia article, fr:London (Ontario). Adam Bishop 06:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trimming the list of notables part 2

I propose the creation of List of people from London, Ontario similar to List of people from New York City.

For inclusion in this list, the following criteria can be used

• A Wikipedia article exists for the individual and,
• that article identifies the relationship between the individual and London, Ontario and,
• The individual has resided within city borders for a minimum of 5 years.

Any comments?--Will2k 21:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, there should be a shortlist of london's most notable that remains on the main page that should consist of only the greatest hits like suzuki, banting, lindros maybe two others and should not by any strech include Bill Brady - he's too divisive and controversial

[edit] Incorrect link and statement

...and Crystal Meth use is also on the rise.[2]...

The government article they are claiming that represents this has nothing to do with London aside from a supporting officer with the massive RCMP division in the city. There is no evidence that London has a growing Crystal Meth problem and the article is unrelated. The statement and the note should probably be removed, as the article refers to defendants and crimes from other cities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.195.65.189 (talk) 07:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] crime

in the crime paragraph it used to say that there is a high level of crime in the whithills area including blood and crip sets and now it is deleted along with a line talking about the rising crack/cocaine problem in london

i pesonnaly live in london and i know for a fact both those statements are true and they should be replaced immediatly