Talk:McGill University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article McGill University has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
A mortarboard This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Education in Canada
This article is part of the Education in Canada WikiProject (Discuss/Join).
Quebec
Quebec Portal
This article is part of the Quebec WikiProject (Discuss/Join).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montreal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Montreal articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
If you attend or have attended McGill University, you can add this userbox on your userpage: {{user McGill}}, to display this on your userpage:
This user attends or attended McGill University.
Archive
Archives
  1. Page Creation - 7 December 2006


Contents

[edit] Lead Edits and Spelling

  • I know whoever is editing means well, but please watch your spelling, you may think you're inserting the correct words, but you are not (some of them are things that may be difficult to spot unless you're a native English speaker...). Also, please actually use PROPER citations, not just the format for citations, and NOT just a link to McGill's website, but both proper format and a relevant link! AccuratEdit (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Convocations

I think it might be interesting to note that Mcgill gave honorary degrees at Convocations to Ruyard Kipling, Prince Edward, Lester Pearson, Winston Churchill and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. (Source: http://www.archives.mcgill.ca/public/hist_mcgill/conv/convocation.htm )

[edit] Archived

This talk page was getting rather long, I've archived it. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 00:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia methods, but if someone can archive the actual McGill page or nominate it for Peer Review again or something similar soon, I have added a great number of changes to the page since it was last Peer Reviewed, at least. Further things to be worked on soon though are: dates/proper format for citations (this will take a while), a better Notable Alumni section, a piece on tuition/endowments (maybe a whole new section), a piece on fictional/pop culture references, and perhaps a merger/alternative heading for Harry Houdini and Battle Honours, since they are both very short pieces. Thanks. AccuratEdit (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article

I'd like to nominate this article for Featured Article status, I think it meets the criteria. Does anyone have any feedback/suggestions to improve it before I make the nomination? -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 00:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Aspects of the article need work: The McGill "français" issue is too prominent and lacks context (the enviroment of French supremicist oppression in the province of Quebec and its effect on McGill and its graduates needs attention); as well as the deterioration in quality of the university in the 1990s when Bernard J. Shapiro was principal, that was contemporaneous with libraries without books (in particular, Howard Ross Management library), and fully depreciated property, plant, and equipment; without any, or any adequate, maintenance and capital improvements. The Faculty of Management using part-time lecturers, without academic credentials, for graduate courses, the Faculty of Science using T.A.s for upper level undergraduate courses, politically motivated admission of French Canadians into the Faculty of Law in preference to others with better academic profiles; but lacking a French Canadian ethnic identity. Other Faculties and Schools have experienced similar deterioration in quality since the late 1980s.
  • Those are some very serious claims, do you have any references for them? -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 00:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This is well known to McGill alumni that are reasonably reflective and critical of their experience at the university. It is not really in the interests of either graduates or the administration to expose these issues since in reflects poorly on both. Media coverage of this period included Shapiro's plea to the editorial board of the Montreal Gazette for support against government hostility. The political and economic enviroment of Montreal, (in particular, Montreal's decline as a business center), explains McGill's problems. A careful reading of the McGill News, the alumni quarterly, over the relevant period, tangentially touches on these issues; but it must be kept in mind that this aforementioned publication's purpose is alumni fundraising; and, accordingly, puts McGill's best face forward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.248.170 (talk • contribs)
  • The point here is that according to Wikipedia:Verifiability, if you cannot provide reliable sources, there is no basis for it's inclusion. That means that unless you can provide sources to back up your claims (not to mention the fact that your assertion of "french supremicist oppression" is borderline offensive, and I'm an anglophone) then you have no basis to put the advertisment tag on the page or to include the information. Until you can provide such sources, the tag must remain off. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 01:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the anon poster makes some good points (and some questionable ones as well). It's common-knowledge (amongst people in the university community anyway) that McGill (along with Concordia and Bishop's) was largely underfunded throughout most of the 1980s and 1990s, a problem that persists to this day. I wouldn't say that Montreal's "political and economic environment explains McGill's problems," whatever that means exactly, but I would say that chronic underfunding has certainly made things difficult for the university. We might want to include a paragraph or two about that in the article. As for the McGill français section, I've tried to be as neutral as possible in presenting the information -- it was an important aspect of the university's history and should remain in the article. I'm not sure what "context" you seek (or what "oppression" you speak of); perhaps you could clarify. As for the rest of the anon's claims (about deterioration of "quality," lecturers teaching without credentials, etc.), it would be helpful to see some local news coverage (or a McGill Daily/Tribune article or something) to back up those statements. Thanks. Darkcore 21:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McGill in fiction and popular culture/Expanded Student Life section

The addition of a section outlining McGill's references in fiction and popular culture would be beneficial. An inclusion in this regard could be:

Also, expanding the Student Life section to include traditions/miscellany would be useful, and an inclusion there might be:

  • McGill's student-generated website Overheard At McGill is a compilation of comical quotes from around McGill and Montreal.[1]

Additional suggestions would be appreciated. Also, how do others feel about calling this section 'McGill in fiction and popular culture', similar to Yale University, Harvard University and Dartmouth College (section there titled In popular culture)? AccuratEdit (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quota System

There should really be mention of the University's anti-Jewish quota system (see Jewish quota) in the 1920-40s. It seems like an important part of the school's history and, in my experience, it is still discussed by minorities in Montreal. See also, for example, Mordecai Richler's "The Street."

I agree. It is definitely still discussed and an important part of the school's history, especially given the large Jewish population of Montreal and the strong Jewish influence on anglophone literature from Montreal (Richler, Layton, Cohen). Here is a quickly found article from McGill's own website: http://www.mcgill.ca/maritimelaw/history/richler/

As for the statements above about underfunding during Shapiro's time, I believe there is something to those claims, but of course they need sources. However, I don't think it was necessarily all about Shapiro himself; one has to take into account the unique situation of education funding in Quebec, i.e. the very low tutition for Quebec residents and the inability of the province to continue adequate funding for universities. Also, Quebec seems to be prone to strikes, and universities are no exception (such as at U of M last year). Timocrates 18:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA comment

For the article to maintain its GA status, the copyrighted images need detailed fair use rationales. Look to other passed GA/FAs for examples. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions. --Nehrams2020 06:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

To which images are you referring? Darkcore 18:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The only image that needs a FUR is the logo in the infobox (Image:Mcgill-logo.png). --Nehrams2020 05:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:1874 Harvard-McGill.jpg

Image:1874 Harvard-McGill.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

It may be worthwhile to flesh out the school's history by noting it's place in age amongst other Canadian post-secondary institutions, of which Université Laval was first in 1663, followed by University of New Brunswick in 1785 (oldest English-speaking university in Canada), followed by University of King's College in 1789, then Saint Mary's University in 1802, then Dalhousie University in 1818, and McGill in 1821. As far as I'm aware, McGill is the 6th oldest university in all of Canada, and is likely one of the top 15 oldest post-secondary institutions (can anyone link to official Colleges in Canada pre 1821?) of the nation. --AccuratEdit (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2008 (EST)

-It may also be helpful to add that McGill was founded 'during the British colonial era before Canadian Confederation.' This distinction is listed for several other Canadian universities, as well as many American universities. Also see Old Four. --AccuratEdit (talk) 1:21, 3 May 2008 (EST)

[edit] Campaign McGill: History in the Making

Do we want to mention anything in the article about McGill's current fundraising goals? Would that be encyclopedic or not? It is the "largest initial goal of any university fundraising campaign in Canadian history"[1]. Also, funding is often an issue at McGill, so we could discuss that is well (it is already touched upon briefly in the article). --DFRussia 22:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable alumni and faculty

An annon added some info about Shatner to the notable people section. Then User:ElKevbo removed it as unsorced. I found the source for it and put it back, but some similar concepts are covered in another section of an article, so I was wondering in which section the combined info belongs (ctrl-f Shatner to see where it is mentioned) --DFRussia 04:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Academic Ranking

Guys, please watch the random additions of our new ranking in random sections of the page. It is exciting that McGill is 12th and first publin in NA, but that does not mean you need to sacrifice style. All the ranking information is mentioned properly in the "Academin Ranking" section, and the most notable rankings are also mentioned in the opening. Please leave it at that, or atleast READ the article before editing. --DFRussia 20:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

We have a lot of random IP edits moving that back up to the very first item in the lead. I disagree with giving McGill's ranking, however important, before the simple task of identifying McGill University. It seems like unnecessary bragging at that point, as opposed to referencing it later where it appears to be warranted. Snowfire51 (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Upon further review, it doesn't seem that other colleges and universities put their accomplishments in the very first sentence of the lead, either. I randomly checked Yale University, Harvard University, Creighton University, and the University of Texas. None of them place their rankings up top and in some cases, they're not even a part of the lead. Snowfire51 (talk) 02:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The lead should only have static info that isn't gona change much from year to year. So far McGill's rankings have been all over the place so I definitely agree that they should be confined to the appropriat academic ranking section. --DFRussia (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure who I'm even talking to at this point because our anon IP editors refuse to comment, but I can't find evidence of other colleges and universities that have their rankings up top. With some, it's not even a part of the lead. Look at schools like UCLA and Duke University. They have impressive rankings, but they're not the first thing on the page.

Saying that McGill is interesting and notable because of their rankings, and thus they should be mentioned before even describing the university is a bit short-sighted, I think. If the rankings go down next year, does that mean McGill is no longer notable? As DFRussia said, rankings are transitory. They should be mentioned, but shouldn't be the very top of an article. The University has worth and meaning, even without the rankings. Snowfire51 (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been following this little drama and its a maddening waste of time. Is there a way to get an experienced admin or editor to see where the anon IP is logged on, possibly put a block in place? He's violated 3RR by now, hasn't he? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well go to Dule University page, they did add US ranking and other ranking in opening paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.121.200 (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, thanks for coming to the talk page to discuss this. Please clarify, there is no Dule University. Snowfire51 (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plea to IP editors

It appears that the anonymous IP editors who continually revert the changes to the positioning of McGill's academic ranking are refusing to discuss this on the talk page as requested. I don't usually leave messages on IP editors talk pages, so I'll just leave it here in hopes they read it. Please discuss these proposed changes on the talk page, as there is a consensus established and a standard way of handling things as described above. Wikipedia is based on discussing matters on the talk page and gaining consensus, please be a part of the process rather than just continually reverting edits you disagree with. Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Two days later, and still no one is willing to talk about this and gain consensus. Consensus is not gained through continually reverting and edit summaries. there is a discussion above about the academic rankings, feel free to join in. Please be civil. Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
As per WP:ES, "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. Instead, place such comments, if required, on the talk page. This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowfire51 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Mcgill-logo.png

Image:Mcgill-logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 01:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Editorhwaller (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enough!

Enough, says me. I've fully protected the page until some consensus is reached here about the lead. I suggest using Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures, but to steal a phrase... "we are not amused. - Philippe | Talk 00:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

All the other issues aside, could there be a consensus to put the ranking at the end of the lead? Editorhwaller, are you talking about the end of the lead (1st) paragraph or the lead section. I wasn't sure. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the article and comparing it to the other universities I referenced above, I think it would fit at the end of the WP:LEAD. Otherwise, it underscores the rest of what is notable about the university. Snowfire51 (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Great, it looks like we may have a consensus, them, at least among us three. Editorhwaller, how about you copy the lead text from the article and paste it here, modifying it along these lines. That may be way to look at it with removing the block. How does that sound? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to go to bed soon. But here is my proposal, as agreed upon by Snowfire on 12/31 and the only one that we considered as a compromise before today. It should be at the end of the first sentence of the lead's first paragraph as noted in my replies and the December 31, 2007 (21:23) edit page:

McGill is a public co-educational research university located in the city of Montreal. Its main campus is set upon 320,000 square metres (80 acres) at the foot of Mount Royal in Montreal's downtown district. A second campus—Macdonald Campus—is situated on 6.5 square kilometres (1,600 acres) of fields and forested land in Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, 30 kilometres west of the downtown campus. McGill University is ranked as Canada's premier national university[4] and among the top dozen universities worldwide.[5][6]Editorhwaller (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think putting it in the first paragraph is placing it too high, with the other examples I've provided, rankings are not even part of the WP:LEAD. I feel that putting it as the last sentence of the WP:LEAD is sufficient, based on other examples and precedence. Snowfire51 (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I did look at Duke University's lead, as Editorhwaller had previously suggested, and I see that it's a little lower, midway through the second graph, after it enumerates the schools and campuses. In McGill that would place it just before the mention of James McGill, which doesn't seem right, either. Old James would have to come first, I feel. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

REPLY: No, I never suggested Duke University. Please do not say that. I suggested Oxford University article. I quote it here:

"The University of Oxford (informally "Oxford University"), located in the city of Oxford, England, is the oldest university in the English-speaking world.[4] It is also regarded as one of the world's leading academic institutions. ..."

If no one ever got bothered by Oxford's lead, and if Snowfire proposed on December 31 that the McGill ranking be placed on the last sentence of the first lead paragraph, I do not see why it would be a problem to revive Snowfire's own original compromise proposal. Otherwise, we would have to revise several universities like Oxford that mention their standing or place in the first paragraph of the lead.Editorhwaller (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, pleae don't put extra marks all over the page, it results in your name appearing in places it shouldn't, such as your last edit to the McGill image.
As far as I know, you've never asked anyone to look at Oxford University, your WP:MEAT asked us to look at Duke University. Looking at Oxford, the sentence that appears in the WP:LEAD isn't a ranking, it's a summary of centuries of accolades. It's not a transitory ranking. Comparing McGill to Oxford is like comparing apples to ocelots, no offense intended. Snowfire51 (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I remember us being asked -- perhaps not by you -- to look at "Dule," a mispelling of Duke. At any rate, I've looked at the Oxford article and I agree with Snowfire that it's quite a different thing. It's a very general statement, "one of the world's leading..." more along the lines of the current McGill lead that you wish to change, "McGill University is a premier..." (sic; we'll have to change that). It doesn't get into such specific details as ranking for an individual department therein. I remind you that the ranking you want to insert into the lead is for medical-doctoral studies, not the school as a whole. So I don't agree that Oxford is a very good example. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

SHAWN AND SNOWFIRE: I think you both don't get it. Before I put down my points, please note that I am not associated with McGill or any Canadian school in any way. My doctorate is from Yale and I am not in or from Canada.

1) The point here is that Oxford, Cambridge and other university articles are putting in their standings in the first paragraph. These standings are undocumented, based on public perception as a given time (which may be questioned since they are not quantified). If reputation is good enough, then a scientific ranking is even more objective.

2) The ranking I am inserting is for the school as a whole. I think you did not read the surveys for Canada and international universities. The ones ranked are medical-doctoral universities (not medical-dcotoral studies) which is an academic term to mean that the university is a major research (not liberal arts or small) university.

3) Keep in mind that it was Snowfire who originally proposed that the ranking be placed on the first paragraph of the lead. If that was fine with him then as a compromise, why not now? Editorhwaller (talk) 05:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who you are or what school you say you're affiliated with, that's not relevant to wikipedia. A scientific ranking is a transitory device. You're attempting to say that McGill belongs in the same category as Oxford and Cambridge. If it did, one ranking certainly wouldn't mean as much to McGill as this one seems to. I explained the proposal long ago and I won't go back over it now, suffice to say I've done more research and I think the current arrangement is plenty.
If I may suggest something, you might want to familiarize yourself with wikipedia policies such as WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR. So far this year, you have not contributed a single valid edit to wikipedia, and the vast majority of your time is spent deleting warnings other users put on your page (which are still visible). Proper formatting is important, and reading over the policies might help you in the future. Snowfire51 (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

REPLY: Thanks for your advice about familiarizing myself with Wikipedia policies. I suggest you familiarize yourself also with 3RR and gaming policies which you have violated. You have also spent a considerable amount of time deleting my reminders that it was you who proposed the original compromise in the edit page of the article dated December 31, 2007 (21:23).

If a scientific ranking is a transitory device (and I agree with that, of course), then public perception is not only transitory but totally bounded by time and space. Ask the vast majority of people in Vietnam or Nigeria or Uruguay, or the world in general, if they agree with the statement that Oxford is one of the leading universities in the world, and they will likely tell you: "Who told you that and when? We do not even know what universities are"?

In any case, I think I already have enough data for learning about consensus and consensual decision-making. Here are three compromise points. Pick one. Any of the three is fine with me:

1) The administrator's "compromise": Keep the article on hold and protected to indicate absence of consensus.

2) Your original 12/31/07 compromise: Put the ranking on the first paragraph of the lead.

3) The Oxford, Cambridge, etc. compromise: Put the following as the second sentence of the first paragraph without any documentation since it captures public perception well: "McGill is also regarded Canada's premier university and one of the world's leading academic institutions."

With three well-discussed choices, we should be able to arrive at a compromise by tomorrow. As stated, any of the three would work for me.

Editorhwaller (talk) 06:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR doesn't take place when dealing with sockpuppets, and even so, I attempted at every step of the way to try and get your WP:MEAT to discuss this. I followed policy, you're only accusing me of that because you read SiM's comment on my talk page while you were vandalizing it. Furthermore, I don't have any idea what "gaming" policy you're talking about.
I was offering my advice to you on deleting your talk page, since that does not eliminate warnings from wikipedia editors. I deleted your comments because you are an admitted WP:MEAT, and in my eyes, a troll. You can delete the messages, but admins know you've been warned about certain things, as seen here [2], here [3], or here [4].
Your last comments indicate that you are once again violating WP:POINT, and is more than a bit ridiculous. Your compromises are not grounded in wikipedia policies, and seem to be only to prove a point and get your way. Snowfire51 (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


REPLY: I have warned you on your Talk Page (that others can see in History) to stop sending any more posts to me. You claim I violated Wikipedia policy. But you know you did the same. What kind of an "editor" are you? You have violated WP:3RRpolicy on numerous occasions, the last one being your edits on January 2, 2008 (see History Page for McGill University). You were also warned about it by Shawn in Montreal (in the first post to your Talk Page section on McGill University). PLEASE NOTE THAT WIKIPEDIA NEVER INDICATED THAT YOU COULD VIOLATE WP:3RR AND OTHER POLICIES SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU WANT TO THINK THAT PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH YOU ARE SOCK PUPPETS.

The worse thing about it is that you denied in Shawn in Montreal's Talk Page that you made a compromise on December 31, 2007 (21:23, History page for McGill University). And when I cited and documented it, you made a complete turnaround and admitted it. A true editor is honest. Without the required integrity, how can an editor edit without people thinking that he/she is simply imposing his/her biased views or opinion on others as the motivation for editing?

The final point I would like to make here, although I have not put it in written scholarly form, is that a professional encyclopedia's editors, or any peer-reviewed publication editors, are known and credentialed. Because of these, consensus and compromises are generally made before the fact (i.e., before the encyclopedia or any peeer-reviewed scholarly publication goes off the press). Wikipedia's consensus is a constantly evolving process because the idea is to allow communities of writers and editors to contribute and to update their contributions regularly and without worrying about any time lag that could render information obsolete or irrelevant. We all know that. The problem that we are now finding from an academic standpoint is that consensus is hard to measure and to achieve when editors are not known, are not credentialed or at least their credentials are not known, and keep changing their views. That leads to imposition of personal biases and preferences in the pretext of consensus-building. Worst, it allows so-called editors to repeatedly change their mind and their preferences (compromises) just like you did when you denied and then debunk your December 31, 2007 edit/compromise(21:23, History page for McGill University).

I guess for now we will all stay with Option 1, which is to keep the McGill article protected and on hold until another consensus (perhaps) emerges. Editorhwaller (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If you feel I've violated the WP policy on WP:3RR, please stop threatening me and turn me in. You can do so here.
Summing up, I never made a compromise with you, or anyone else. I tried to float a compromise to an anon IP editor who was engaging in an edit war and refusing to talk. It was intended as a bargaining tool, and not a long-term solution. By saying I had a compromise with you based on something said a week before your first edit, you are admitting that you were the same anon IP editor, and thus a WP:SOCK.
I don't think we can reach consensus here, simply because you seem uninterested in doing so, prefering to disrupt this page in violation of WP:POINT Admins will have to sort this one out. Snowfire51 (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

REPLY: Please do not distort what is already written and said in this or any Talk Pages. Consider the following:

1) Please do not deny again what you just admitted and denied before. However you wish to play a semantics game here, you made a compromise and you called it as such in your December 31, 2007 (21:23) edit of that article. What I do not understand is regardless of the reasoning for your compromise, why you denied that you made it yesterday in your first post to Shawn in Montreal's Talk page ... until you were caught.

2) It is you who does not want to compromise or help find a consensus. I gave you three choices above,not one. You have not chosen any to date.

3) I did not want to respond anymore because it is a pure waste of time. Besides, we already have a default in Option 1.

However, your last post is inviting a compromise. I therefore would go for Option 3. There seems to be consensus on the Oxford, Cambridge, etc. articles concerning sheer public perception, so let us apply it also to the McGill article and be fair. It should read:

McGill is also regarded Canada's premier university and one of the world's leading academic institutions.


Put it on the lead's first paragraph without any documentation since it captures public perception well. Happy? Or do we have to edit all other college articles bearing similar public perception of standing in the first lead paragraph? End of the story.Editorhwaller (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please turn me in, or stop threatening me. I've explained twice now why a compromise was offered as a bargaining tool to your WP:SOCK, no need to do so again. The sentence you wish to add on the McGill page is unverifieable, and not compatible with WP:NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowfire51 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I never threatened you (please be honest since you can not prove that), and I will not turn you in for the same reason that no one has turned me in.

If the sentence I wish to add is unverifiable, even if the various documented rankings verify it, then I shall proceed to edit the Oxford and other articles that claim they are leading schools since there is nothing to verify those either, not even rankings. Who says they are leading schools - you and the people of England? Is there a valid sample from which this perception derives? Or are you making it up? Please note that several, even hundreds of people who claim certain universities lead do not necessarily constitute a representative sample of the population.

Editorhwaller (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You've threatened me with turning me in for alleged WP:3RR violations for the last 24 hours, as can be clearly seen from your edit history. You are an admitted WP:MEAT if not a complete WP:SOCK, you have admitted to disrupting wikipedia to prove a point, you have been uncivil to everyone involved in this matter, and have yet to prove by a single edit that you are interested in proper wikipedia policy, decorum, or anything else other than your "experiment."
In my opinion, it's best to go with the previously establish consensus that the information doesn't belong at the top of the WP:LEAD.
I encourage you to make your edits to other colleges and universities, and see how your method of edit warring is handled there. Since Oxford is not semi-protected, you can go back to your previous way of making edits as an anonymous IP without discussing things on the talk page. That should work wonders for your experiment. Snowfire51 (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

REPLY: You are the one who has threatened to turn me in, calling me every conceivable falsehood, from Meatpuppet to Meatsock, etc. but no one buys it and no one believes you. Proof of the pudding is in the eating: we are still debating the article and no one else is joining in. I think you are the admitted WP:MEAT if not a complete WP:SOCK.

Yes, I accept your invitation to edit Oxford, etc. with respect to paragraphs that, as you said, are "unverifiable." That will perhaps determine a consensus as to whether public perception of standing and/or actual scientific rankings belong to the lead. I imagine by the time we get a consensu on Oxford, Cambridge, Cornell, etc., the protection on McGill would have been lifted and the discussion -- this time based on consensus - will revive. I hope you join in again. Just remember, you can not be right in both. You can not have the public perception in Oxford but not in McGill. It is either you have it in both or none at all. No, you can not have your cake and eat it, too. Sorry, you cannot.Editorhwaller (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with all that, and I sincerely hope you get the help you need. Take care. Snowfire51 (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Resolution

The editor who forced this impass has been permanently blocked from Wikipedia. I would like to return to the consensus this information belongs at the bottom of the WP:LEAD, and not the top, as per the examples I've given and the relative importance of the ranking.

Thanks to everyone involved for their time and again, apologies for everything that appeared on this talk page that was unrelated to McGill. Snowfire51 (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the removed sock comments where from Editorhwaller, not Edithhwaller: my apologies for any confusion created by the edit summary.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Given that, I've removed the full protection from the article (but left is semi-protected to prevent anon issues for a while). I'll remove the semi-protection fairly soon as well. Good luck! - Philippe | Talk 15:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with the lead as it is right now? With just the cited word "premier". I made that change a while ago and it seems like a good way to point out the ranking of the University without being boastful or overemphasising it. I don't mean to restart the whole discussion again, but it seems like the most discrete and simplest solution. I refer to the version:

McGill University is a premier[4] public co-educational research university located in the city of Montreal. Its main campus is set upon 320,000 square metres (80 acres) at the foot of Mount Royal in Montreal's downtown district. A second campus—Macdonald Campus—is situated on 6.5 square kilometres (1,600 acres) of fields and forested land in Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, 30 kilometres west of the downtown campus. McGill has 21 faculties and professional schools and offers degrees and diplomas in over 300 fields of study. The university also has field research stations in Mont-Saint-Hilaire and Schefferville, Quebec; Axel Heiberg Island in Nunavut; and Holetown, Barbados. McGill was founded in 1821 from a bequest by James McGill, a prominent Montreal merchant, who left an endowment in addition to the property on which the university now stands. McGill would become the first non-denominational university in the British Empire. McGill's Redpath Museum, commissioned in 1880 and opened in 1882, is the oldest building built specifically as a museum in North America. Its natural history collections boast material collected by the same individuals who founded the collections of the Royal Ontario Museum and the Smithsonian.

Cheers --DFRussia (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. You missed a lot of action on this site, and unfortunately the talk pages of everyone involved. Take care! Snowfire51 (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Haha, sorry about that. I try to check my watchlist as often as I can, but I kind of had a lot of courses and personal stuff to keep up with recently so my checks have become sparse. This page seems to have slowed to a more manageable pace, and it seems like most of the conflicts are resolved, or atleast under the rug. Hopefully things will remain this way --DFRussia (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I made this edit and didn't realize it had been the topic of an edit war. Am I out of line? I felt that "premier" is too vague and promotional, and I figured it would work best at the end of the first paragraph to balance the importance of the statement and the impartiality of the article.-Wafulz (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I think this is the precise edit the war was about. I think the decision was that the single word "premier" with a citation was more discrete and consistent/impartial than stating the whole (often fluctiating) rating in the last sentence. I am gona undo your edit, just to restore it to the way it was just to avoid a bunch of edits back and forth. From now on, lets first discuss everything on this talk page, before any edits. I hope the edit war does not resume --DFRussia (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't like using "premier", especially in the first sentence- it's kind of like calling the iPhone "innovative" in its first sentence. Anyway, for precedent, Michigan State University (FA status) has one sentence at the end of its first paragraph stating the school is public Ivy, and elaborates further on its academic rank in an "academics" section.-Wafulz (talk) 03:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I looked through some FA articles and some do include pretty detailed ranking, and some don't include any at all. However, one thing I read from the style guide for university articles is "The lead should be a concise summary of the entire article - not simply an introduction." I think "premier" is a much more consice summary than saying the whole numeric ranking. When you say "premier" it just means "good", but how good? well, read on down in the academic section. Once it says 12th in world, and 1st public or some stuff like that.... you've pretty much stated half of the academic section (since there other two ranking are Macleans and the research ranking). I also think "premier" is not that intrusive, and a very discrete way to mention the ranking without explicitly stating numbers. I would also be in favour of completely removing the ranking or any mention of it from the lead. Or maybe even making it even MORE discrete by just making it one word somewhere else in the lead, and not in the first sentence. However, I oppose having a whole sentence or two or even a paragraph at the end of the lead simply enumirating the ranking. Also, Wafulz, thanks for discussion--DFRussia (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hah, I've got enough edit war drama, I'd rather not have another. I'm more in favour of removing "premier" entirely because it reads like a peacock term to me.-Wafulz (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, never thought about it that way. Now that you mention it, I'm with Wafulz, lets remove the word "premier". --DFRussia (talk) 05:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree fully with removing "premier". You're right, it's a peacock term. Snowfire51

(talk) 05:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] concern

If the opening paragraph should be neutral like what you said. then shouldn't Duke University University of Tokyo university of cambridge university of oxford be the same? I see ranking on opening paragraph of Duke University. As well as peacock terms such as 'a reputation as one of the world's most prestigious universities.' from university of cambridge.

I have few sources: these clearly shows McGill is one of the top University in the world. [5] [6] [7]

If these schools use peacock terms why can't we use that in opening sentense like those schools?

Other wikipedia pages also state McGill as prestigous school by the way. [8] [9] [10]

User talk:Manhore —Preceding comment was added at 21:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The only article that should merit comparison is Duke since it's featured. If you mention something like rank in the lead section, it should objectively summarize a section and not just be a phrase like "one of the top".-Wafulz (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Keio University University of Tokyo Waseda University These should be corrected as well. they use phrase like "is one of the most prestigious" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.197.23 (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's stopping you. Also, sign your talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~).-Wafulz (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

no, everytime i edit the page it gets changed back to original edition, (how is this article featuring Duke?) (User talk:Manhore)

[edit] Lead section options

We seem to still be having troubles deciding on what to do with ranking in the lead section. There are 3 options between which we need to pick:

  1. no mention of ranking at all
  2. the word "premier" with a citation included
  3. a more detailed explanation of the ranking "first in Canada by Macleans, 12th in world by Times Higher" etc.

We should discuss this between the editors and decide which is the best way to proceed. I personally disapprove of the 3rd option, the lead is suppose to be a summary and NOT say everything that is down lower in the ranking section. I was at first a supporter of the 2nd option (and actually stuck that word in there as an alternative to option 3). However, concerns where raised that "premier" is a bit of a peacock term and should be avoided, so I switched to option 1 to avoid trouble.

Also, when you post in this discussion, please try to maintain some format standards so it is easy to read and please sign your name (if you are annon and have an account, please sign in and sign your name normally... since we can't tell if the user name provided by an anon is their actual username or just abuse). --DFRussia (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

hey why not just put McGill is one of the best research schools in Canada. I mean take look at Rice University. You can find hundreds of schools using sentenses like that. (They have no problem with using "peacock" terms) La Trobe University << this one got rankings on opening sentense. We got proof for that as well (numerous rankings i cited above). I suggest include that like other schools. If someone wants to include that please do so. (snowfire51 deleted my changes without discussing so you people better with careful with him too..) --Manhore

I deleted your changes because they were done without discussion on the talk page. Making an edit clearly in opposition to consensus and the comment warning at the top of the page, then making a talk page comment later is not discussing it. You have experience with that from your previous edits, I think you'll understand. As for the peacock term, I'm against it. We've gone over this before in great detail, most schools don't have something like that in their WP:LEAD. A few isolated examples shouldn't be given undue weight. Snowfire51 (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

yeah because there are thousands of schools out there (about 3000 4yr colleges in US) most schools are not worth mentioning, but only most of those exceptional ones (well ranked school) have "peacock" terms and ranking (most of them). I think McGill's reputation is worth mentioning. "most schools don't have something like that in their " << Well most of the prestigious schools DO have. Please do some research before writting.(Manhore)

University of British Columbia UCSD UCLA University of Toronto University of California Berkeley there are tons of schools using ranking etc(i just dont have time to list them all). Why dont you go to some of those school and bother them? dont do that to us.. you are annoying, this article isnt your property. Dont stop people from editting (Where does it say people MUST discuss before editting?) (Manhore)

This topic is sensitive, as well you know, because a rogue editor vandalized it for quite a while and forced the page to be fully protected for some time. When he was blocked, as you can tell from the archives of this page, there was no longer any contentious debate and a consensus was quickly reached. Everyone was civil and productive, and it was fixed. To prevent this sort of uncivil logjam from happening again, one of the editors who was dilligent in maintaining the page in a proper manner placed the note "everyone, please REFER TO TALK PAGE before making any edits to the lead, especially if it relates to rankings" at the top of the page, which you saw and disregarded. I don't own wikipedia, and neither do you. Consensus was established some time ago because of a bad situation brought on by a now-banned editor. I'm sure you understand. Snowfire51 (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No, read what you wrote on my profile. I dont vandalize this article so dont block me from editting.(User talk:Manhore)

This is a sensitive article?! I mean its just an ariticle about an university right?!? Its not U.S.-China relations or Nanking Massacre!! Take it easy. What you said is laughable.. dont be grandiloquent.(User talk:Manhore) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.197.23 (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the same thing I said above, Please don't change the lead on McGill University without discussing it on the talk page. Consensus has been reached there about the WP:LEAD. Thanks!. Consensus has been reached, and there was clearly a message about it on the page you edited, but you chose to disregard it. I'm just trying to let you know this has been discussed at great lengths and consensus has been reached. Making one edit does not give you the right to ignore consensus, so please discuss it here before reverting.Snowfire51 (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
As for a sensitive article, the topic isn't sensitive, but this page is. TYhat's why it was shut down and fully blocked a few weeks ago. You remember why, I'm sure. Snowfire51 (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest adding McGill University is Canada's top research university bluh bluh, also add Rhode Scholars and Nobel Prizes after that. because McGill deserves that. (This is an elite research school) If you are not familiar with academia then let others edit. Stop deleting people's sentenses from now on. BTW, That guy is blocked right? Now you are being vandalist.. Deleting everything i wrote like you own this website. someone do something about this man... i dont wanna spend more time on this. snowfire wont let me edit so someone edit it (he "owns" wikipedia)so someone else please make McGill look like University of British Columbia or University of Toronto's leading paragaphy!

Civility, please. I'm quite familiar with academic standings, and also with wikipedia policy. There's no need for personal attacks here, nor is there any reason for you to be uncivil simply because consensus has already been gained in spite of your earlier efforts. Please respect wikipedia policies, and make your case here before just reverting the page. Snowfire51 (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

ok, "make your case here before just reverting the page" this is what you said. I made my point. (McGill should deserve the same reputation as other Canadian schools) So now i m editting, dont delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.197.23 (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Simply saying you think something should be a certain way, when many other respeced wikipedia editors have worked for weeks against vandals to establish consensus, does not make it correct. Please read this talk page and the archives, there was a lng debate over what belongs in the WP:LEAD of this article, and consensus was established. Please discuss it here, and see if people agree or diagree. That's what wikipedia is all about, it's not just about hijacking a page other people have worked on just because of a personal vendetta that we didn't listen to you the first time. Snowfire51 (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop making up rules. Now the other guys is gone, and YOU are the one vandalizing. I spend 20 minutes phrasing the paragraph and now you delete without discussing. He doesnt want me to edit (I m too unprofessional) So can some Professional/Respected editer edit this??

Whats wrong with: McGill University is Canada's premier public co-educational research university located in the city of Montreal. Its main campus is set upon 320,000 square metres (80 acres) at the foot of Mount Royal in Montreal's downtown district. A second campus—Macdonald Campus—is situated on 6.5 square kilometres (1,600 acres) of fields and forested land in Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, 30 kilometres west of the downtown campus. It has established itself as a top university in Canada with seven Nobel Laureates affiliated with it. The university was ranked 12th in the recent QS World University Rankings, and often placed among the leading academic institutions of the world in numerous rankings.

Read the archives. It's all been discussed before. I'm sure you remember. If you want to change things, the simple fact that the other editors who helped gain consensus on this aren't reading this page tonight doesn't give you the right to revert things to the way you want. The word "premier" is a WP:weasel word, and the rankings are already mentioned in the article, established consensus agrees it doesn't belong in the WP:LEAD. If you want it changed, make your case to change consensus. Snowfire51 (talk) 05:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Manhore or 142.157.197.23 or whoever you are. (a) please sign in so we can keep track of your posts (b) Snowfire51 isn't picking on you or the University of McGill. He is upholding the consensus that several editors reached earlier. So stop whinning. If you are concerned about McGill's reputation personally, then consider that flaunting your ranking does not make your school seem better, it makes your school seem desperate. Espeshially if your ranking is volatile like McGill's. As I mentioned before, I am for option (1) or (2) from above and categorically against option (3). Also, Manhore... please try to be civil, raise points for why your opinion should be heard or understood... if you want to substantuate your opinion with evidence, then please only use articles that have recieved "featured" status. There is no point in providing articles that might be bad quality as evidence for changes that should be done on this page. Before changing the status quo around, I would like to see some input from people other than Manhore/142.157.197.23, Snowfire51 and myself. For now I think the article should remain at the last consesnsus edit, which is option (1), aka no ranking mentioned in the lead. --DFRussia (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with DFRussia, Manhore or 142.157.197.23 or Editorhwaller or whoever it is this week doesn't care about this article, or McGill, or wikipedia policy, only about their own way and viewpoint. There's no reason to have that information in the WP:LEAD, and every other editor (who wasn't eventually banned) has agreed. After what happened before, I'd rather not see this article shut down again as it was before.
If this editor actually cared about the McGill page, he'd work to make it better like you're doing. You've done some nice work cleaning this page up, DFRussia, it is certainly appreciated. Snowfire51 (talk) 10:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hazing

How is including the hazing scandal which occurred 3 years ago still relevant? How is it able to take up more space than the mention that mcgill had the first organized hockey team, football game and an alumnus invented basketball?

If you'd like to expand the other athletic sections, please go ahead. However, I would think a hazing scandal that made national news, caused the university to cancel the rest of the season, and forced an official change in policy would be quite relevant. Please discuss this here in hopes of changing the consensus, rather than simply continually reverting properly sourced information on the main page, please. Snowfire51 (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

take look at Duke's sex scandal, it's only mentioned in few words. it made international news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.196.34 (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a good example to show the relevance of these cases. The Duke rape case has it's own page. Snowfire51 (talk) 04:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Houdini

On October 19, 1926, Houdini - the "world's greatest magician" - gave a lecture at McGill University in Montreal on the techniques that fake mediums used to convince their clients that they could indeed communicate with the spirit world. After the lecture, a McGill student, J. Gordon Whitehead, on October 22, 1926, punched Houdini several times in the stomach. These punches are believed to have been the reason Houdini died several days later of peritonitis secondary to a ruptured appendix. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Houdini and Source: http://www.jppsbialik.ca/en/houdini

That really needs a secondary source. The one you've listed doesn't seem to provide any information other than a guy punched him in the stomach, and he died two weeks later. If you have a better source, please go ahead. Redrocket (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I found a description of the accident on McGill's website:

"Seventy-eight years ago, on Halloween, the master illusionist Harry Houdini died. Nine days earlier, in Montreal, he had been punched several times in the abdomen by James Whitehead, a 31-year-old McGill theology student. Sam Smiley, then an Arts student at McGill, was in Houdini's dressing room at the time, on the performer's request. They had met earlier at Houdini's performance in the McGill Union Ballroom, and Houdini had been impressed enough with Smiley's sketches to ask him to do his portrait."

"[...]He was reclining on the couch, propped up on pillows. He appeared to brace himself, but Whitehead didn't waste any time. He bends over — he was tall, lanky — and delivers a few direct blows to the abdomen, a good four or five. I just sat there, mouth agape, not knowing what was happening."

"[...]That was on the Friday morning. At any rate, a few days later there's a screaming headline in the paper: "Detroit Surgeons Say McGill Student's Blows Fell Houdini." Well, I didn't sleep that night, nor a number of nights after as he hovered between life and death — for five or six days I think, and he finally succumbed."

Source: http://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/37/04/focus/

"Although Whitehead was never charged with a crime he did have to sign an affidavit for Houdini's widow, so she could collect life insurance from the New York Life Insurance Company under the double indemnity clause." Source: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=11432883 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.105.175 (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TA Strike

It might be worth mentioning that as of April 8, 2008 AGSEM, the union representing teaching assistants (TAs) at McGill announced a general strike which as of April 11 is still ongoing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.206.126.11 (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Table of contents

Is way, way, way too long. We need to merge some short topics. Just letting everyone know. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look particularly problematic to me. It seems to be in line with other articles on similar topics. Modern colleges and universities, particularly large research universities, are very complex. It's not at all surprising that Wikipedia articles about them reflect that complexity.
With all that said, it may be helpful to take a look at the appropriate article guidelines if you're interested in restructuring this article. --ElKevbo (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    • It looks ok to me, but if you can improve it please do so.

[edit] About last editting

Does any McGill student here think we should keep it like the way it was or not. I think we spell "program" not "programme" and "organization" but not "organisation". For example for "programme" I don't think Canadian still uses that. This website contains the word "program". [11] Thanks. Firewal2 (talk) 00:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that program should be kept, not like my silly change, sorry. But organisation is the Canadian one. I got it from here. Apologizes to you. Congrats on being in McGill; I hear there's some hard competition. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that "program" is the norm in Canada, and similarly with "ize" rather than "ise." The "ise" is used almost exclusively in Britain and Australia. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_spelling The Dover Demon (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is a lack of cites to support the spelling section. And I should know how to spell Canadian English, I myself am Canadian. Or I could have had it wrong for years... But I see your point. Hmm, I'll redo some of it later when I have the time. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  • We use 'ize'! Think: Civilization, organized, pasturized etc. When have you ever read 'civilisation' in something Canadian (look at ANY of our textbooks describing civilization)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AccuratEdit (talk • contribs) 00:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

According to the lead comments, it would be apparently appreciated that all changes to the lead are put in the talk page. Well, it appears that the lead does not cover all sections of the article, such as student life and alumni. I will try to include all of these, though it may seem not as smooth. You are welcome to make changes to my changes. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

-I'd like to add to the lead, 'One of the oldest universities in Canada, McGill was founded in 1821...' see Bishop's University, where the lead describes says 'Bishop's is one of the oldest universities in Canada.', although it was only founded in 1843. Referring to Yale University, the lead (very early on) includes 'Yale is the third-oldest institution of higher education in the United States'. Furthermore, Queen's University has a lead stating 'The institution was founded on October 16, 1841, pre-dating the founding of Canada by 26 years', and it was founded in 1841 - it is worth pointing out that McGill is indeed one of the first universities in the nation, by at least denoting it as 'one of the oldest universities in Canada'. --AccuratEdit (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2008 (EST)

Hmm...yes that would work. You've done a hell lot then I did...I gotta get going...--Sunsetsunrise (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree with you as well, adding "One of the oldest in Canada" isn't misleading at all. McGill is one of the oldest in Canada. McGill is generally considered to be the oldest. Even if not "One of the" is still acceptable. Ocikat (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

-Thanks, I'm now looking to add more about McGill's research stations, as well as generate a stronger Notable alumni and faculty section, perhaps with a Benefactors listing (see Yale University's) and a section on Fiction/Pop Culture References (e.g. Character Gregory House of House (TV series) graduated from McGill). Also, Traditions is probably a heading to be included under Student Life, although at least 3 separate points would be desirable before adding that section. AccuratEdit (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I think it works. Ocikat (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

-I'd like to bring up the idea again of adding mention of McGill's international rankings again. 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). Just a one-liner highlight would be worthwhile, especially since McGill outpaces at least 20 other Canadian universities in terms of global ranking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AccuratEdit (talk • contribs) 21:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Agree with you, schools like this one University of British Columbia mentions ranking on leading paragraph as well. There are a lot more if you search. There is no rule proscribes from doing so. Ocikat (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Finances

-I plan to add the following soon: McGill has the third largest endowment of all Canadian educational institutions.[2] 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.[3]

Campaign McGill: History in the Making is a five-year comprehensive campaign that began in October of 2007[4], 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."[5] The largest goal of any Canadian university fundraising campaign in history[6][7], within the first 6 months, McGill had accumulated over $400 million CAD towards its efforts.[8]

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.[12][13] Ocikat (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another Peer Review?

The last peer review didn't bring forth many comments, just two. I've pretty much finished the automated script thing, even though it didn't appear I did anything. The one by Ruhrfisch I'm beginning to start. However, though I asked a few users, it wasn't very helpful. Should I start up a second one? Or should we just try our best? I've already asked Risker and he said he'll start copyediting the article soon. So, another review set up, I should I wait? --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I'd like to see another review, do you have a link to how they work? A couple of comments sounds dreary, and I can see things that need to be worked on still, a time consuming one being the citations (some are repeats of others basically, and most have no date accessed recorded, and no info on date of source itself). Also, "History section ends with 1969 - nothing has happened in the past 39 years?" is one of the comments from the last peer review, and is a really good item we can expand on and use as a proper lead-in for Academics.AccuratEdit (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • At any rate, the page has seen a lot of improvements in the last week alone, and that may slow down, so better to get input sooner than later. However, any input is better than none, but if waiting will likely increase the number of responses (for whatever reason), then I don't mind waiting a few weeks. If the script thing you made takes a while to put together, though, then I'd also prefer to wait a week or two again to get any more medium-large changes done, rather than have something go unchecked.AccuratEdit (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, another user showed me how to set up a peer review. The automated script I think was created by a bot to help the article. So I'll place it in by the end of today. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep editing and changing article with so far suggestions on review --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Where should we put the finances? I agree, it shouldn't be there with its own section, but it needs to be put somewhere. Any ideas?--Sunsetsunrise (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] School Logo

This image:

McGill University

Has been repeated twice during the article, making it redundent. However, I am not sure whether to take out the logo from the info box, or from the logo section below (kinda leaning towards that) but I would like other people's opinion. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi, I am not sure about the deletion, but if you are taking one out, do the one below. 132.216.15.11 (talk) 01:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC) (This is Ocikat by the way. I forgot my password..)
  • Ya, way better to remove the one below - I put it there originally for reference if someone's reading (really, if you're reading a description of something tangible and a picture could be right there, it seems even better) and wants to see the logo but doesn't want to scroll up, which is sort of ridiculous - but it also does add some balance to the article instead of just being TEXT, although I don't know wikipedia's policy on that, if there is one? I.e. Photos for the sake of an article's look? For instance, the research section is a bit blah to me since there's no photo support, but maybe I'm just a visual person like that... anyway, if you find another McGill logo/old crest to use in place, that'd be best! AccuratEdit (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Are we allowed to put in some flavour images for research? Like pictures of random students doing random research at McGill? --DFRussia (talk) 03:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Sure, just make sure it matches where it's placed and that you have a license or it's a free image.

Also, check Images to see other questions. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

      • The image cant appear on the page twice as it is a Fair Use Image. The image in the infobox needs to be kept, as it confirms to readers that they have reached the correct page, all others need to be deleted. Five Years 13:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I updated the entire section, hopefully there aren't any issues, I believe everything I added should fit within Fair Use because all of the crest/logos/pages are over 70 years old, among other things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AccuratEdit (talk • contribs) 01:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misc section

Is this really necessary? There doesn't seem to have any purpose, and seems to be like a trivia. Some facts could be incorporated into the article, others should be deleted. Ideas? Which to keep and merge in, which to delete? --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree that some is less than necessary, but consider that Columbia University (Fictitious Columbians, In film, television, and the arts), Cornell University (Cornelliana), Harvard University (Harvard in fiction and popular culture), Princeton University (In fiction) and many other notable institutions do have Miscellaneous/Fiction reference sections. Although these aren't common to most Canadian schools - clearly McGill is unique since it actually has material for such a section. I don't mind removing some items at all (OverheardatMcGill and Houdini are important to keep though), but the editor/critic from the review may not have looked over other highly ranked North American schools to consider the fact that they DO have this section, and while Wikipedia is an Encylopaedia and implies academic knowledge - it's also clearly the most modern encyclopaedia on Earth, and so many articles feature random facts, and EVERY article links to something else on the site, which can 'detract' from the one-topic in-depth approach, but also enhance it a lot. In these many ways, I don't see a problem in keeping the section, although it could be tidied up, sure.AccuratEdit (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead Section too crappy

Has anyone read the lead section recently? It is busy....

Esteemed internationally[9][10] and one of the most highly-regarded institutions in Canada,[11][12] the school has ranked among Canada's and the world's top universities for over a decade.[13][14] 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.[15][16] In Canada, McGill is the top-ranked Medical Doctoral university, ranking first for the third consecutive year in Maclean's annual University Rankings issue.[17][18]

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)