Talk:McGill University/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Finances

-I plan to add the following soon: McGill has the third largest endowment of all Canadian educational institutions. The school also maintains the fourth largest endowment on a per-student basis of any Canadian university. Tuition fees vary significantly between in-province, out-of-province and international students, with full-time Quebec students paying around $3,500CAD per year, out-of-province students (such as Albertans or Ontarians) paying around $7,500CAD per year, and international students (non-Canadians) paying over $15,000CAD per year.

Campaign McGill: History in the Making is a five-year comprehensive campaign that began in October of 2007, with the goal of raising over $750 million CAD for the purpose of further: "attract[ing] and retain[ing] top talent in Quebec, to increase access to quality education and to further enhance [McGill's] ability to address critical global problems." The largest goal of any Canadian university fundraising campaign in history, within the first 6 months, McGill had accumulated over $400 million CAD towards its efforts.

AccuratEdit (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, all these you wrote are true. At the present moment McGill University has the 3rd largest endowment. It indeed launched fundraising campaign which already attracted 400million. This is more than half of total endowment of Queen's University, and more than many universities' total endowment.[1][2] Ocikat (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Where are the current endowment numbers coming from? The latest numbers posted on the McGill website are from 2007-2008 and they report the endowment "had a market value of $917.0 million as at May 31, 2008, the end of the University’s fiscal year" and one of the most highly-regarded institutions in Canada, the school has ranked among Canada's and the world's top universities for over a decade. In the most recent Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) - QS World University Rankings, McGill ranked as the 12th best university in the world, the 8th best in North America, and the top public university in North America. In Canada, McGill is the top-ranked Medical Doctoral university, ranking first for the third consecutive year in Maclean's annual University Rankings issue.

We don't need to state THE WHOLE RANKING in the opening. Mention it is good and if people want to know more they can keep reading.

Also, why are battle honours in the opening and now in history or trivia or lower down where they used to be? Unless someone provides a good explanation for why the lead section of this article is so busy I will rewrite the whole to be more concise and to the point. We want the opening to highlight what McGill is and why people should care and not restate every single positive thing that ever happened to it... that is what the body is for. --DFRussia (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Look at some of the other discussion that has gone on and consider that Queen's University's lead states: Queen's was ranked among the top 100 universities internationally by the Times Higher Education Supplement (THES). in its second line, and the University of Toronto has got It is one of the most widely known and highly regarded universities in Canada and ranks highly in numerous world rankings in the fourth line of its lead, as well as a whole fourth paragraph of its lead outlining its top rankings (in addition to a multi-paragraph section on Rankings and Reputation). This is not to mention US schools that McGill is related/comparable to, which feature paragraphs in their leads as well. It is especially notable that McGill achieved some of the rankings it did, that paragraph can be shortened and I'll move the battle honours (someone dragged it there for safety apparently), but if you examine some other university/college pages, plenty have far longer leads than McGill, and a lot more verbose article content. AccuratEdit (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• I would tend to agree with DFRussia here, even if the opening is better than some other University Pages, it's still just a bit too clunky and uninformative. It seems much more like an ad for McGill than a neutral, substance based, opening. This is not to say that I don't think these things should be be included, it is useful information, but ought to be laid out better. (Cloverforrest (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC))

• I'm glad to see some folks have concerns about the lead. I've been looking at that and wondering where to start for some time now. I agree that is it is overly busy. i also think that there is far to much horn blowing, sounds like McGill needs to prove its worth. It would be far more effective to tone down the rhetoric on its rankings. We know it is good. The world knows it. How about taking a look at some universities that have featured articles? Here are a couple: Cornell University, University of Michigan. Sunray (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe battle honours and awards and honours are different. But I see your point. Yes, I do believe that the lead has a bit too much praising, too little criticism. It seems it's only getting largely less as an overview and intro... I will get down to the lead and the rest of the article by tomorrow, as now I'm not busy with life. I put the battle honours in the lead because I don't think it belongs really anywhere but the lead... And if you can seem so high and mighty that you can redo AccurantEdit's hard work, please do so instead of complaining here; it seems you read through the article and started bashing the lead without any changes. Going to work on it, Sunsetsunrise (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Watch it sunsetsunrise on the personal attacks. I did not attack AccurantEdit's hard work, I mentioned that I disapproved of the lead section and I wanted to make a discussion to make sure everyone knew what was happening. If you have been with the article for a while sunsetsunrise then you must remember that last time there was debate about ranking in the lead (around November when the 12th place thing came out) there was a huge edit war against annons and I wanted to avoid that by discussing the issue first. I did not make any changes to the section to look for consensus first. --DFRussia (talk) 02:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake.I did not realize that, my apologizes.

But as a question, what else should we work on in the article? --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

FA?

Should we consider FA nomination anytime soon? I mean, everyone's but me (=p) has done a fantastic job on the article. I believe it is ready. And if the nom fails, we can always use that criticism to improve this even more. I'd like to wait for my copyeditor to hurry up, or else I'll pick someone else. So once she or someone else copyedits, should we go for it? --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll first fix up the cite info, as some do not have access date, etc. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

And I believe that we should expand the history section, surely there are more information past 1915 and the McGill Movement. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You have a well-referenced article. Need to discuss moving some stuff out. A bit long right now. Student7 (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...interesting. I'm doubting the misc. facts are at all important. Could we incorporate some into the article? --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Where does Wikipedia ask for articles of a certain length/provide guidelines on article length? Just wondering! The history as it stands moves past 1915 but realistically, it would only make sense to add

info about events that transpired up until the mid-late 1990's (since 2000+ is quite recent history). With that in mind though, Campaign McGill: History in the Making could obviously move up there, although there's much more that could be added to the Finances section (which is a section I think some other university pages are lacking!AccuratEdit (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No, no, the finances are good. In my opinion. I'm thinking that the misc. Facts are mostly irrelevant. Houdini has nothing to do with McGill except the incident occurred at McGill. As for the length, I'm thinking it's located in MOS But please don't put it for FA until July, because I'm busy until then. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 11:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that a too long template has been put on, I believe it's time we shrunk this article. The misc facts has to go. And a suggestion is that we Summarize every section (e.g. History part and the Campus), while I try and find another copy editor, as two that I asked are unavailable. Note: to AccuratEdit (talk): This should clear your doubts about the limit on article length. Thank you, --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• I agree for sure with the idea of summarizing, ala Cornell University/History of Cornell University and Duke University/History of Duke University. For Miscellaneous Facts, can we create a new page and keep Battle Honours+McGill-Queen's press in the main article? Symbols could also be a whole article unto itself, and Main Campus of McGill University could be a merger of the current Downtown Campus+Accommodations+Recent under the Campus section. Something really making the article look longer than it is is also the citations, some are accidentally repeated since the wrong format was used, so there's probably a good 20 or so that can be fixed to be used more than once in the article.AccuratEdit (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You're making the article. =p Y yes, the cites are a bit of an issue. Also, the formatting needs to be improved on it...

And I got us a copyeditor: Livitup (talk). He/she (sorry, don't know which gender Livitup is) will start next week. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. He will start a new section below to track my efforts.  :) Livitup (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Bleh. Tried doing a first bit of the Misc. Facts article on my user page, didn't seem to run smoothly. And it doesn't seem notable enough to have it's own article. But I'll try a to move a few things around. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

South of the Border

The use of the word "Faculty" surprised me, a non-Canadian. In the US, the usage would be college but there was only a vague explanation under Canadian there and no differentiation under the article faculty. I would suggest an update and a link to one of them. The use of the word "Faculty" needs an explanation to outsiders. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I hadn't realized that. Will get on that. Done, and I believe it will clarify things. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I was a bit too lighthearted in my request. Actually the problem is more than just the rebels. Oxford has Colleges, for example. So a bit more research is needed to find out why Canada (alone?) wound up with "Faculties." Or is it just McGill? Anyway, if Canada, then the faculty article needs to be altered for Canada and maybe a historical explanation added, a bit more than you wanted to take on, I'm sure! AND "colleges as known in the US" phrase removed from the McGill article, because it is more than that if applicable to all Canadian Universities, and nowhere else. If it is just McGill, then the sentence can stay with the addition "as known everywhere else" or somesuch. Student7 (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

See Faculty (university). It's not just a McGill thing or even a Canadian thing. Just because the US calls them "colleges" doesn't mean the rest of the world should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.205.27 (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting

Hello McGill fans. I'm pleased to be involved in this article. My mom and cousin both graduated from McGill, though I never heard much about it from either of them. I'm looking forward to learning something in the process. I've read the talk page, so I'm aware of some of the historical issues (and I'll be careful with the lead). I've printed out a copy of the article and will be making my initial edits on paper over the next day or so, then I'll begin making changes on-line, going slowly so you all can undo or modify anything I change. Be talking to you! :) Livitup (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Livitup for your commitment to this article. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yes thanks a lot, and nifty that you have a familial connection to the school too!AccuratEdit (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I just found that Risker (talk) is still on for copyediting McGill... And so, Livitup, you shall be working along side her. Just to notify. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC) P.S. Sorry I doubted you Risker.

• No worries... many hands make light work. I just wrapped up my other Wikicommitment so I'll have some time to look at this article now. Livitup (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead

I have a feeling I'm about to float a lead (metal, not introduction) balloon, but I've finished my copyedit of the lead (introduction, not metal).

First, please to go read WP:LEAD.

No, I mean it. Go read WP:LEAD.

Have you read it? Do you promise?

The lead should be a concise introduction to, and summary of, the article. My general theory for writing leads is that each major section of the article is a paragraph in the lead, each minor section header is a sentence or two. Leads should not introduce facts that aren't further developed in the article. Indeed, many copyeditors, myself among them, believe there should be no need for references in the lead. Anything that needs to be referenced should be explored at greater length in the article, properly referenced there.

This lead is full of statistics, opinions, peacocking, and unnecessary cruft. As much as I hate to use the word, this is it. McGillcruft.

Now that you've read my rant, go read User:Livitup/my_sandbox.

Is your head exploding? Before you scream at me, let me assure you that EVERYTHING I have deleted from the lead is stored in a notepad file for later inclusion in the appropriate section of the article. Notice how the prose flows, how each section of the real article is introduced and succinctly summarized. Bask in the glow of your new, professional, tight, crisp lead.

Yes, I've read the rankings rants, and you know where I stand. I promise you the McGill fans can, and will, have all their rankings information in the article, but in the Rankings section, where it belongs.

I await your pitchforks. Livitup (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Goddamnit it's taking so long to load. =p However, that possibly is my only complaint. I have read WP:LEAD and I completely agree with you. I do believe that the one in your sandbox is better suited. Though more internal links would be necessary, of course, for later. Now to wait for other replies... --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

How long should I wait? Livitup (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No no, please keep copyediting, but don't put in the new lead until other replies have been made. Thanks,

--Sunsetsunrise (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I haven't been checking on the article in a while, my bad. I read the new lead in your sandbox Livitup. I like it, but maybe some of the areas can be condensed. For instance:

• Tuition paragraph, is it really necessary in the lead?

• It is because financial aspects are currently a major section, albeit a small one. I've rearranged it a little and put it before the section on clubs and sports. We'll see how the rest of the article fleshes out and then revisit.

• "McGill has a high-quality student life; there are hundreds of student organizations, three newspapers, television and radio stations, and several student governments. McGill participates in several collegiate athletic leagues, and has significant history in several sports." << Too many several in too short a time. (There are a couple of other places you use "several" too often)

• Thanks for spotting my stylistic crutch. :) I've killed the superfluous "several"s. Now if someone was feeling really bold, they could do some research and find numbers to replace those several severals. But I hate research, so it's not going to be me. :)

• The paragraph that starts with "Total enrollment" could be thinned down and made more sleek. I feel like it goes into too much detail.

• I took out one sentence about foreign research stations, but I'm not comfortable cutting it much more than that with the current weight of those sections in the article. How about we add that to the "revisit this discussion" queue?

In general, well done on the effective lead. You have my support (if you guys are still waiting) --DFRussia (talk) 05:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe we can continue, and anyone with a suggestion can post their thoughts and still edit the lead. Sunsetsunrise (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• OK, I just uploaded the new lead. I've got paper edits of the first few sections that I'll upload tomorrow. Livitup (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry for my tardiness, but I don't think that the new lead is better than the previous one. The excessive use of words like "very", "highly", and "high" make this new lead sound like to work of an 8th grader. The simplistic sentences read like BBC English. I vote to revert to the old lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.149.104 (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about these two sentances, since they are the only ones that include the word "very" in the lead:

"McGill and its faculties are very highly ranked in many national, continental, and world-wide rankings. Admissions criteria are very high and admissions are very competitive; less than 50% of applicants are admitted."

I think that that type of repetition can be useful when done sparingly and to prove a specific, important point. Above, my repetition of "several" was called out, and I agree, in that case it was bad. Here, I think it's a good thing, as it expresses a passion about McGill's standards. Consider the following: "He won the competition because he ran very fast, swam very well, and cycled very smoothly." Doesn't it express conviction and energy to you? What I have done (I call it making the article more "accessable", you might call it "dumbing the article down") is in line with the guidance of WP:LEAD. Of course, I'm open to consensus on this, so I'll await other discussion. Livitup (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

History

OK, you got the BIG RED PEN on History. I went ahead and modified the article directly... if anyone objects seriously then revert and we can discuss. Let me know what you think. Livitup (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Academics

Academics was copyedited directly in the article today. Trouts, pitchforks, or praises welceome. Livitup (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

application form for studying

hi from dara sherwani,graduated from university of salahaddin /college of engineering/software engineering /iraq/erbil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.191.8 (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Queer McGill" :
  • [http://www.queermcgill.ca/about.php "Our Mandate"], Queer McGill. Accessed [[May 5]], [[2008]].
  • [http://www.queermcgill.ca/about.php "About Us"], Queer McGill. Accessed [[May 5]], [[2008]].

DumZiBoT (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I changed it and merged the two refs, but the ref itself doesn't seem reliable, as the webpage is being remade. Thanks for notifying, --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting done, starting summary work

Hopefully everyone is happy with my copyediting. I've made my last pass through the article and consider the major CE work finished. My only regret is that it took 6 weeks to get to this point. Sorry about that! I'm going to start looking at what parts of the article can/should be split off into seperate articles, and I'll discuss those changes here before I make any. More updates shortly. Livitup (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Splits and summaries

I have completed my spitting work and written summaries for the two sections I have split off.

Please see User:Livitup/my sandbox/McGill University for the "new" main article. Proposed new pages are at User:Livitup/my sandbox/McGill University (Campuses) and User:Livitup/my sandbox/McGill University (Student Life). As you can guess I have opted to split the sections on the campuses and on student life. This leaves a core article about the University itself, and pointers to more detail where needed.

I'll also update the McGill Navigation template to include these two new pages, and probably throw some more relevant info in "See Also" sections of the new forks.

If I don't hear anything negative over the weekend, I'll probably execute these splits on Monday. Livitup (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I would hold out on the campuses for a bit, it doesn't seem to merit its own article, espeshially since there is already a seperate topic for Macdonald Campus. If you do want to split off "campus" then make an article for "McGill University (Downtown Campus)" as opposed to "McGill University (Campuses)". The student life one is alright. Both articles need better leads. Cheers, --DFRussia (talk) 20:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that brings up an interesting point... Why does Macdonald have it's own article? What about merging the Macdonald article into the "Campuses" article in my sandbox, to end up with one article covering all campuses? Just throwing the idea out. Otherwise, the main article (this one) will need a short summary on Main, a short summary on Macdonald, and the short paragraphs on the other "stations" will need to come out of "Campuses" and back into the main article. Just throwing out ideas here. Livitup (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Odd confusion

There are two dates in the article stating when women for classes first started. In the lead it says 1885, while in the History Section, subsection Early Years, it says in 1884. Neither have refs to support them, and I've yet to find one to support one or the other.

Just to notify everyone, Sunsetsunrise (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The 515 Ste Catherine Residence

I am a student at Mcgill myself, and I know for sure the residence won't be used next year. However, I didn't manage to find an official source certifying this, yet. Also, on the residence applications for the 2009-2010 year, the name given to the hotel mcgill bought in April is "475 Sherbrooke", although again, I can't give any official source. Garzhul (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the contribution. If you could us a favor and keep an eye out for a reliable source, that would be great.

Sunsetsunrise (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I found the reference for the 475 Sherbrooke rez. I suspect it was only added recently, because it wasn't there last time I checked. I would add the ref. myself, but I really don't like the part of the article about 515 and the new residence, and despite having tried to change it, haven't managed to find a good way to word it. Soo if someone could be kind enough to add the information in a nice way :D http://www.mcgill.ca/residences/undergraduate/tour/475sherbrooke/ => Directly from the website. Garzhul (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Campaign McGill section

Cited in detail though it is, I was struck by the intent of this section, which comes off as p.r. for the fundraising campaign; one of the cites is the Montreal Gazette, others are the Academic Research Debate} and the final one is from an economic statement penned by the university's Principal. Do all university pages have secctions on fund-raising?Skookum1 (talk) 06:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Royal Victoria College

I see this is now, or again, an all-female residence at an apparently new location from the original; which is now the Faculty of Music, or the old part of its complex, with the Queen Victoria statue outside, on Sherbrooke. IIRC the former chapel is the shell that Maurice Pollack Hall was constructed inside, the piano-practice room wing perpendicular to the street were dorms, the upper floors facing Sherbrooke were for senior students and staff.....don't have the historical details or cites, e.g. for when the old RVC was closed down; I know when a student back in the '70s we still referred to the building as the Royal Victoria College or RVC....Skookum1 (talk) 06:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ranking on the ARWU

The article states that McGill consistently ranks top 20 on the ARWU worldwide rankings, but McGill only ranks 65th on the ARWU rankings. It does not hold top 20 in ANY fields on the ARWU, and places 3rd in Canada. The claim to being top 20 on ARWU will be removed; however, I'll leave this open to discussion for a short while. Onixz100 (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I tried to fix up the misleading sentence a bit. --DFRussia (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

High School Admission

I am not sure what the basis is of much of the information in this section. The claim that admissions based on top 5 marks instead of predicted IB mark is a unique feature amongst north American universities is false. UBC for example looks at high school marks and then IB marks. Also the claim that IB students tend to dislike McGill for their admission practices is also false. With a predicted score of 30 your average should be at least 85% . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahnok (talk • contribs) 17:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

False claims

Does anybody ever check sources? I've found multitudes of false claims all over the McGill page that do not correspond whatsoever with their source. If any body bothers to check the Admissions portion, I myself had to rearrange a few false facts. It certainly seems people like to inflate the universities reputation, as some of the edits are downright misleading (case in point, saying the university has an selectivity rate of 22%, completely disregarding how many offers were actually made (making the selectivity rate 51%) and instead using the number of students that registered as means of showing McGill's selectivity). It seems people "source" these facts without ever actually checking the source for verification (some don't even correspond to the statement). If I had more time I'm sure I would find a lot more misleading "errors".

One major issue with sourcing in university articles is that alot of information comes from the source, ie the university where naturally the schools want to showcase themselves in the best light possible, I find it limiting to get good secondary sourcing about admission claims outside of the schools. This is true for most wiki pages i think. One fact though, is if whats quoted in the text isnt matched by what it is referencing you are certaintly able to correct the page to match the source for accuracy, or remove the information until a source can be provided that verifies the claim. If in doubt start a discussion here, The best way to get the most accuracy is to use secondary sourcing (not affiliated with the school), though in Canada it can be tricky as its very limited to where to find information, anyone have any other views?Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

McGill & Harvard

"McGill and Harvard have been unofficial rivals for decades"[citation needed]

I don't think Harvard knows this. ;)

~Metagenics

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.100.45 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

McGill & Harvard

I'm a Harvard student and McGill is certainly seen as our rival in the North.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.135.27 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Including "Canadian" and "public" in lead

I am flabbergasted that Jenilyn834 has twice removed the words "Canadian" and "public" from the lead of this article because they're already in the infobox. Not only is natural and completely acceptable that material in the infobox be repeated (usually with more detail and extensive citations) in the article proper, it is expected to happen because infoboxes "summarize key facts about the article in which it appears." This is essential information about this topic and it must be in the lead sentence regardless of its presence in the infobox. ElKevbo (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

"Canadian" seems a bit redundant, given how the sentence ends -- but "public" is appropriate and desirable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I won't advocate that it's important enough to be explicitly said when it's strongly implied. ElKevbo (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, include "public", but "located in Montreal, Canada" says the same as "Canadian". Itsmejudith (talk) 10:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Public, yes, "Canadian" no.  RasputinAXP  18:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Just as we agree that "Canadian" is redundant when it already says the city, state and country of the university, so is "public" redundant. Otherwise, we might as well repeat in the lead so many important aspects or elements of the "research" "public" and "university" status of any university. The information box suffices.Jenilyn834 (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The important aspects of the article's subject should be in the lead sentence, regardless of whether they're in an infobox. The lead summarizes the entire article and must include those essential elements. Yes, that means there is redundancy between the lead and other parts of the article. That is intentional and necessary because the lead summarizes the rest of the article. So I don't see the problem here.

It's also interesting that the only editors who object to this are single-purpose accounts with very few edits and virtually no edits outside of this article. They're certainly welcome to their opinions and it's good that they shared them but some consideration must be given to the fact that the (very) experienced editors who have commented on this situation have supported the inclusion of this critical information in the lead. ElKevbo (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I also disagree. I was the one, before Jenilyn834, who edited the lead because ElKevbo kept inserting Canadian and public. Many universities, like Oxford, do not show public in the lead because it is already contained in the box. So let us just keep it in the informational box. Thanks to all.Helium980 (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

First, the article had "public" in the first sentence for five years before it was removed so it's inappropriate and inaccurate to believe that this is some bizarre one-man campaign to include this information. Second, Oxford is a poor example because of the differing use of "public" and "private" in the UK educational context. Third, even if many articles don't include this information in the lead (which is very doubtful but possible), that doesn't affect this article. In fact, if that is the case then we need to correct those other articles (even the UK ones with their backwards public/private designations). ElKevbo (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I re-added "public." Consensus here was to include it. Folks wanting to remove it should cite policy and not edit war. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 21:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Strongly disagree that there is a consensus just because ElKevbo keeps replying. S/he may have more time to write but that does not create a consensus nor does it make it correct to keep repeating in the lead. Besides, Talk section is just a day old to claim that a consensus already exists. That is tyranny of numbers without the benefit of fair and sufficient dialogue. I vote to remove public from Lead.Angtitimo (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I join those who disagree with the fake "majority" or "consensus", and I move to delete public from the lead. The only other thing I could propose is to keep it in the lead but remove it from information box. It should not be there twice side by side with each other. Wastes to much space, and is redundant I agree. Simply stated, this "majority" or so-called "consensus" cannot have its cake and eat it, too.Panchitone (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I said there was consensus, but it's a bit murky now since additional editors have weighed in on the issue on March 1. It is interesting that most of those opposed to this haven't done much recent editing except to weigh in here. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 00:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Take out the public either from the lead or the box. The arguments for that are fair and clear enough: wastes space, redundant, encourages others to keep repeating info in other sections in the text to deodorize their university, stylistically incorrect, etc. There are also examples like Oxford where public shows only in the box (it does not matter how UK classifies their colleges; the point is that the public or private character of Oxford is not twice shown side by side with each other via lead and info box). Also, comments like "those who vote to remove public have not edited much," "many university articles show public in lead and box," "I am flabbergasted that they removed public", etc. are irrelevant and do not create a consensus nor does it cite a clear rule or provision concerning the lead. Stick to the point and remove any side comments or sidebars.Topak123 (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The best or fairest consensus we may achieve is to show "public" either in the lead paragraph OR the box, BUT not both. I sincerely find that Topak123 has provided a concise summary of the opposition to having it appear in both. I disagree with ElKevbo that "public" "must be in the lead sentence regardless of its presence in the infobox." That is opinion, not a definitive Wikipedia provision or rule. There are strong enough arguments to keep "public" from showing up twice and practically side by side with each other.Wikititi123 (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Neither you nor those who agree with you have made any convincing argument for not including this important word in the lead. It's completely irrelevant if it's in the infobox. The name of the institution is also in the infobox so should we remove that from the article, too? This is a non-issue and it's disheartening that you're wasting our time like this. ElKevbo (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

And since you think it's somehow important that the Oxford article doesn't include this information, let's take a look at the best articles about universities. Every single featured article about a college or university mentions the governance of the institution in the very first sentence. West Point is the only one that doesn't directly say "public" or "private" because it explicitly describes the institution as a "federal service academy" and they're all public. Here, check them out for yourself:

• Shimer College
• Duke University
• University of Michigan
• Texas A&M University
• United States Military Academy
• Texas Tech University
• Ohio Wesleyan University
• Michigan State University
• Georgetown University
• Dartmouth College
• University of California, Riverside
• Florida Atlantic University

Now can you please stop wasting our time here? Go edit some other articles and gain some experience and perspective. And if you really want to change this, you'll need to convince the folks here and here. ElKevbo (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

And the College and university article guidelines explicitly call for this information to be in the lead. Can we move on now? ElKevbo (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you keep missing the basic points: 1) There are good enough reasons to indicate public or private only in the lead OR in the box, but not both so we also feel you should not be wasting your time on this; 2) Those Wikipedia College and universtiy article guidelines you cited, and which I am quite familiar with, DO NOT indicate that the public/private character should appear in both lead and box. Show proof that these guidelines so indicate; 3) By the same token that you have enumerated universities that show public/private character, so have we given examples of universities that do not follow your "prescription" (e.g., Oxford, West Point, etc.). This is not a contest of numbers but clear indication that the correct way of doing things could either be your way or our way so we need to build rather than dictate consensus; 4) the proposed consensus is to put it in either lead or box, and it seems we who oppose you are willing to even make you choose where (box or lead but not both). I hope you get it this time. Thanks. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenilyn834 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Please take note of the following: The infobox clearly indicates that "type" (public or private) should be included. The WP Uni article guidelines for the lead section clearly indicate that "attributes should include public/private..." You are not basing your opinion on policy or tradition, and continuing to edit war will result in you being blocked. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 06:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No need to edit war. I do not see that any one is trying to edit war, just disagreeing. Anyway I solved the problem by deleting the info box. Please note the Wikipedia policy on info box CLEARLY says "Copy a blank version to use. All fields must be lower case, and all are optional except for name, established and city." In short, "type" is OPTIONAL.Panchitone (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your help and you're right about the current guidance for the infobox. But this is a very poor compromise, mostly because there is no reason in the world to make any sort of compromise. The infobox guidelines should probably be updated, too, as this is an oversight that should be corrected. ElKevbo (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

RFC

I am seeking input from other editors whether it is appropriate to include "public" in both the lead and infobox of this article. One side argues that the guidelines encourage inclusion in both, while the other side argues that this action is redundant and wasteful. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 19:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Small clarification: The guidelines for college and university articles states that this information should be in the lead but it is currently optional for the infobox. ElKevbo (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• I've made my position on this issue very clear in the previous discussions: This is essential information that should be included in the lead and infobox. Moreover, that some information is in an infobox in no way precludes that information also being in the article proper, including the lead. This is a non-issue. ElKevbo (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As I, and others, have noted above, the infobox does not make any information on colleges mandatory except for name, location and founding date. To say that we do not like this rule which is very clear and precise in setting forth what is optional and mandatory information, is to be arbitrary or promote arbitrariness in determining what is "essential" and "non-essential" information for the box. Will that mean making other information mandatory as well? We have made our position also clear, with all due respect, from the above discussions: Repeating information on public/private character in both lead and info box wastes space, is redundant, encourages others to keep repeating info in other sections in the text to deodorize their university, stylistically incorrect, etc. We can say "we want to compromise", or "we do not accept a compromise," but we cannot break or haphazardly change a Wikipedia rule or provision on what is optional and mandatory for the info box simply to satisfy our hardline position (again, with all due respect).Topak123 (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Topak123. A rule as clear as what should be optional (practically everything) and mandatory (three itmes out of over 60) pieces of information in the info box has a reason for its being. Only the basic information should be uniformly presented. The rest should be seen or interpreted from a flexible, "living tree" approach, where issues of redundancy, stylistical propriety, parsimony should prevail. I suggest to just keep the public out of the box and in the lead. Thanks to all. Sheldon Lowe (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be most helpful for those of us who are already involved to (a) briefly summarize our position and reasoning and (b) try not to reply to one another so others can join the conversation. I don't want our continued conversation - which doesn't seem to be going anywhere - to impinge on others' desire or ability to offer some new perspectives or opinions. Thanks ElKevbo (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is my take: (a) Because Wikipedia states a very straightforward rule (i.e., only college name, location and establishment date are mandatory for the info box), then (b) any other conceivable information is totally optional, so (c) "options" will inevitably have to result from compromise/consensus, and finally (d) putting "public" in lead and out of the info box will promote a "give-and-take" or "win-win" situation for those who favor and the many who oppose having "public" in both lead and info box. No matter what you do, to paraphrase Abe Lincoln, you cannot satisfy all of the people all of the time, but you can satisfy all of the people some of the time.Helium980 (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to offer a methaporical illustration. Assume Joe is accused of a capital offense, the prosecution has strong evidence, but not strong enough to pin him down as the actual criminal (e.g., because the weapon could not be located). What does the prosecution typically do: It has no choice but to offer him a plea bargain where Joe may be penalized but the penalty is not as heavy as a capital punishment. In the present situation, it is clear that some people want to insert "public" in both lead and info box to the point of misrepresenting or misinterpreting Wikipedia info box policy. However, it is also spelled out that college "type" is not mandatory box information so they have no "weapon" to use as proof. I believe the equivalent of an acceptable plea bargain would be to give in a little bit to ElKevbo by inserting "public" in the lead (since that is where he/she wants it in the first place), and to keep it out of the box since the same information is optional, and as other noted, redundant, space-wasteful, etc., to satisfy the several oppositors. Panchitone (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As for me, I do not like the idea of bending Wikipedia rules and provisions to suit personal whims and caprices in a fleeting moment of time. My point is this: If there is a clear and present rule, let us strictly observe it so that people, including editors, will respect Wikipedia rules and apply them consistently, on the one hand; and so that Wikipedia rules will not be vulnerable to prejudices and subjective human judgment, on the other hand. My second point is this: We should only change Wikipedia rules if there is clear and present proof that it does not work, or creates an issue. My final point: Keeping "public" out of the info box does not pose a problem, especially because it is already in the lead which appears opposite the info box, and the definitive Wikipedia rule is that university type (public or private) is optional for the info box obviously because it is already mandatory in the lead.Angtitimo (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok very interesting argument - would like to point out that the press uses the word public "alot" when describing this University because of its stature. So the question being asked is do we need to say this 2 times - first in the info box and secondly in the lead. Sure y not have it linked in both -are we trying to hide something - is there a good reason not follow the guidelines (that the project should take the time to get as policy) ? As seen here there is clearly a distinction between public and private, that our readers may or may not find relevant - so not up to us to omit info that may be of interest to our readers............. We should link it in the lead and info box (as some will find the link in the lead and others in the box)....On a side note the lead should be linked as little as possible for easy of read for our users. The lead as it is - is over linked...words like "Faculty" " "students" "professors" should all be unlinked in the lead and thus linked in the body of the text.Moxy (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

A couple of points: 1) I do not think anyone is hiding anything, which is why a compromise is being pushed to show public in one place (so that it is not hidden) but not to the point of redundancy and waste; 2) "press uses it a lot" is not an objective argument because someone else might say that college ranking agencies "do not use it a lot" or "do not use it at all"; 3) editing the lead is an entirely new subject matter that, at this time, might provoke more arguments as to what should be kept and omitted, so I would not do it this time and until the issue on hand is resolved amicably; 4) "linking" does not seem to address the "delete from one place, but show in the other", so I cannot see that as workable. But thanks for the suggestion.Wikititi123 (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain a bit more y you wish to omit a field that the template specifically has a parameter for? Many redundant links are in the infobox - Y is this one different? Infobox are just that - redundant in there nature.Moxy (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Kindly see various postings above: 1) field is optional; 2) repeating this field is redundant, wasteful, etc. based on many reasons already cited and explained above; 3) not every university (especially those in Africa, Middle East) shows type in the info box so why compel its presence uniformly; and 4) we are trying to compromise -- we can also say "why keep the public in lead?" or conversely, "why delete it from the lead?" -- it can go either way so compromise is what we are seeking by way of gaining consensus. Thanks.Wikititi123 (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I also do not see "linking" as solving the issue that we are trying to resolve in this particular section. Linking still shows type in both lead and info box. Sure, we can keep on discussing/debating whether other fields in both the info box and the lead should be kept or deleted, but that is not the question here. Let others address other informational questions. For now, the issue is: should we keep out the college type from the info box, since it is an optional field and since it already shows opposite the box (in the lead). And so many in this section have agreed that it should be taken out for reasons of parsimony, redundancy, repetitiveness, stylistic impropriety, etc.Jenilyn834 (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"Linking" just distracts from, but does not solve, the main issue of deleting an OPTIONAL field in the info box, like type of the university (because "linking" still keeps the debate going on by keeping the "public" in both lead and info box). In addition to the reasons already cited above for removing the "public" from the informational box and probably keeping it in the lead, here is one more thing that has not yet been mentioned. Many universities in the non-western world do not indicate or contain "type" in the info box (see several colleges in Libya, Ghana, Indonesia, Cameroon, etc.) for obvious reasons: it is hard to determine their type due to information scarcity, some colleges are not easily classifiable as public, private, state, etc. (e.g., church-run universities in Cameroon), and some are in transition as a result of current political upheaval like coups d'etat ( private today, public tomorrow, unclassified the next day). So to require the "type" to be mandatory in the box is utterly ridiculous. More importantly, to make college type mandatory information in the box means that we have to delete so many non-western university entries in Wikipedia because they "violate" the requirement of indicating college type. That is not only preposterous; that is simply a waste of our collective time, energy and intellectual capacity.Saraherr (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Spate of SPAs

I'll say it since I know that some of us are thinking it: It's a helluva coincidence that so many single-purpose editors who have made so few edits all suddenly show up to this one article to make the exact same argument. ElKevbo (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree bit odd this editors all know of this debate in the first place. As i mentioned before the whole infobox is redundant and the arguments put forth to not fill in the "set" parameter is "I dont like it" because its redundant. Not that is misleading, irrelevant or wrong.Moxy (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It is sad that ElKevbo has to use profanity ("helluva" deserves her block) to make her point, and it is even sadder that she cannot squarely address the issues but resorts to name-calling several editors as "single-purpose" just to detract from the issues on hand and gain attention. Not all are single-purpose editors just because they disagree with you. Also, assuming they are, how does that change the good and valid points and issues raised in favoring deletion of the type in the info box? The issues that need to be addressed are: Is the college type optional in the info box? (Wikipedia rules, to repeat over and over again, says yes). Is college type redundant? (yes and wasteful, stylistically incorrect, etc., etc., when already in the lead). Will it have detrimental consequences if type is made mandatory (yes, because it means, to summarize from above, whimsically changing Wikipedia rules, deleting so many non-western university write-ups that do not contain type, making rules vulnerable to so many interpretations and misinterpretations, failing to achieve compromise, etc.). Can it then be the object of compromise or consensus-building (certainly, as long as no one takes a "I only win-you lose" or "I wanna get everything I want" attitude). Let us look at the validity and objectivity of these issues, rather than you repeatedly saying "I am flabbergasted I got edited," "these are single-purpose editors", "helluva this and that." Malicious utterances distract, but do not help at all. As said earlier, stick to the points. Finally, ElKevbo is also saying the same thing: I do not like it (omitting type from info box) that is why I want to keep it in both lead and info box. I also cannot see how removing type from info box is wrong, irrelevant, misleading, non-duplicating, etc. other than to assert one's personal and biased judgment Jenilyn834 (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Before proceeding i would recommend reading Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.Moxy (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we are using this SPAs as a way to avoid the real issues here. To summarize, no one here has been shown to be a sock puppet, etc. I do not see the points or arguments raised above as repeating each other; they are raising new issues and also reiterating the basic ones. I have disagreed with ElKevbo and still do not believe that the info box should contain the college type for reasons noted above. But that does not make me a single-purpose editor since I have edited other items. I am familiar with Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. So I take offense being categorized as a single-purpose editor simply because I disagree with ElKevbo. Let us not clamp down on dissent. A healthy and spirited discussion and debate of legitimate, valid and important issues are key to achieving consensus, etc. as has already been said above. So let us stop calling editors names and let us be man or woman enough to only stay with the real issues here. One more thing: I ask ElKevbo to please stop employing profanity (helluva). I have read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and I assure everyone that it does not allow profanity. Wikititi123 (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOT censored for children. Does someone want to head over to WP:RFCU or should I do it?  RasputinAXP  02:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I say go Ahead - As we need to know if all this opinions are just rants from 1 person.Moxy (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

RFCU has been filed. Hopefully it'll go quickly.  RasputinAXP  02:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

And that's that. Moving on, sans sockpuppets.  RasputinAXP  05:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and added "public" back to the infobox; the consensus now is clear. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 05:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't want to do it myself because it might appear that I was taking advantage of the opposing editor being blocked.

And thank you to RasputinAXP for filing the RfCU and those who responded to it so quickly and decisively. ElKevbo (talk) 05:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Question - are any-other articles affected - has "public" been removed all over?Moxy (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Not that I can see. This editor was focused on this article. He or she also has made edits to the articles of a few fraternities but they seem to be legit edits and they're a year old or older. I don't see anything else we need to clean up unless he or she has other sock- or meatpuppets still out there. ElKevbo (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually it looks like they were socking another RFC on those fraternity articles. How it didn't get caught then I'm not sure, but I'm glad it's taken care of now.  RasputinAXP  13:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I am baffled (flabbergasted even) that this person would go though such trouble just to remove one word. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 14:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Multiple personality disorder? Beats me...  RasputinAXP  15:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but YOU GUYS ARE ALL PATHETIC IDIOTS. We were then conducting a political psychology experiment that focused on the following research questions: How are social rules and rules of governance interpreted (or misinterpreted/misrepresented) when a variety of options exists? Wikipedia offers a veritable laboratory for conducting an experiment because of easy access to live subjects/participants that can be monitored and tested within a desired, short time frame (in the case of this debate, because editors and administrators can easily be inflamed by partisan or personal passion and bias). In addition, Wikipedia offers a practical opportunity to distinguish (on the basis of social behavior) between various subject groups. In the case of this "university type" debate, between rulers (represented by WP administrators)and the governed (with the debating editors as proxies/experimental dummies). So I suggested conducting and running the experiment this way, as observed by my colleagues. I believe we have generated all the information/findings we need from this experiment, which we expected not only to terminate in these sockpuppet checks, but, more importantly, in assessing how both rulers and governed interpret and explain the behavioral aspects of deceit (in this case, represented by sockpuppetry). We therefore wish to thank you all for your (unconscious) participation and contribution to our scientific work.(talk) 17:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

EdUniversal Ranking?

Come on Mcgill people, that ranking is not legitimate. Please remove that ranking from the wiki page. This is quite pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beeranomics (talk • contribs) 04:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

November 10 incident

I've removed the section detailing the events of November 10 on the basis of WP:NOT#NEWS. However, I could see an addition to the "History" section about notable protests. The "McGill français" demonstration of 1969 [3] was an important event in McGill's history. It seems to me that the protest of November 10 (although dwarfed by the events of 1969), could be added to such a section as a one- or two-line update on notable protests. Sunray (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The Novemeber 10th incident does not belong where it is currently in the article, and this has to be one of the most biased descriptions I've read of the event. Many students did NOT condemn the event as implied in the description, but instead many felt that the administration did what was necessary to keep order after a group of students forcibly broke in to one of the buildings on campus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.86.149 (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox - land area

It doesn't make any sense that the area of Mac campus is in square kilometres, and the area of Downtown is in hectares...it just makes them difficult to compare to the reader. (The square mile to acre comparision is, of course, even more confusing.) I'm not going to change it now, as there might be some sort of policy on land area amounts, but if there isn't, could someone change it? Thanks, D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.211.211 (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The Endowment

There is something either not factual or mis-typed about McGill's endowment in the right hand side frame. The endowments of McGill have been listed as 8.06 billion C$ in annual operating revenues and 807.5 million C$ in private endowment. The reference is the Principal's office's 2009 financial statement (by the way, the link is broken, the statement can be found here http://www.mcgill.ca/principal/speeches/economic/econstat_110509/). In the aforementioned statement there is no mention of the billion-level endowment. As far as I remember the last time I visited the page, the endowment was at eight hundred someting millions. If the 8.06 billions endowment is factual, please document it. If not, please remove it. I do not edit the page directly, because I couldn't prove or dismiss this matter with my limited research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.203.226 (talk) 05:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Public University

Unfortunately, despite endless discussions in several UK university wiki pages, the U.S editors of the English Wikipedia insist on referring to public-funded universities like Cambridge or McGill as "public universities", even though they are actually independent private corporations incorporated by Royal Charter. As widely explained before, in British Commonwealth jurisdictions, "public bodies" can be created only by an act of the legislature (either the national parliament or a regional legislative assembly in federal systems), never by a Royal Charter.187.57.179.168 (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Former Principal Heather Monroe Blum has frequently referred to McGill as a "public university" in several speeches and videos. This is more political than legal. In Canada in general and in Quebec in particular "private" is a poltically incorrect term. It signifies an institution operating without regard for the public good. It also cunjures up the notion of elitism which is also politically incorrect in Canada and Quebec. While McGill is legally a publicly funded private university, that terminology is avoided. Tom McCarthy 7/7/2013

GA Status

A few unsourced sections/paragraphs her, especially the rivalries and fiction sections. The fiction one may fall outside the GA referencing scope, but the rivalries one will need references if it is to maintain its GA status. AIRcorn (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Introduction Paragraphs Must be Changed

The introduction of the article is much, much, too bulky (6/28/13). A lot of that information needs to be thrown into the history of McGill; there is no good reason why the introduction is a giant paragraph long about how McGillians founded other universities. The introduction should give a brief overview of what McGill is, where it is located, and perhaps a bit on its reputation. We should refer to other university Wiki pages to see what type of content is appropriate there. As of now, however, the massive, unwieldy and daunting paragraph about how McGillians went on to found John Hopkins or UBC, etc. need to be moved to the history of McGill in order to make space for more appropriate intro material. Also, the following paragraphs need to be made more concise; there cannot be 4 or so big blocks of text in the intro of the article. I am sure many of you will agree. If this is not resolved soon with a more collective effort, I will have to act unilaterally. 38.108.65.74 (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC) Onixz100 (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Notable People

Thomas d'Arcy McGee, BCL1861, a Father of Canadian confederation, bears the distinction of being the only Canadian political figure ever assassinated while in office. http://www.mcgill.ca/about/alumni/public-service — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justhefacs (talk • contribs) 23:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

In addition, McGill invented such sports as basketball, hockey, rugby, football, and cross-country skiing.

Can you spot the mistakes here?

I'll help you. Take football, for example. Who "invented" that?

This is untidy, inaccurate and misleading writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.193.249 (talk • contribs) 14:46, July 8, 2013‎

Thanks for pointing this out. It would have been better if you could have been more specific with your concerns or even just edited the article yourself to propose changes. ElKevbo (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Royal Victoria College - the Faculty of Music

I noticed this:

Beginning in the autumn of 2010, the newer Tower section of Royal Victoria College is a co-ed dormitory, whereas the older West Wing remains strictly for women. Both the Tower and the West Wing of Royal Victoria College form part of the university's residence system.

The main entrance of the RVC has been for a long time part of the Faculty of Music, though there's a new building just east, it's been that since.....I'm not sure when, before I was there in '74-'75....the old RVC chapel was converted into Maurice Pollack Hall, one dormitory wing is all practice rooms on some floors, offices on others, and at the far end of one of the floors is - or was - the electronic music studio. Not sure what's on here about the FoM, or where it was before it moved into the RVC building.Skookum1 (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Calling Attention to Bias "The University Companies" Section

Just pointing out blatant bias and personal opinion in aforementioned section.

In particular:

" Those historians who suggest that such reinforcement was a waste of talent show a profound lack of understanding about what is required for leadership in combat."

69.70.69.54 (talk) 06:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Much of that section was copied from here so I've deleted what material I could identify as having been directly copied. ElKevbo (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Rutherford's laboratory

the laboratory of Rutherford, early 20th century

I just inserted this image of Rutherford's laboratory. Check the image description - the only information I have about this image was that it was taken in early 20th century and that it is Rutherford's lab and that he did research in McGill. The notes do not actually say that this image is of his McGill lab. Can anyone comment on whether the image description means that this picture was taken at McGill University? Was he known to have laboratories elsewhere that would be photographed as his? It is my opinion that this laboratory appears sufficiently worked-in that this picture was taken in a place where a chemist was spending significant amounts of time. I inserted this picture because I presume that it must have been taken at McGill. Thoughts from others? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The Lead, Replaced Rankings

You completely deleted the rankings in the lead. I looked at your past contribs and you seem to have a strong history of editing McGill's page with a negative bias: remember it's just as bad to have a positive bias as a negative one. Also, it is slightly disconcerting that you have been primarily concerned with McGiIl page's emphasis on rankings where rankings have been a standard mention in the leads of most universities.

I think rankings should be mentioned to some extent in the lead for university pages (see University of Toronto or Western University). If I was a user looking up a university, I would like to see in its into its accomplishments and how it's viewed by outside sources. Completely deleting the rankings and not restructuring it was not helpful and borders on vandalism (purposely deemphasizing or emphasizing some portions to fit your bias). Although the lead should include a summary of different parts of the article, it is also relevant to include key points about its subject and that includes of course rankings.

I noticed one of your comments: "Why McGill focuses so heavily on rankings? A really outstanding university need not purposely stress its rankings to attract eyeballs (especially when QS/THE are of a huge controversy))" This comment in particular suggests a negative bias against this university. This is not an ad for a university, it is an objective summary. No one is trying to attract eyeballs. If the rankings state that a university is in x place, then it is in x place. If x is a good rank, then so be it. Moreover, no ranking system involves a huge controversy, but the QS and THE are one of the more larger and better recognized ones. If you are so intent about the unreliability of QS and THE, why are you not discussing its omission in other pages?

Your interpretation on the emphasis of rankings in the lead is debatable. I do see the merits of including a limited space for rankings there, but in the long run I do not see the harm of listing off the rankings in the intro. But nevertheless, it is important to discuss this first with other wiki users and then apply the same standards for all university pages. What you have been doing is applying your interpretation of wikipedia's policy in order to lower the esteem of one university. This is unacceptable and, like I said earlier, borders on vandalism.

In sum, I would suggest that perhaps you take a hand at editing different pages for now. We have to edit all pages with neutrality and the omission of content falls under this purview of neutrality.

Bostonbiologist (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Please review our guidelines for college and university articles, especially the "Article structure" section. For the lead, the guidelines specifically say: "Summarize the rest of the article without giving undue weight to any particular section (such as rankings) and mention distinguishing academic, historical, or demographic characteristics. The lead should be a concise summary of the entire article – not simply an introduction." This generally follows the Manual of Style guideline for the lead which states that "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview." Adding a lengthy list of specific rankings seems to be contrary to both of these guidelines; it's certainly something that you (or anyone else!) should be edit-warring over! ElKevbo (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a negative bias towards this university but just sough to follow the rules. This is a GA where everything should be set as the standard for the others so adding such lengthy ranking info. is inappropriate. I understand your concern with the university's esteem but if I was a user looking up a university, I'd like to see something about the institution itself (like academic environment, tuition fees and scholarships). Perhaps few concise statements there are well enough to conclude the "esteem" of its ranking status since this is just the lead. If other articles like those you mentioned do contain undue weight, it is them which should be modified. Biomedicinal (contact)

I added few statements regarding McGill's status in the QS, ARWU, THE, Bloomberg Businessweek, and the local Maclean's league tables, where most of its "ranking esteem" comes from, with due weight. The previous content, which had been continuously "protected" by user Waov12, was messy with too many details that should be mentioned in the corresponding section (the lead should be a concise summary). Moreover, more information about the University's adminstration & organization, and academics, which aren't just about rankings, was also added. Biomedicinal (contact)

Just removed the Bloomberg Businessweek's 2012 Business School Ranking, a particular subject ranking, from the lead to leave only the three most widely observed overall league tables (ARWU, QS & THE) there. The local Maclean's Medical Doctoral Ranking, where its "esteem" mostly comes from, was retained but it may be challenged to be removed. Biomedicinal (contact) 04:14, 12 August 2014

Travel + Leisure rankings in lead

I don't think the Travel + Leisure ranking that is currently cited twice in the lead belong there at all but another editor disagrees. If the physical beauty of the campus is widely recognized and is important enough that it's essential for readers to understand this university (which is another way of saying "belongs in the lead") then surely there are multiple references supporting it. In any case, "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article" (emphasis added). I see only one sentence mentioning this aspect of the campus in the body of the article so unless that can be significantly beefed up it doesn't belong in the lead (or perhaps in the article at all). ElKevbo (talk) 01:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Removal of the subordinate schools

I suggest to remove those schools subordinate to the faculties with their external links. Plenty of departments & schools are under each big faculty/school as stated on the reference, and it isn't necessary to list them all here. Readers can easily click the links directing to the designated schools/departments on the website given, so no need to add those external links in the content. Biomedicinal contact

I removed the external links and trimmed the list so it reflects the cited source. I don't know why only two schools are included in the list but I'm neither an expert on this university nor Canadian higher education so I think it best to hew closely to the cited source. ElKevbo (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Redundancy of the building list

I'm not sure if it's necessary to list all those buildings there (and in fact they're just "some of the buildings" as stated at the beginning of that section). This is similar to the case of listing all the subordinate academic departments of a given institution with big faculties/schools already appeared. A bit redundant for me since those aren't of significant (e.g. historical or developmental) importance for readers to know more about the University. Biomedicinal (contact) 16:15, 4 October 2014‎

Some buildings, such as Burnside, Leacock, Strathcona, McIntyre, Stewart, and Otto Maass, have great "historical or developmental" significance and should be mentioned in this article. --Jelly Bean MD (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Bronfman, Redpath, and Rutherford buildings ought to be included as well. --Jelly Bean MD (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I think more ought to be mentioned if they do have it (but...history part may actually be well enough for this) instead of only giving "some of" the names there since readers may not know the usefulness of the list (are they landmarks or what). Plus, the format of display ought to be adjusted to save space. Biomedicinal (contact) 15:26, 6 October 2014‎

Orphaned references in McGill University

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of McGill University's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "USUnivRankings_ARWU_W":

• From University of Wisconsin–Madison: "Academic Ranking of World Universities 2007". Institute of Higher Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University. 2007. Retrieved June 13, 2008.
• From Florida State University: Shanghai Jiao Tong University (2008). "Academic Ranking of World Universities" (PDF). Institute of Higher Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Retrieved October 3, 2009.
• From University of Pittsburgh: "Academic Ranking of World Universities". Shanghai, China: Center for World-Class Universities and the Institute of Higher Education of Shanghai Jiao Tong University. 2009. Retrieved November 22, 2009.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

To editor:121.128.69.173

I noticed you made significant structural changes to the rankings and reputation sub-section of this article. In particular, the changes were directed at removing every ranking that gave a less flattering rating of the university. This is against Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. After all, this is an information site, not an advertising board. Thus flattering or otherwise, all relevant (and credible) information needs to be displayed. In addition, this article has already achieved a "Good Article" quality benchmark and thus I would recommend that you consult with other editors in the Talk page before making major changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upapilot (talk • contribs) 11:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on McGill University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100123043214/http://www.learnist.org:80/mcgill-university/ to http://www.learnist.org/mcgill-university/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080506012920/http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca:80/hospital.htm to http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/hospital.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060721101456/http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca:80/ens-sup/ens-univ/droits_scolarite-A_pays-organisations.pdf to http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/ens-sup/ens-univ/droits_scolarite-A_pays-organisations.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081112025440/http://www.aucc.ca:80/can_uni/our_universities/mcgill_e.html to http://www.aucc.ca/can_uni/our_universities/mcgill_e.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)