Talk:Concordia University/Archive 1

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

Disambiguation

It's not clear to me why this page is at Concordia University as opposed to any of the other 6 Concordia Universities listed at Concordia University System. Suggestion: move this to Concordia University (Montreal) and create a Concordia University disambiguation page at Concordia University.

If no one strongly objects, I'll do this in a few days

Johnh 01:07, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I object. Why not simply create a disambiguation page and link to it in the header? This Concordia University isn't part of Concordia University System. --Spinboy 01:15, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps my suggestion was not clear. I agree with Spinboy's comments, in that Concordia University should not point to Concordial University System. It should point to whatever "Concordia University" is. My point is that there are 7 Concorida Universities, one in Montreal, in 6 others in Ann arbor, Irivine, Portland, River Forest, St. Paul, and Seward. IMHO it doesn't make sense to designate any one of these as the Concordia University. Does this make more sense? This seems to me like the classic role of a disambiguation page. (Johnh 21:25, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC))

Why not simply create a disambiguation page and link to it in the header? --Spinboy 21:39, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's what you asked before. I tried to answer that: because doing that would designate the Montreal C.U. as the C.U. Isn't this exacly a case of equal disambiguation Wikipedia:Disambiguation? To suggest that it should be handled as primary disambiguation means that it should be clear that the Monteral C.U. is primary. While I have nothing against that C.U., I haven't heard any arguments that it is somehow a more obvious C.U. than any of the others. Are you advancing such an argument? (Johnh 00:24, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC))

Yes, because all the other ones you propose to disambig are simply part of a larger System. When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", would they expect to view any of the articles listed on the disambiguation page? You should list this article on requested moves for comment from the larger Wikipedia community. --Spinboy 00:46, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In fact, there's already a disambig page listed under Concordia. --Spinboy 00:48, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Proposed move

I've added the link at Wikipedia:Requested moves as per the request. A disambig at Concordia is nice, but not the same as Concordia University. Johnh 22:38, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

add: * Support or * Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and a signature:"~~~~"
  • Support See detailed discussion above; briefly: there's no strong reason to place Montreal or any of the Concordia Universities as the C.U. at the main page, so the main page should be a disambiguation page (or a redirect to one). Johnh 17:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE, the other Concordia Universities are very small, and not particularly notable. Concordia University (Montreal) is a very large university, and notable in many respects. Like a shooting rampage by a disgruntled professor, being the most activist university in Canada, having many disputes with a national ranking system by MacLean's magazine (like the US News rankings for the US) on the validity of having evening/part-time/continuing-education students... Lately, disruptions that forced the cancellation/movement of speeches by Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak by the vocal Palestinian student organizations...
    • Montreal: 30,000 students, 180 degree programs (25k ugrad, 5k grad)
    • St. Paul: 2,000 students
    • River Forest: 2,000 students
    • Wisconsin: 2,500 students
    • Ann Arbor: 600 students
    • Austin: 1,200 students, 22 degree programs
    • Irvine: 2,000 students
    • Portland: 1,100 students
    • Nebraska: 1,300
      • Total non-Montreal: 12,700; less than half of Monreal's enrollment.
      • My highschool had more students than these universities (discounting Montreal). 132.205.15.43 03:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • For comparison:
          • MIT: 10,000 students
          • NYU: 50,000 students
          • UCLA: 25,000 students
          • UC Berkeley: 22,000 students
          • UBC: 39,000 students

* Weak Oppose But maybe point to the Concordia University System as well as the Concordia disambiguation page. Or Maybe DO move,but still point to Montreal - Sepper 15:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 20:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WTH??

Ridiculous Wikipedia page for Concordia University. Wow! Shame on you people. Noted alumni section is a real joke.

Why don't you contribute to it and help make it better? --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 02:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Netanyahou POV

Wow, the netanyahou section doesn't even try to have a NPOV. Hillel (unnammed in the article) supposedely deliberately provoked the rioters, the media overplayed the violence etc. etc. There is also a mention of a supposed second speech by Netanyahou that never happened. Omited of course was the physical intimidation of jewish people of all ages attempting to listen to the speech or the fact that tickets were in fact available to anyone who asked for one, though admitedly it was not widely advertised. To be quite frank I don't think that there is much worth saving in that paragraph so unless substantial changes are made the author I will have to either make some myself or just drastically cut back that section.

As an aside, I notice that you failed to mention the earlier Concordia riot in the 1980s where the computer system was destroyed by activists, probably at least as important as the Netanyahou riot. --dj

I can't speak for the Netanyahou part (and I'm not touching that part of the article with a ten-foot pole!) but the computer riot is mentioned in the article in the Sir George Williams section (since it predates Concordia), and has its own article: Sir George Williams Computer Riot — mendel ☎ 01:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC) (formerly of IITS!)
My bad, I didn't think to look outside of the student activism section. In terms of the Netanyahou section however hopefully someone (perhaps myself but I'm new to the editing game and I don't want to cause problems) has to fix it up and put some semblance of balance into that paragraph --dj

Proposed rewrite of Netanyahou section

I tried to include all the points of the anti-Netanyahou writer while ensuring that it was clear that these were viewpoint statements and not facts. For the sake of balance I added pro-Hillel statements (calling them pro-netanyahou is inaccurate, many individuals who wanted to attend the speech were certainly pro-Israel but not neccesarily pro-Netanyahou). I eliminated statements that were essentially exercises in mind-reading the motivations of involved individuals as well as statements that were not relevant to the discussion and just added length (e.g. the statement about universities being bastions of liberalism etc.)

I would certainly invite suggestions and criticisms and will try to act on them. I will add the rewrite some time next week. I'm also thinking that maybe this whole thing should be a seperate page just like the computer riot...

But anyways here it is:

While protesting and fiery debate are considered a staple of college life, heavy politicization of the Arab-Israeli conflict on campus has caused certain student groups to step up their political militancy. Tensions are exacerbated by the large representation of students from Middle Eastern countries and of Jewish origin as well as the presence for many years of an activist-oriented student council. As a result the campus has recently been the scene of sporadic skirmishes, protests, or, more infrequently, highly polarized riots.
The Hall building (the main building of Sir George Williams campus) was shut down on September 9th, 2002 in response to a massive protest by pro-Palestinian students. They were opposed to the visit by former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyaha because they were opposed to the presence on campus of a leader who they felt was a war criminal especially since they felt that they were not given adequate opportunity to attend the meeting themselves. The organizing group had largely confined their publicity of the offering of tickets within the Montreal Jewish community. The organizers were also warned by campus security against allowing the talk to proceed because of the politically charge climate at the university but decided to proceed anyways because of concerns freedom of speech concerns. The protest itself lasted several hours and resulted in the breaking of several windows of the main building as well as a few instances of violent intimidation of individuals attempting to attend the talk.
The immediate result of the protest was the cancellation of the talk. The protestors were ecstatic at having prevented him from speaking. Hillel, on the other hand, decried what they perceived as an attack on freedom of speech.

djheart 04:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


I haven't received any comments so I'll just proceed with the change.

djheart 23:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

djheart, I agree with you, and good effort. This whole section needs to become a linked, expanded article, and only a short, factual summary left behind instead of a constant re-writes in the style of finger-pointing and hour-by-hour journalistic and polemic account. A similar thing happened to the Montreal article with the contentious merger/demerger issue, whose constant revisions hijacked the main article until it got its own page and article. Would you like to move it, or would you rather I do it? After the move has taken place maybe you would like to work on the new article, and I'd be happy to try to look at the main article for even more neutral language. -- Denstat 18:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Concordia is an activist University????

This is not true. People are not political activists at Concordia. The overwhelming majority of Concordia students do not care for politics. Look at the participation (voter) rates at the CSU (concordia student union) elections. It is very low. The only reason why people think its politically active is because of the 2002 riot. What people do not understand is that the people who started the riot were not ALL students. The majority of students at Concordia could not care less about Israel and mid east politics. Why is it that the majority of the information related to Concordia on Wikipedia is devoted to the 2002 riot???? This is nonsense. I am sure you can find other things to say about the University and perhaps changing the pictures to reflect the new (nicer) infrastructure at Concordia. Why is there only minimal mention of the business school? Why is there no mention that Concordia has the oldest communications department in Canada and the best journalism school?

Come on people, stop the stupidity and propaganda.

Did you know that the current CEO of CIBC is a Concordia alumni?

I agree very much with your point, as I said before I think that the brunt of the netanyahou riot should be listed under a seperate article, I just wanted to see other people's opinions before doing so (plus advice on how to do it... I'm new to wikipedia, I don't actually know how to make links). Also if you think that the activist section is bad now you should check out what it was like before I edited it... djheart 03:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Concordia University is a relatively small institution that would not merit much attention were it not for its activist activities. The fact that it has the oldest communications department in Canada might be true, but is not terribly interesting. The statement that Concordia has the "best journalism school" is of course blatantly POV. The original article was remarkably unbalanced and I think that the edits are appropriate and very welcomed.16:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Concordia is a small institution?? The school has over 40K students. WtH are you talking about?? Concordia's journalism program is regarded as the best in Canada, and the program only accepts 20% of applicants. You obviously no nothing about concordia and I strongly urge you to stop editing the concordia page. Your knowledge of the university is marginal. And why exactly can you not include the fact that it has the oldest communications department in Canada? How is that not relevant to the school????? Why does it have to be interesting?? This webpage is to inform, not to entertain! DUH!!

I think you should both register so we know WtH you are when you post here. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I have registered and I will fix this page up. I will do my best to make this page more informative.

Sounds great, welcome to Wikipedia. :-) --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 03:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how including a preponderance of question marks adds any value to your points. You are not exactly a poster boy for the communications department of Concordia :). Now, when you say "Concordia's journalism program is regarded as the best in Canada"... the important question is, who says that? Your neighbor? Some magazine poll of ex-Concordia students? You can't just throw a statement like that out there without some sort of evidence.

If you feel you want to include some facts about it having the oldest communications department in Canada, go for it. Again though, you might want to get somebody else to write it. You know, someone who can communicate without the childish "?????" and "DUH".

If it is important to write about how Concordia is viewed academically as compared to other universities in canada, perhaps I'll include a section on how Concordia does in the Maclean's rankings each year... unless you can think of some more objective source of course.

Knave75 05:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Saying it's the best journalism school in Canada is POV, you can take that out. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 05:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I never put that in anyways. Concordia does have the best journalism program in CAnada, and I am not even a communications student. You Mcgill students are a riot. My english is excellent and your comments are just plain idiotic. I think you are a little pissed off because you realised how dumb you are.

I don't even go to McGill, no personal attacks. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 23:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Dragging our gaze back toward the article if we may ;), I suggest an edit that emphasizes that Concordia University is not 'defined' by student activism, but has a history of student activism. Broadening the scope of student activist involvement beyond the current narrow political definition would honour all that the great work that happens both on campus and beyond its borders. I'll take a stab at it in the next weeks but if someone else has more time, go ahead. -- Denstat 18:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Weasel wording?

The following sentence could be considered weasel wording:

The protest itself lasted several hours and resulted in the breaking of several windows of the main building as well as a number of instances of physical harrassment of individuals attempting to attend the talk.

The protest "resulted in" window-breaking and harrassment? No -- someone broke the windows and harrassed people. Who?

Mwalcoff 01:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I looked up the meaning of Weasel Wording and I'm not convinced that it applies in this case altough I must admit that I don't totally get the concept. The protest did result in the breaking of windows and harassement of individuals attempting the talk. Who did these actions, I think it's pretty clear from the sentence that it was some of the protestors who did it. That sentence seems pretty much equivalent to someone writing "the Great Depression led to widespread farm bankcruptcies (sp?)" or "the civil war in Congo led to the displacement of tens of thousands of refugees". In both those cases neither the depression nor the civil war itself did the actions, there were interveners did the more immediate actions leading to the result but I think that all are fair sentences and that if we had to direct down to the individual for every case articles would become way way too long.
That said, if you can think of a better way of phrasing it, go ahead! djheart 21:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Student Activism Section POV

Before I did the major edit to the Student Activism section is was clearly in an anti-Israel POV... now after a number of re-edits I fear that it has tilted too much the other way. While there is nothing in the section at the moment that I disagree with I nonetheless recognize that it is somewhat POV, especially the last paragraph so I will try to edit away the POV. djheart 18:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

  • just posted a re-write of this section that i believe reduces and removes POV -- the analysis (and blame) is reduced, because it certainly appears in the netanyahu section. the reference to 'over 60' student associations & clubs comes from concordia's website ('complete list for student groups for 2005-2006'), which can be verified with an exact count once 2006-2007's list is posted this fall. -- Denstat 20:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


Please stop anonymous POV editing

I'm not sure who is doing it, and quite frankly I suspect that they are not reading the discussion section, but someone keeps on putting in a completely POV rewrite of the Student activism section. While I don't personally disagree with many of the points they are different info that what was given before and completely biased against the CSU, it reads more like a rant than an encylopedic article. The info can certainly be added to the Concordia article but it definitely shouldn't replace the previous work. djheart 01:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

  • It also appears that the table of contents has been broken by the vandals. I will try and fix it tomorrow. For now, I will just revert the latest vandalism. Knave75 06:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


Favourism towards International & out of province students

I moved this from the article because it's completely unreferenced and seems like original research. Can someone find an article or essay or anything to back up this allegation (like, say, someone actually making it)? -- Fagstein 17:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It is alleged that for admissions, Concordia favours international and out of province students over Quebecers because they give more fees. Some Quebec students even have complained that they get differential treatment from teachers and administration as well. Quebec students are given preferences for open programs which have little or no competition (English literature, Political Science, Philosophy) from other groups of students. When it comes to Computer science,Information Management and Engineering Programs, only a hand full are admitted even if they have Computer Science or business (DEC) diploma’s from College LaSalle, Herzing College and Dawson College etc which are known to teach many subjects at a equal or higher level then concordia it self.

Good call on a bitter POV. Text that begins with "it is alleged..." is suspect to begin with. Have never seen this in Montreal media. I suggest that the user who believes this tripe does the research by calling up Concordia; I brought an alleged admissions belief to one department once, and was disabused and better yet, learned a lot more about the nexus of quota systems and admission procedures and criteria.-- Denstat 17:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Broken windows and physicaly harrassment

Originally, the "Student activism" section read that the events of Sept. 9, 2002 "resulted in the breaking of several windows of the main building as well as a number of instances of physical harrassment of individuals attempting to attend the talk." I pointed out that the sentence was poorly written, as it did not say who broke the windows and physically harrassed people. User:djheart said the anti-Israel protesters were the people who did the actions mentioned, so I rewrote the sentences to say so.

In his/her effort to bring some order to this section, User:Fagstein has changed the sentence at issue again. It now reads "one of the exterior windows broke," again removing any mention of who broke the windows. Also, instead of saying that the protesters physically harrassed attendees, the section now states that the attendees "exchang(ed) verbal insults with the protesters."

I was referring to the protesters inside the building. We should probably add that protesters outside allegedly physically harrassed attendees trying to get into the building through a controlled access point. I'll try to rewrite the section to accomodate that. Fagstein 20:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

If we know that the protesters broke the windows, we should say that. If we don't, we should say it is unclear who caused the vandalism.

All we know for sure is that the window broke under the stress of protesters outside. Whether it was a deliberate strike or prolonged pressure from banging protesters is unclear. Fagstein 20:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, if we know that protesters physically harrassed attendees, we should say so. Fagstein's edit makes a major change to the sense of the section. Instead of saying that the attendees were victims of physical abuse from the protesters, we now have the two sides acting as equal instigators.

Which is accurate? -- Mwalcoff 09:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Good job on the edits. -- Mwalcoff 22:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Userbox for Concordia students and alumni

For those who are interested, I have created the userbox {{User Concordia University}}. IronChris | (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice, thanks! -- Denstat 17:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Redundancy in See Also category

Other local universities do not need to be listed by name in this category when a link to the [[List of Quebec Universities}} is provided. I have removed them. This is a good category under which to list the computer riots, for example, and a link to an expanded article on the Netanyahu protests, as well as other expanded articles based on the university's history. -- Denstat 17:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

results of the election

Hey I'm putting the current sitting of the CSU council back up and returning the "student politics section to the way I put it up before. Those are the current legal standings of the CSU council, anyone who actually cares should know my name as an authoritative source. THose who still have questions can check the articles in The Link or the concordian, although I would like to hear any dissenting opinions. J.manchester june 14, 2006.

You should probably find those articles and provide links to them as references. Fagstein 19:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Fabrikant affair?

"Fabrikant affair" seems a euphemistic term, and has just 185 Google hits. Is there a reason why we don't use "Concordia University massacre" (33,400 Google hits), which is the title of the event's main article. Apologies if I've missed a previous discussion on this. RomaC (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been like that for a while, not sure who coined the term. I agree with you that "Concordia University massacre" or "1992 massacre" would probably be more appropriate.--MTLskyline (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
No opposition in six months, changed it per WP:BRD. Also see "1992 massacre" as a possibility, concerned primarily that "affair" is weaselly and not supported by RS. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Top Engineering school?

The article says that concordia is among the best schools for engineering studies in Canada. There is a reference, but it isn't a good one. It lists 19 universities, which is a large parts of canadians universites offering engineering degrees. Moreover, it lists Université du Québec with a link to the UQAM, which doesn't even have an engineering faculty (except a small microelectronic eng. program) and to the Université de Montréal, which doesn't offer an Engineering degree at all. We should either find a better reference or remove that statement. --zorxd (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC) http://www.polymtl.ca/futur/esen/doc/Classement-Ang-mars09.pdf search for g15

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Concordia University (Montreal) → Concordia University —

  • This was previously discussed in a WP:RM, and was renamed without a new one, it should be reverted 70.29.210.242 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Most of the places listed here are called "Concordia College", not "Concordia University", meaning they don't belong on a "Concordia University" disambiguation page. The only thing here that actually competes for the title is the private Lutheran system in the United States, and even that can't actually get the title as it's a system whose main article is at Concordia University System and whose individual campuses are all at "Concordia University Location" — meaning that none of them could have the plain title anyway. As well, the Concordia in Montreal is one of Canada's largest universities, while the American system is quite minor. Bearcat (talk) 07:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support reversal of undiscussed move. The 2006 RM discussion is in this page's archives (click above). This is certainly the primary use of Concordia University. It's the largest and most well-known university with the name, and gets more pageviews than all other possible uses of this title combined. When it was at the plain title only about one out of 7 or 8 readers, at most, clicked on to the dab page, indicating most readers expected to be here. In addition, when the article was moved, many broken links meant for here were left behind pointing to a dab page. Station1 (talk) 09:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - for many reasons. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • It is now 2010. Wikipedia conventions over disambiguations pages and page naming have evolved considerably in the last 4 years. The current (2010) convention has become that the "main" page, named "xxxx", is a disambiguation page. The convention has become that a page "xxxx (disambiguation)" also exists, and this is a redirect to "xxxx". The "xxxx (disambiguation)" page name is used in hatnotes, rather than the "xxxx" page name. (In fact, it seems there is a bot that goes around checking hatnotes, and it complains if this convention is not followed.
    • The exception to this situation is where there is an obvious and undebateable "primary use" of "xxxx".
    • It seems to me that all of these ongoing debates are all about whether Concordia University in Montreal has the characteristics of fulfilling the role of "an obvious and undebateable "primary use" of "Concordia University".
      • It seems to me that those who believe that Concordia University in Montreal is the primary use argue on the basis that: there is no other page worthy of the title, therefore, by default, it MUST be Monteal.
      • Of them, those who think about it a little harder start using the "it's the biggest, so it must be the primary" justification.
      • The idea that there is NO University entitled to claim the title of primary is NEVER addressed.
      • They seem to ignore the reality that outside of Canada, "almost nobody" has heard of Concordia University of Montreal. As there are 5 billion plus people outside of Canada, I think is rather dubious to claim that Montreal is the "primary".
    • Looking at the specific claims.
      • 70.29.210.242 says the page was renamed without discussion. Fair comment. Also accurate. However, I don't think the BEST solution is to revert the move. I think the BEST solution is to discuss the situation, in particular paying attention to the situation as it in in 2010, not as it was in 2005/6.
      • Anthony Appleyard asks "is the place at Montreal a dominant meaning?". I agree with him that it is THIS question that is the primary issue.
      • Bearcat argues two points:
        • "Most of the places listed here are called "Concordia College", not "Concordia University", meaning they don't belong on a "Concordia University" disambiguation page." - Well, I don't agree with his arithmetic, but I DO agree with his intent, and I support it. However, this is a separate topic, and a separate discussion, from the matter in hand here, and therefore, with respect to this particular discussion, is irrelevant.
        • "The only thing here that actually competes for the title ... " - I would argue that this is irrelevant. I believe the discussion in 2010 should be about "Is there ANYONE who merits the title of primary?"
      • Station1 makes a number of statements, some of which I have difficulty with:
        • "reversal of undiscussed move" - Fair point, and I have already addressed it above.
        • "This is certainly the primary use of Concordia University." - I could accept that "In my opinion, this is the primary use", but I "most certainly" do NOT agree that this IS "certainly the primary use". Perhaps you'd like to be a little more objective in the presentation and justification of this idea?
        • "It's the largest and most well-known university with the name" - Perhaps it is, but why is that a justification for it being the primary? As I've said or implied above, just because it is well known in Canada does not mean that it justifies primary use.
        • The next sentence appears to refer to the situation that existed four years ago. To me, that does not seem highly relevant to today. If you believe it is relevant to today's discussion, please provide supporting evidence, and an explanation as to why you think it is relevant.
        • "In addition, when the article was moved, many broken links meant for here were left behind pointing to a dab page." - 1) That statement is not accurate. I am not aware of ANY links that were "broken". Can you please explain what you mean by "broken" - perhaps we have different definitions of broken? 2) Yes, the move did indeed result in many links pointing at the dab page rather than at the CU Montreal page. And I have already repaired many of them. Please note that there are a significant number of links pointing to "Concordia University" which do NOT / are NOT referring to Concordia University (Montreal).
    • Pdfpdf (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Primary use need not be "obvious and undebateable". We're debating it here. I agree that's the issue. I disagree that outside of Canada "almost nobody" has heard of Concordia; it's a well-known institution. Specifically regarding my statements with which you have difficulty:
        • Where I wrote "This is certainly the primary use of Concordia University" I linked "primary use" to WP:PT and meant it's the primary use as defined there for the purpose of WP article-naming conventions. There are objective criteria suggested there, including number of pageviews.
        • I agree that "It's the largest and most well-known university with the name" is not by itself justification as primary use. The second half of that sentence mentioned the objective criterion that more readers by far look at this article compared to any other that might use the same name.
        • The next sentence does not apply to 4 years ago. It applies to the past few months. I used http://stats.grok.se - a tool suggested at WP:PT - to compare pageviews of Concordia University to Concordia University (disambiguation) over several months. It indicates no more than 1 out 7 readers (and probably fewer) landing on the article about the Montreal university clicked on the disambiguating hatnote there, meaning the large majority of readers landing on Concordia University expected the article to be about the Montreal university.
        • The statement about broken links is accurate. By broken I mean links intended to point to the Montreal university were pointing to the disambiguation page after the move. Examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. I don't doubt some links do not intend the Montreal article, but those relative few should be corrected whether or not the article is moved. Station1 (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
          • WP:PT says: There are no absolute rules for determining primary topics; decisions are made by discussion between editors, often as a result of a requested move. If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic. - I feel that, given the fact that "there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary", this may indeed be indicative that "there is in fact no primary topic". Pdfpdf (talk) 07:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
            • It may be. Then again, it may not be. Perhaps if we further extend the discussion....:) Station1 (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
              • (;-) Other than "I agree", what can I say? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
          • "I disagree that outside of Canada "almost nobody" has heard of Concordia" - OK, we disagree on this. Should we leave it at that, or can you think of some way to resolve it? Pdfpdf (talk) 07:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
            • Short of comissioning a poll, I can't. So we can leave it at that. Station1 (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
              • Indeed! I agree. (A poll of 6 billion people would have its challenges.) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
          • I had hoped I had made it clear that I am not suggesting that any other institution has more right than CU (Montreal). So, can we please drop that red herring from the discussion? Pdfpdf (talk) 07:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
            • I didn't think you were suggesting that. I was only stating a reason why I think it is primary use, i.e., more readers look at this article. Station1 (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
          • "The next sentence does not apply to 4 years ago" - My apologies. It seems I misinterpreted the context/timings. Never-the-less, "primary" is not about a web-hits-popularity-contest, or at least, that is not the only, nor the most important, criterion. Let me make it clear that I am not disputing that CU (Montreal) may be the winner of such popularity contests, and that I also think that this, too, is a red herring. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
            • I agree it's not the only criterion, but I do think the proportion of readers clicking through to a dab page is an important consideration for article naming purposes, because it shows that over 85% of the readers landing on Concordia University expect information about the Montreal CU, while fewer than 15% - probably many fewer - want something else. In that sense it is a popularity contest. I believe there should be a very good reason for forcing large numbers of readers to click through a dab page to get where want. Station1 (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
              • Hmmmm. You make a good point. I will summarise your point as: "Is the number of people confused by getting "Concordia University (Montreal)" greater than the number inconvenienced by getting a disambiguation page?" You are asserting that it is not - by a large margin. I simply don't know. But I would point out that your sample is not unbiased - the fact that Concordia University pointed to Councordia University (Montreal) somewhat confuses the issue. Nevertheless, you make a good point. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
          • "The statement about broken links is accurate" - Only in the context of you having defined what you mean by "broken". If you reread what I wrote, you will see that as point 2) on this topic, I anticipated what I guessed you might mean by "broken", and proceeded to agree. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
          • "but those relative few should be corrected whether or not the article is moved." - Except for the assessment "relative few", I agree. I was surprised by how many there are. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
            • You're right. I don't know how many you fixed before I came along. I've stricken "relative few". Station1 (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
              • Ahhhh. (As in contented sigh.) Station1, it is an absolute pleasure to discuss the matter with you. I fell like we are actually clarifying things, rather than just butting heads. Thank you. Thank you very much. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Why Montreal is primary:
    • Unlike the Concordia Colleges, which are small theological colleges, the Concordia University in Montreal is a large research university, which publishes alot of material (ie. generates reliable sources that articles are supposed to made from)
    • The Concordia University massacre alone makes it the most prominent Concordia University
    • There's the Sir George Williams Computer Riot - the largest student riot in Canadian history
    • Concordia is the alma mater of many star athletes, such as Cammi Granato captain of the first team to win ice hockey gold at the Olympics (Team USA)
    • As a large university, Concordia in Montreal participates in the Canadian version of Division I NCAA (called CIS, previously called CIAU), which generates copious amounts of press
    • The one in Montreal makes international headlines such as [23]
    • The one in Montreal hosted international research trade conferences such as IPCC 2008 ; IPSA 2008 ; DB-Sec 2009 ; AMAST 1995 ; etc.
  • 70.29.210.242 (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Your argument seems to continue the point that Concordia is "biggest" in a number of aspects. I'm not aware that anybody is disputing that. What I am asserting is that "biggest does not make it the primary". Other than to say "it's the biggest", I don't see that your statements address why it should be considered "the primary". Perhaps you could clarify your points to address this aspect? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
      • No it doesn't. Being the biggest has nothing to do with having a school shooting, being biggest is only peripherally related to having the largest student riot, since a larger riot may occur at a smaller institution with a higher participation rate. Being biggest had nothing to do with the international headline that I pointed out. Being biggest only peripherally relates to the amount of research it generates. That it has sports teams that are active in the top section of university sports has nothing to do with size. The amount of research generates however, makes it primary, among other things. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Why don't you try to not repeat the same argument about "the biggest" when I'm not talking about it for the most part? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 10:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
        • It would seem that you are only interested in being right, not in discussing, clarifying and/or resolving the issues. If you wish to discuss the issues, I'm happy to reply. But I'm not interested in a conversation where you just repeat your opinion. Maybe I'm being too harsh, but you don't seem to be reading what I've said and thinking about it; you just seem to be reading it and reacting to the bits of it that push your buttons. Please be aware that my aim is NOT to push your buttons - may aim is to discuss the issues. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
          • I would have said that you were only interested about being right, since you did not try to refute what I said, you just repeated what you said previously. I brought up several points which had little to do with size, and you responded that it was about size. Sports stories can be generated by small universities, or large ones, some small ones have very active sports teams. Many larger universities exist in Canada, but the largest riot was at this one, so it is not a direct size correlation. MIT is a rather small university in the scheme of things, but it generates alot of research (ok, MIT is also alot larger than the individual Concordia Colleges, which are absolutely miniscule, I think they are smaller than the high school I went to) so the amount of research generated is not related to size. But your response is only about size. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. The dab page indicates that the only institution known by the exact name "Concordia University" is the one in Montreal. PKT(alk) 15:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I think that is more a matter of your opinion than it is an actual fact. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, the dab page does not indicate that at all. The dab page tells the wikipedia page names - these may, or may not, be similar to the actual names of the institutions. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support restoring Concordia University (Montreal) to Concordia University. It appears to be the most notable institution by Google, Google News, and Google News Archive searches, and also appears to be the largest by enrollment. That being said, there should obviously be a dabhat and disambiguation page (perhaps specifically for universities), and a separate but related discussion would be appropriate for Concordia College. jæs (talk) 07:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Please read what has been written above. You seem to have missed a few points. (And yes, I agree that institutions with names other than "University" should appear on a different page.) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I did review each point above before commenting, and I arrived at the conclusion that there is a primary topic, which per WP:DAB, should be located at Concordia University with a corresponding disambiguation page and hatnote. I appreciate your viewpoint, I simply disagree based on both subjective factors and quantifiable figures. jæs (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Yeah well. Somebody else has already made that point, and I've already addressed it. Why repeat it without adding anything new? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment user:Pdfpdf is the one who made the undiscussed move from the primary location to this one 70.29.210.242 (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes. There's no secret about that. What's your point? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Many people are likely to know of, or to hear of, the place only as "Concordia", and not to know well the difference between a university and a college and an academy and a lyceum. As Concordia University (disambiguation) points out, there are many educational (and other) places called "Concordia ...", and many people outside Canada are likely not to have heard of the place. I am British, and of universities in the two America continents I can remember the names of Yale and Harvard only, at a moment's thinking. The disambiguater "(Montreal)" should remain. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Disambiguation for those looking for "Concordia" should not be at "Concordia University", so I don't accept this as an argument for keeping Concordia University as a disambiguation page. Langhorner (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. As noted above, the only institution known by the exact name "Concordia University" is the one in Montreal. Langhorner (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    • No, that isn't what was noted above. It says: The dab page indicates that the only institution known by the exact name "Concordia University" is the one in Montreal. And, in any case, that statement is incorrect. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support move to Concordia University. This reverses a move for which there was no consensus and that ignored a previous WP:RM consensus. The Montreal institution is the primary use and is the only article that qualified for the Concordia University title. Disambiguating this article is unnecessary - a hatnote would more than suffice. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Just because you assert something doesn't mean it's a fact. Please explain yourself and provide supporting information.
      • You say "The Montreal institution is the primary use" - Why? Based on what?
      • "is the only article that qualified for the Concordia University title" - That is easily demonstrated as a false statement. Why do you say it is the "only" article? Based on what?
      • "Disambiguating this article is unnecessary - a hatnote would more than suffice." - I don't understand. There are at least a dozen Concordia Universities. Of course a disambiguation page is necessary. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The points have all been made above, and I agree with them, particularly Bearcat's comment. I know you disagree with them, but I am entitled to agree. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support move to Concordia University. Primary use is the Montreal institution, save most people clicking links, have a link to a disambiguation page at the top for those who want to go elsewhere. RomaC (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
    • And your reasons for making that assertion would be ... ? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Support move to Concordia University. First of all, I'm not from Canada and I've "heard of it" so that argument is spurious and reeks of Canada-bashing. Concordia University (Montreal) is an enormous university, larger than UCLA. As mentioned previously:
    • Montreal: 30,000+ students, 180 degree programs (25k ugrad, 5k grad)
    • St. Paul: 2,000 students
    • River Forest: 2,000 students
    • Wisconsin: 2,500 students
    • Ann Arbor: 600 students
    • Austin: 1,200 students, 22 degree programs
    • Irvine: 2,000 students
    • Portland: 1,100 students
    • Nebraska: 1,300
      • Total non-Montreal: 12,700; less than half of Montreal's enrollment.
    • In addition, the Benjamin Netanyahu international incident was news worldwide, so that should account for something.--The lorax (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
      • "As mentioned previously" - Then why repeat it? You are not adding anything new to the discussion. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
      • "In addition ... " - Perhaps. But why would that have anything to do with entitlement to "primary"? Explain yourself better please. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Please stop badgering editors with an opinion different than your own. "You are not adding anything new to the discussion" is a two way street. jæs (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
          • 1) Please explain how asking someone to explain themselves is "badgering". 2) Please explain how challenging someone who presents their opinion as being a fact as "badgering". 2) My requests to editors to explain themselves is NOT restricted to that subset of editors "with an opinion different than" my own. May I respectfully suggest that if you re-read the discussion, you will see that your statement is false? 3) You have gone on at great length trying to assert that by preserving the intent of my statements I am in some way asserting some sort of ownership over something. I'm afraid that either I don't follow your line of reasoning, or I do follow it, and I disagree with it. 4) Although I respect your right to express your opinions, I feel I need to point out that they are your opinions, not facts, and that I don't share some of them. Pdfpdf (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
You are coming very close to haranguing others, by cross-examining every editor that expresses an opinion that differs from your own. It's one thing to elaborate on your own comments in response to the comments of others, or to ask questions of other editors, but I agree with with jæs that you have practically taken it to the level of badgering. Your (lengthy) comments will speak for themselves - you do not need to enegage in a dispute with everyone that comments here. As for this distinction you seem to be making between opinion and fact, the other editors are expressing themselves in the normal manner for AFD discussions. Nobody here is misleading anyone and you should assume that everyone is acting in good faith. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Inside Canada vs Outside Canada ?

I (Pdfpdf (talk)) have asserted that, outside of Canada, "almost nobody" has heard of Concordia University (Montreal).
On-the-other hand, Station1 (talk) asserts: I disagree that outside of Canada "almost nobody" has heard of Concordia; it's a well-known institution.
The conversation continued:

  • "I disagree that outside of Canada "almost nobody" has heard of Concordia" - OK, we disagree on this. Should we leave it at that, or can you think of some way to resolve it? Pdfpdf (talk) 07:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Short of comissioning a poll, I can't. So we can leave it at that. Station1 (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Indeed! I agree. (A poll of 6 billion people would have its challenges.) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

However, subsequently we have seen:
... and many people outside Canada are likely not to have heard of the place. I am British, and of universities in the two America continents I can remember the names of Yale and Harvard only, at a moment's thinking. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it definitive, but as far as I've been able to determine (and that's not foolproof), it appears that the only participants in this debate who are NOT Canadian are Mr Appleyard and Me, and neither of us have ever heard of CU (Montreal). In my case, I've never heard of any CU. (CC, yes. But not CU.)
Now, I have said many times that, if there is a "primary", then CU (Montreal) is the contender.
HOWEVER, I have asserted that, outside of Canada, "almost no-one" has heard of CU (Montreal), and therefore, there is NO primary.
Above you can see that Station1 & I put resolution of that in the "too hard" basket.
Perhaps we should re-examine that decision, and reconsider its implications, etc., etc. ?? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why inside-vs.-outside-Canada makes any difference. If, hypothetically, a million people, all in Canada, have heard of Montreal's CU, but only half a million, scattered throughout the world, have heard of some other CU, the Canadian one is still more well-known, eh? This article is WP:PRIMARYUSAGE because objectively it is significantly more searched for than any other topic that could bear the same title; it's irrelevant where the searchers come from. And editors' nationalities are also irrelevant. I'm not implying bad intentions, but it's not a good idea to personalize the discussion or to out editors. Many are anonymous specifically so that they will be judged on the validity of their arguments and edits only, not on who they are. I, for one, prefer my nationality not to be a consideration in this discussion (although I am willing to stipulate that I am almost nobody[24]). Station1 (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't seem to have made my point clearly enough. No one is asserting anything about any other CU being more well known. What I am saying is that there are at least 5 billion people who have never heard of CU (Montreal). Pdfpdf (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
"I'm not sure why inside-vs.-outside-Canada makes any difference." - because outside of Canada, "almost no-one" has heard of CU (Montreal), whereas inside Canada, one would guess that "most" people have heard of it. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
"because objectively it is significantly more searched for than any other topic that could bear the same title" - Mmmmm. Interesting point. I think I need to think about that one. That might be the key point. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
"it's irrelevant where the searchers come from." - Yes & No. If they've never heard of CU (Montreal), they're not going to be searching for it. If they are searching for CU, the institution they're searching for is correlated with a number of factors. If you are local to some CU (that is not CU (Montreal)), and you are looking for information about it, being dumped at CU (Montreal) is not going to be very helpful or useful. If you were dumped on a disambig page, you would quickly see that you needed to be specific about which CU you were looking for. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
"And editors' nationalities are also irrelevant" - Again Yes & No, and for similar reasons. You have no doubt noticed that a disappointingly significant proportion of the contributors to this discussion are simply making assertions rather than explaining themselves and providing supporting evidence for their explanations. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The one in Montreal is the one with the school shooting (Concordia Massacre) so it is obviously the primary, since none of the other Concordias have anything matching the renown/infamy of that. This has nothing to do with size, and school shootings are internationally known. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "and school shootings are internationally known". Would you mind clarifying that please? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
School shootings are generally widely disseminated. And aside from this particular murder spree, Concordia in Montreal also featured in several internataionally disseminated riots, such as the Benjamin Netanyahu riot. You haven't offered any counterargument to anything presented regarding the fact that this Concordia is notable, internationally, (through the crimes that occur there) much better than any other Concordia. Or that it is known in academic circles through the research it generates (small universities can generate large amounts of research, so this isn't a size issue either). Or that it is widely known from its sports program (some small universities are also known through sports, so this isn't a size issue either) So far your only argument seems to be that Concordia in Monreal is the largest, therefore it should not be primary, and you keep repeating it. I see no connection between being large and that being a bar to being primary. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support as its the biggest and has more students than all the others put together and publishes lots of research it is clearly the primary topic and should be moved to Concordia University. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Concordistan listed at WP:Redirects for discussion

Concordistan, a redirect to this article, has been listed at WP:RfD for two days and has garnered no recommendations or comment so far (unlike WP:Articles for deletion, RfD defaults to delete if there is no discussion participation after one week). Anybody interested is encouraged to make himself/herself heard at RfD. B.Wind (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

"Concordia's Faculty of Engineering & Computer Science is one of the "G15" major engineering schools in Canada"

There are several problems with this claim. Firstly, it's sourced only to a Concordia webpage, and it's a job listing page, trying to sell people on working at the school (they don't bother giving a source, or any kind of context for "G15". The only relevant hits in a quick Google search for G15 lead only to Concordia). Worse though, there are thirteen major research universities in Canada (Concordia is not among them), so claiming to be in the "top 15" is a pretty empty claim. You can be dead last academically and still crack the top 15 for many programs. I've taken this out, partly for being misleading, and partly for being a largely empty claim. I've also removed the rest of the sentence, "and is recognised as a leading research institution in Canada and internationally", again partly for being mostly empty peacock language that makes no real verifiable claim, but also for being demonstrably false in some cases (I refer you back to Group of Thirteen again, note also that Concordia lacks doctoral programs in a number of fields, one of the main criteria for calling yourself a "research institution"). Hairhorn (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of the lede section

Rankings of a university are commercial/promotional efforts of the organizations that produce the rankings-- often in symbiotic collaboration with schools. Rankings are not really a benchmark to the quality of a school. The organizations may WANT you to think so, but they are not. As such, I question their inclusion in the lede. So, "ConU is ranked XXth BUT just look at how many CEOs Concordia has produced!" Give me a break! This smacks of advertising. A shorter simpler lede is appropriate for Wikipedia. Rankings can be summarized under another heading for that purpose but their place is not in the lede. York University and its business school both have Wiki-pages with well-organized rankings info (If I may say so of edits that I have done!) :) I want to discuss this over the next 6-8 weeks. 174.91.201.132 (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Concordia University, Portland Oregon

Is that a scam ripping off the name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.162.148 (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No. Concordia University (Oregon) is an unrelated university that has an overlapping name. —C.Fred (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The US has eight Concordia Universities, and several more Concordia Colleges. There's even a second Concordia in Canada. No one is ripping off anyone. Hairhorn (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
In that light, doesn't it make sense to have the query "Concordia University" lead to a disambiguation page? There are too many Concordias (indeed a whole system, some schools have several thousand students) to have "Concordia University" lead directly to this page. (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.40.142 (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Please consider the discussion above before engaging another move proposal. --Natural RX 16:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ranking and Reputation

I would recommend establishing a Ranking and Reputation section, you can use {{Canadian university rankings}}. FYI, it ranks as #12 for comprehensive universities by Maclean's in 2011. --Natural RX 22:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The Charities

I removed the section on The Charities, as it seems it was removed in almost all other Canadian university articles. If someone is looking for it, I put it in the hidden text below.--MTLskyline (talk) 04:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. per the primary topic argument. no consensus to move (changed to keep the possibility open). Insufficient evidence against the primary topic argument. (See discussion here.) --regentspark (comment) 15:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Concordia University → Concordia University (Quebec) – This proposed move would match the conventions used by other institutions sharing the same name: Augustana College, Northwestern College, University of St. Thomas, Luther College, Wesley College, etc. This also is more NPOV as it avoids a subjective judgment of the value of various institutions with similar names. On balance there are more institutions located outside of Quebec than inside it and it is not logical to place the Canadian university above the others. EdwinHJ | Talk 15:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • what, again??. Please review the reasoning in the previous discussion, which addresses the comments you make. Hairhorn (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Do not move - This has already been discussed at least three times with the same consensus every time. I move for a speedy close of this discussion. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 17:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I came into this discussion without much of an opinion, but my findings, below in the discussion section, have convinced me the question is sufficiently muddy to not recognize a primary topic. --BDD (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per last discussion, and the other two discussions before it. This Concordia is the most prominent one, it produces the most hits on Google Scholar for papers. And claims that other Concordias have more students when combined is not true, this Concordia in Canada has more students than all the other Concordias combined, which was shown in the last discussion. Further, not all the entries on the disambiguation page are "Concordia University", many of them are "Concordia College", which is not the same thing. We just happen to have a unified disambiguation page for college and university. As well, the one that has international news incidents occuring at it is the one in Montreal (a school massacre, an international diplomatic incident involving the Israeli Prime Minister, the arrest of a Prime Minister before he became PM) ; And as for how many of something there are elsewhere, if you look at Boston_(disambiguation), you'll see most of them are not in Massachusetts, should we rename Boston because of it? Or for that matter, ANY page that has a disambiguation page, since that's why we have disambiguation pages, because there's more than two other choices. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Why are you comparing it to community colleges? Concordia is a degree-granting university with international notability. Instead compare to McGill University, University of Toronto, York University, and even Bishop's University. In particularly you'll notice York University is similar to the British University of York, and yet the main article at York University is the Canadian university in Toronto. If you look at all the pages listed at Concordia University (disambiguation) you'll see that they are all much smaller and less notable than the university in Montreal. According to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC if there is a clear primary topic, that should be what occupies the main article. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 17:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The term "college" is commonly used in the United States to refer to four year tertiary degree-granting institutions. Many, e.g. Augsburg College even grant graduate/master's degrees. Concordia University of Canada is hardly the only university with the name and "concordia" itself is used commonly by Lutheran institutions and is often understood, at least in the US, to mean Lutheran colleges. Because one institution is larger or not does not mean it is the primary topic. There are many more students enrolled in Concordia universities outside of Canada than inside it. EdwinHJ | Talk 18:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
The Montreal Concordia has MANY MANY more students than all the other Concordia Universities. Did you even check how many students the other ones have? The one in Montreal has 46,000 students, the other Concordia Universities have 26,000 combined, according to our student statistics in the infoboxes. Montreal has roughly twice as many students as all the other ones. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Let's compare incoming traffic from last month in order to determine if there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, shall we?
Page Hits
Concordia University 7,981
All other topics 20,899
Well, it's not even close to parity with the other topics combined. However, it does have more hits than any other single topic—more than four times the second most popular topic (Concordia University Chicago, in case you were wondering). But as raised in previous discussions, many of these other topics aren't called "Concordia University" in any meaningful sense. Let's see what happens when we eliminate other terms without both of those words:
Page Hits
Concordia University 7,981
Other Concordia Universities 11,923
Others with "Concordia University" 10,412
I'm still not seeing a compelling argument for a primary topic, even when I narrowed the criteria even further to only include the institutions specifically called "Concordia University." In previous discussions, some editors have pointed to this university's influence within Canada, but the fact that the issue keeps coming up suggests its international impact is considerably lower. --BDD (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
If we take your example of Concordia University Chicago, we see that Chicago got 1932 hits in July compared with Montreal's 7981. This clearly indicates that Montreal is much more notable than Chicago (if you want to go by page hit count). You can't really compare it to the total sum of of hits to all other pages with the term "Concordia University" in their name; you have to look at the fact that Montreal is much more notable than any other individual university or college. Besides, Concordia University Chicago is the exact name of that university; it would have no claim over "Concordia University" (which is the exact name of only one university, the one in Montreal). —JmaJeremy✆✎ 17:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Page count is not an infallible indicator of primary topic status. The fact that this issue reoccurs is evidence that this is far from settled. Additionally, there are several universities with the name of just "Concordia University", e.g. Concordia University in Michigan. They may (inconsistently) tack on a location, but their official names do not include this. Again there are MANY more students affiliated with non Canadian Concordias. The province/state ID convention is an NPOV method of categorizing articles. EdwinHJ | Talk 19:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
The fact remains, as has already been stated in previous discussions, that the only other universities with "Concordia University" in their names are universities in the Concordia University System, a group of theological colleges operated by the Luteran Church. The universities in this system all have the name of their city tacked onto the name "Concordia University" in their official logos (e.g. "Concordia University Ann Arbor" is the official name of Concordia University (Michigan). These universities are all tiny and of little notability compared to the Concordia University in Montreal. Turning Concordia University into a disambiguation page would be the same as turning Montreal or Vancouver into DAM pages simply because there are other, much less notable, cities by the same names. The bottom line is that when a primary topic exists this is what should occupy the main article, because the majority of readers who go directly go Concordia University will be looking for the university in Montreal. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 19:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

History section and endowment

I noticed a few of my revisions to the history section of this article were undone. I trimmed those sections down because a lot of that information is not very relevant to Concordia (post 1974 merger), since it is specific to the two former institutions (which each contain all of this information already). The section on the Loyola Chapel, in particular, is not really relevant to the Concordia University article. All of this information can be found in the Loyola College (Montreal) and Sir George Williams University articles.--MTLskyline (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I compromised and removed only the section on the Loyola Chapel, all of which can be found verbatim in the Loyola College (Montreal) article. It is not all that relevant to this article. If you don't want to see the other history parts trimmed, I'll leave them alone, although I wrote them to begin with.
Also regarding the endowment, the 2012 financial statements (Statement of Financial Position, page 4) clearly say that it is $66.9 million. The $120.4 million figure includes the restricted fund and the general fund, which are completely different things. Endowment has a very specific definition (essentially donations that are kept in perpetuity and invested, with only a small portion being spent each year - usually the investment income). See the article on Fund Accounting and Financial endowment.--MTLskyline (talk) 05:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

"consistently ranked one of Canada's top comprehensive universities"

Sorry, but this is demonstrably false; for 2013 Maclean's ranks Concordia 13th, which places it behind almost all research universites in the country. The most that can be made of this ranking is that it's one of the better schools that doesn't rank as a research school; but "best of the bad schools" isn't much of a claim. Hairhorn (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it's actually far worse than I thought: Concordia ranked 13th among universities without medical schools, which puts it even further down the list as far as overall rankings are concerned. Hairhorn (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Concordia 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 04:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Concordia University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Concordia University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Unceded Indigenous Grounds bit

I've seen that somebody keeps flaming the University and saying that it was built on indigenous grounds. The bit is unnecessary and clearly put as some political statement. It should be removed and if it must be there, it should be added under the History tab that the University was founded on conquered Indian territory and that the University has put out a statement on it. Huntwalks (talk) 06:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Concordia_University/Archive_1&oldid=1170880082"