Talk:McGill University

GA Reassessment

McGill University

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist Verifiability issues still remain. Aircorn (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

As I stated on the talk page, "Lead does not meet MOS:LEAD, article has a lot of unsourced information and cleanup tags." Information needs to be verifiable according to the GA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 08:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• To the extent that there are issues with this page, they look very fixable to me, especially since it looks like basically every piece of information that's not sourced to featured standard has been tagged as such. If this were an FA there'd be cause for serious concern, but I've seen many GAs that are a lot worse. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delist, plenty of unsourced areas (2c), many tiny paragraphs and sections (1b), quite a few tags scattered about. Issues have remained for a few months. CMD (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• I navigated to this page for reading, but my preferences indicated this was a GA undergoing GAR. I will not make a comment on whether to keep or delist personally; however, it should be noted that the above comment from December which said that "there's worse GAs" is irrelevant. If there are worse and they do indeed have lots of problems, as this review insinuates, they should too be addressed and discussed or even reviewed like this article. dannymusiceditor ^oops 03:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• For reference, here's a permalink to the article around the time of the GAR nom: Special:Permalink/986087104 (diff with current version at time of writing - god bless those editors who save us from the horror of unhyphenated "accessdate" parameters, rendering diffs unreadable :/). A lot of the cleanup tags have been removed, though a lot of that is because the October version had cleanup tags duplicated for the same facts in the intro and the "Notable people" section. The verifiability issues in the "Notable people" section are mostly venial sins, and it's a small portion of a large article, so it seems a shame to delist for that alone. (I'm not too troubled by the issues raised on the talk page about the lead, since a lot of them are about violations of WP:UNIGUIDE, which is just an essay.) But still, the verifiability issues are WP:GACR failures, and they haven't been remedied in the ~half-year this GAR has been open, so I don't see any choice but to delist. Colin M (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • That said, I randomly checked a few other GA articles for major universities, and it is very common to have unsourced claims like "alumni/faculty include X recipients of award Y". e.g. University_of_Toronto#Notable_people: Twelve Nobel laureates studied or taught at the University of Toronto.; University_of_California,_Santa_Cruz#Notable_alumni_and_faculty: and several Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists; New York University is especially bad about this. Take that for what you will. Colin M (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'm updating my !vote to don't delist. It only took me about 30 minutes to mostly clean up the verifiability issues with the notable alumni accounting. In my view, it is not original research to say something like "McGill alumni include 15 justices of the Supreme Court" and support that with en efn that lists those 15 people with wikilinks. If someone really wants to challenge whether one of those people is indeed a Supreme Court justice or a McGill alum, then those facts can be supported with an RS citation, but it's such a basic piece of information that it would seem unlikely to be challenged. That said, I'm just basing this on my impression that the issues raised in the nom have been resolved. It's a very long article, and I have not tried to carefully review it in its entirety for adherence to GACR. Colin M (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Let's try pinging the McGill alums on Wikipedia, most of whom probably aren't active, but this article only really needs one editor to step up and save it from delisting.

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Delist
• The previous GA Review is something that is totally woeful. It is not comprehensive and basically amounts to an opinion. Nothing in the article is substantiated in that particular review. Nothing.
• The (Reassessment) (let's say this was an informal reassessment) done one day later to the above review indicates outstanding matters. Suggesting the review should never have been passed.
• Why is the reassessment on the talk page twice? This edit has no business being on the page. It duplicates the earlier assessment by User:buidhe ... I don't know what this editor's issue is creating a so-called (→‎GA Reassessment: new section) but it should be rolled back and removed.
• The Lead is woeful. Simple as that. User:buidhe is right, the Lead needs to adhere to the guidance in MOS:LEAD
• I don't like the copyright on the second image. It says, Possible Copyright Status: NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT ... ... ...
• I see that the Second University Company Image = This image might not be in the public domain outside of the United States;
• This article has far too many images than what is warranted for a University article. University in the snow. I needed to see that. Five times.
• Comparing with 8 university GA's (selected at random) I find headings are, inter-alia, (McGill is in red)

• History * * * * * * * * *
• Campuses * * * * * * *
• (Organisation and Administration) * * *
• (Colleges and Schools)
• (Research)
• Ideology)
• (Extracurricular activities)
• Academics and rankings * * * * * * *
• Athletics * * *
• Student life * * * * * *
• (Songs)
• (Insignias and Representations)
• Notable Alumni * * * * * * *
• (See also) *
• (Notes) *
• References * * * * * * * *
• External links * * * * * * *

(Trump University had a very erratic listing)

• So we can conclude the article is structured with eight major sections as per broad coverage with the addition of (See also) and (Notes).
• 6,058 edits by 2,058 editors. Page creator has not participated since 2009.
• 90 day page views = 120,417 views with a daily average of 1,323 views.
• No citation for para 2
• The McGill College section has very short paragraphs
• Campus extensions has 4 paragraphs with no citations
• McGill in the Great War needs more references - even though there is a validated stained glass window.
• Quotas on Jewish students today might best be regarded as racism if not outright anti semitism. I would drop this particlar facet of history.
• Campus sections might best be reduced to a single paragraph and link to the main article for the relevant campus.
• Lot of links in this article. I would use a bot to ensure compliance with MOS:REPEATLINK
• Prima facie, delist. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

---

• @Whiteguru: I'm confused by a few of these points. e.g. Why does it matter that the article creator hasn't participated since 2009? This point is especially hard to square: Quotas on Jewish students today might best be regarded as racism if not outright anti semitism. I would drop this particlar facet of history. Are you suggesting we should omit some historical facts because they reflect poorly on the article's subject? That seems totally contrary to WP:NPOV. Colin M (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• When a reassessment is completed, involved editors are notified; this gives some the opportunity to repair or improve the article as suggested.
• The other issue (antisemitism) ... goes something like this: time rolls on and humanity looks back at its misdemeanours and with hindsight, realises things could have been done better. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delist also issues with dated material such as an old student residency statistic, an old figure for classes count offered, and a reference to something being "in recent years" with a source from 1999. Does not meet the criteria. Hog Farm _Talk 18:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Ranking in lead

@Shabel432098 as opposed to getting in an edit war, would you care to explain your exact rationale here. Specifically, could you firstly provide a source that says that the ranking being discussed in the lead isn't a medical-doctoral ranking. Furthermore, could you explain why it would be in any way beneficial for the reader to not mention what is even being ranking (being medical-doctoral universities). Leventio (talk) 04:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Again @Shabel432098, discuss this on the talk page as opposed to starting an edit war. Now lets get the facts clear here.

1. Maclean's does not have a "best university" ranking, nor does it use the phrase "best university", rather it uses "best X university" or "best university in X", as Maclean's does not have a singular ranking of institutions but three (based off primarily undergraduate, medical-doctoral, and comprehensive). My position has not changed in any of my edit summaries nor in my earlier attempts to open a discussion with you on this talk page and your personal talk page. Maclean's does not refer to any of the institutions that lead any of their rankings as singularly the "best university" as that is not how their rankings function. You're conflating the phrase "best university" for Maclean's preferred phrasing "best X university". That conflation is your own issue and yours alone.

2. To answer this statement in your past edit summary: There's no official rule that "medical-doctoral" has to be included in the description, I'd advise you to read up on the guidelines and policies of WP:RS, as well as WP:UNI's own established consensus, which very much make it clear that issues of this nature should be presented as they are presented in the attributing source (which every source in this article states it's a medical-doctoral ranking, even in its headline), and not refactored to omit key details.

3. Even if there isn't a policy or a WikiProject consensus that says it doesn't need to be there (which there is), you have yet to give ANY reason as to why it is perfectly fine for us to exclude such information. Simply, Maclean's operates several university rankings, and we need to disambiguate which one is being discussed (unless you are all for people mistaking that they were categorized as a comprehensive or primarily undergraduate institution). Again, there is absolutely no reason to obfuscate what the ranking is, especially when there is an actual need to disambiguate which ranking is being referred to. Forget rules the rules I brought up earlier, that's simply common sense in terms of presenting new information to an uninitiated reader. Leventio (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Leventio @Korensho Notwithstanding this past conversation, I also don't support the presentation of college rankings websites in the lede in accordance with WP:HIGHEREDREP and WP:UNDUE. GuardianH (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm generally in agreement with the consensus established in Wikipedia:HIGHEREDREP, and because that statement places undue weight on a single publication's ranking over multiple others. That said, I'd be open to additional opinions from WP:UNI participants. Leventio (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Leventio I agree. Until removed, what currently stands is WP:BOOSTER; definitely WP:UNDUE weight meant to present the university in a more promotional light. I'll add the tag to reflect this. GuardianH (talk) 05:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

James McGill's slaves

A user added "and slaveowner" to the description of founder James McGill in the lead: "There is greater institutional recognition of James McGill's ownership of Black and Indigenous human beings, by the institution itself. This is a key aspect of James McGill's biography and the foundation of the school."[1]

The source used is the fourth paragraph of a brief biography of McGill in on the university's website.[2]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says the lead should summarize the most important contents of the article. First, McGill's ownership of slaves is not included in the contents of the article. Second, inclusion in the fourth paragraph in a biography of James McGill does not show the weight required to place it in the first paragraph of an article about McGill University.

~~~~ TFD (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

James McGill is an important figure in the University's founding. I two word addition clarifying his a significant aspect of his biography is relevant enough to make the lead.

I am happy to change the source to one where his slaveholding is mentioned in the first paragraph since that will demonstrate it's relevance. Chamawacka (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I also cannot see how him being a merchant is relevant of inclusion but the human beings that allowed for his trade to flourish are not worthy of inclusion! Chamawacka (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Please note that the weight provided to information in articles is determined by Balancing aspects: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject".

IOW if articles about McGill University regularly mention that James McGill was a slaveholder in their second sentence, then so should this article. You obviously believe they should and you may be right. The problem is that sources, including the one you used, do not provide the same weight.

Note that the issue is not whether James McGill owned slaves or whether that is important. The sole issue is whether your edit gives it the same degree of prominence as in reliable sources. For example, if the McGill Univesity website home page said, "Welcome to McGill Univesity, the university in Montreal founded by James McGill, Scottish merchant and slave-owner", then I would agree with you.

Can you provide any reason, based on Wikipedia policy or guidelines that support inclusion in the second sentence?

Actually it would be helpful if you could find a source about McGill University that mentions its founder was a slave-owner in the second sentence. However, it must be about McGill University specifically, not about James McGill or any controversy concerning the naming of the university. IOW an article named "McGill considers changing its name" would not be acceptable, while an entry in "World's Top 100 univerisites" would. TFD (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Student Numbers in the Lead

@User:GuardianH insists that student numbers must be included in the lead section of the university page. However, this is just his opinion, and nobody really cares. The number of students is already included in the summary, making it redundant to repeat it. According to MOS:LEDE and WP:UNIGUIDE, there is no requirement to include student numbers in the lead. In fact, none of the university pages I know of, such as Harvard University, Yale University, Princeton University, Stanford University, University of California, Berkeley, University of Toronto, and University of British Columbia, mention student numbers in the lead. This information is redundant and subject to change. Totally unnecessary. Loudmals (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The assortment of university pages you chose is few and unrepresentative. Tallying the amount of articles with enrollment in the lede is misguided, but if you want some examples there are plenty, including the University of Texas at Austin, Ohio State University, University of Michigan, University of California, Los Angeles, Dartmouth College, and numerous others. Canadian articles with them include Université de Montréal, University of Waterloo, and are also numerous, not to mention other universities abroad like the University of London, University College London, and the University of Edinburgh.

Nothing is required per se, but MOS:LEDE does dictate that information in the body should be represented in the lede. And, here, in addition to the established practice of putting enrollment numbers in uni-ledes, the article has good detail on the number and history of the university's enrolment, hence its addition and why its appropriate. GuardianH (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Loudmals and User:Hdsksj4839, whatever you are trying to do, it's not going to work. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Just as expected, this dirty, shameless, and retarded administrators named Drmies and Bbb23 blocked my account and ran away. They are believed to be the same person using two different accounts.

The only thing he can do is revert constructive edits and block users he disagrees with on the false charge of "sock puppet," rather than engaging in conversation and discussion. He aligns himself with another individual of low IQ, like GuardianH. They act as dictators, forming their own closed circles. Drmies even blocked editing on his talk page to prevent the influx of negative criticism. He is nothing more than a coward who blocks users and runs away. What a chicken.

I knew Wikipedia was a dirty playground where administrators and their allies stick together, excluding outsiders. However, these good-for-nothing individuals are corrupting the integrity of today's world and the transparency of the internet. 122.222.63.32 (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Bbb23, you and I "are believed to be..." Don't know how many times I told student to be careful with passive constructions. IP, who believes that? And Bbb, where did we run away to? Is it a better place? Drmies (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Melchior2006, GuardianH, thanks for helping to improve this article. It's amazing what some people with a low IQ can actually achieve! Drmies (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Drmies, you figure blocking the IP will take away a free source of entertainment?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

It's getting boring. They're a long ways away from McGill. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Good decision. I think the IP may have a point, though, about my IQ. Dropping steadily, soon I'll descend to genius level, and I've always been shameless.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the response Drmies and Bbb23, and for the kind-hearted laughs. Looks like IP has caught us red-handed, thwarting his plans of saving the internet, and presumably our villainly now goes unimpeded all while our devil-horns and tails are in towe and our hands are clasped together, rubbed mischeviously. GuardianH (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)