Wikipedia

Talk:McGill University/Archive 3

< Talk:McGill University
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Jonahrapp in topic Please fix the lead
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 33 external links on McGill University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on McGill University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on McGill University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on McGill University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on McGill University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed changes to lead section

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The first paragraph currently reads...

McGill University is a public research university in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. It was established in 1821 by royal charter, granted by King George IV of the United Kingdom.[1] The University bears the name of James McGill, a Montreal merchant from Scotland whose bequest in 1813 formed the university's precursor, McGill College.

Proposed changes:

  • "Canada" need not be linked, per WP:OLINK.
  • "University" need not be capitalized.
  • "Bears the name of" is a pompous sounding idiom, per WP:IDIOM.
  • Something about James McGill's controversial past should be added to the article, preferably to the lead.

Proposed first paragraph:

McGill University is a public research university in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. It was established in 1821 by royal charter, granted by King George IV of the United Kingdom.[1] The university is named for James McGill, a Montreal merchant, politician and slave owner whose bequest in 1813 formed the university's precursor, McGill College.

Thank you for your input. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Frost, Stanley Brice. McGill University, Vol. I. For the Advancement of Learning, 1801–1895. McGill-Queen's University Press, 1980. ISBN 978-0-7735-0353-3

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on McGill University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on McGill University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

"Coeducational" in lead

Latest comment: 5 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

There appears to be some disagreement over whether or not to add "coeducational" to the lead. After looking at a variety of top quality university pages I've observed that no major Canadian/American university (U of T, UBC, Waterloo, Queen's, Ivy Leagues, UCs, UTs etc.), public or otherwise specifically mentions coeducational in the lead. The standard seems to be to specify "men's college" or "women's college" (see Scripps, Smith etc.) when such gender selectivity holds, while in all other cases coeducational is assumed.

The few isolated examples that User:Jacknpoy cites are quite rare and not necessarily good articles. Upapilot (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

We are obviously looking for consensus here to address the plain and simple issue of whether we can indicate that a university is "coeducational" when it is a "public" university.
There is absolutely nothing wrong or unusual with indicating both for the following reasons: 1) "coeducational" (coed) and "public" are not synonymous. Just because a university is public does not make it automatically coed. Many public universities until the mid-1900s did not accept women. There are still public universities in the Muslim world that today still do not accept women. 2) Why single out Canada and what is so special about Canada that we should ban or prohibit indicating that they are "coed" in the lead but it is just fine to do so with other countries? Look at other WK university entries in other countries indicating in the lead that they are both "coed" and "public". Proof of the pudding is in the eating. In the U.S., just to cite a few, you have big, highly respected, state/public universities like Louisiana State University, James Madison University, Texas A&M University, University of Alabama in Huntsville, University of South Dakota, University of South Carolina Aiken, University of Central Oklahoma, Auburn University at Montgomery, Jacksonville State University, History of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Winthrop University, Eastern Connecticut State University, Middle Tennessee State University, United States Military Academy, United States Naval Academy, Kean University, etc. In China, you have Guizhou University. In Morocco, Al Akhawayn University. In Colombia, National University of Colombia, University of Pamplona and University of Cundinamarca. And hundreds and hundreds more countries/universities indicating that they are both "coed" and "public" in the lead but which I have no time or energy to list individually. All these belie Upapilot claim that WK university entries indicating both "coed" and "public" status are "rare" in his own word (with so many examples here, how can they be rare or unusual or not good articles -- obviously just a figment of the editor's imagination) ; and 3) If we ban or prohibit or disallow any Canadian university from indicating that they are "coed" and "public" simultaneously in the lead (for what logic or reason I cannot fathom), then we will have to apply the same rule or logic (which does not exist) to any WK university or college entry under the fairness or equity rule.
It really strikes me as strange that we are making a fuss over this simple matter when I (not affiliated with McGill or any Canadian university) am just making entries on hundreds and hundreds of universities consistent and consistently fair. We would like now to get editorial consensus to bring closure to this plain and simple matter. Thanks to allJacknpoy (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
1) I never claimed that public and coed are synonymous.
2) We single out Canada because as stated before ALL public institutions in Canada are coeducational. In particular, the examples you cite are universities in regions (American South, Middle East etc.) where gender segregation was the norm until very recently hence specifying coed is relevant and important. Introductions should be concise and succinct hence my objection to bogging down the opening sentence with factually correct yet redundant adjectives.
3) Yes, hundreds of universities have coed in their lead. Hundreds don't. Upapilot (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
1) So if "public" and "coed" are OBVIOUSLY not synonymous, they can both be indicated in the lead of any WK university/college entry. Which is why I cited all these WK university entries from all over the world showing or indicating that they are BOTH coed AND public universities.
2) ALL public university institutions in Canada are coed. So are ALL public institutions in America coed, including those that were opened long after segregation as I had cited above. And note that Not all universities in America I cited (or did not cite for lack of time) are by your invented term "regional." University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is a top 25 national university and ranks way above McGill. Texas A&M university likewise is never considered a "regional" university. It is a top research university that houses the Bush Presidential Library. Besides, I do not know what you mean by "regional" (you invented this distinction) because McGill is also -- and even more so -- regional than most of the US universities I listed above: Over 50% of McGill students are mandatorily from Quebec province alone (https://www.mcgill.ca/about/quickfacts). How much more regional or provincial or local can a university get if over half of McGill's student population are Quebecois? Finally, ALL public institutions in Colombia, the Philippines, China, Japan, etc., ARE COED, even if they NEVER had segregation or slavery or ban on women from entering college. For example, National University of Colombia is indicated in WK as a coed public university even if there was never segregation in that country and it is not a regional or local university like McGill, but the top university in that country. So there is really no point in even considering your point on this matter. The little distinctions you make here all fail because McGill's case cannot be defended even on the basis of these little, minor distinctions of yours.
3) So if hundreds are indicated as "coed" in WK entries by your own admission, then there is nothing wrong or unusual with indicating that McGill is "coed," especially after considering 1 and 2 above. There you go. You just admitted that it is fine to indicate it is coed since no WK rule, practice or precedent is violated, regardless of whether other entries choose to indicate coed status or not.Jacknpoy (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I feel like this discussion has taken off on a tangent about slavery, segregation and university rankings. I've made my case. Let us wait and observe what consensus emerges among the other editors; As Alex_Shih noted, this isn't about "winning" or "I'm right, you're wrong" but rather about obtaining a community consensus as there are no explicit guidelines that apply in this case. Upapilot (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
It was only you who went off-tangent by suddenly inserting "segregation" in the discussion above, when it does not bear at all on the issue of indicating "coed" status of colleges.Jacknpoy (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
It seems superfluous to include this adjective in the opening sentence of most universities in the twenty-first century. Therefore we should only include it if it's particularly necessary for a specific institution e.g., a single-sex institution, a previously single-sex institution that has recently changed to coeducational, an institution with a name that might wrongfully suggest to readers that it's coeducational or single-sex when it's not. ElKevbo (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Then how do you (or anyone) justify or permit the hundreds of universities all over the world that indicate in WK that they are BOTH "coed" and "public" for obvious reasons, even if they were not previously single-sex universities, or institutions whose names might wrongfully suggest to readers that they are not coed, etc. Note that NONE of my pure university examples (and there are hundreds more I can list) fall within these categories that you mention. For example, National University of Colombia, Texas A&M, University of North Carolina, University of South Dakota, etc., etc. -- they were NEVER ever single-sex, or ever sounded like single-sex institutions. So shall we prohibit them all (the hundreds of universities in WK) from indicating in the lead that they are "coed" and "public"?? To find consensus is to find practical guidance that will be of universal application, rather than discriminatorily applied to one university like McGill. Consensus will therefore have to address all like-cases equally. Jacknpoy (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
″how do you (or anyone) justify or permit the hundreds of universities" You're being unnecessarily belligerent here. My expertise is on the subject of McGill University, and hence that is what I'm editing and not the other university pages you cite. I (and the other editors) do not have to have an opinion on every single university page out there just to justify our opinion on this page's content. You've suggested a stylistic edit, others here (3 of us so far) find it unsuited/unnecessary. That is all that is required for an editorial consensus. Upapilot (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
″That is all that is required for an editorial consensus." Which WK rule says that only 2 editors (you Upapilot who initiated this talk page, and ElKevbo) suffice to establish consensus, especially in less than a day since this talk page started?? And how can there be consensus when the "stylistic" rule you are advocating is falsified by hundreds of other universities? Is there consensus to remove "coed" or remove "public" from all these hundreds of universities around the world?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacknpoy (talk • contribs) 21:23, May 28, 2018 (UTC)
You've misunderstood what I meant by enough, I apologize for I was unclear. What I meant was that so far 3 editors (me, ElKevbo, and GiovanniSidwell from the edit history page) have opined that the inclusion of coed is unnecessary. All I'm saying is that we should stick to the status quo for now, although I will happily go along if a new majority emerges. As ElKevbo pointed out, ideally coed is unwarranted on many of your examples and I too would like to see it changed, but that is a different discussion entirely and neither here nor there. Upapilot (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your clarification. I would not count 3 editors in favor, just by including those in the edit history page. Otherwise, there will be no need for this Talk page, since you can just say that the edit history page serves as the basis for consensus. Neither would I include yourself in the count since you are the initiator of this Talk page and a direct party to this issue so it will appear biased. Otherwise, it will be 1 (me) in favor and 2 opposed (you Upapilot, and ElKevbo), which is clearly not a consensus. I would wait for other editors to comment since a larger issue is involved: Should we then remove "coed" from the hundreds of similarly situated WK university entries for public universities worldwide following the "What is good for the goose is good for the gander" principle??
I agree that many other articles also have this unnecessary information in their lede. Editing them all to remove this one adjective isn't very high on my personal to-do list but I suppose someone will get around to it eventually. ElKevbo (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Clearly, we need to find consensus on this matter first. We cannot single out one university like McGill and say "this exclusion should only apply to McGill but not to the hundreds and hundreds of identical university cases that indicate they are both coed and public, because we have no time at the moment to deal with them." That will set a very bad editorial precedent and will justify and only encourage haphazard editing of university leads on the ground or pretext that they will only apply to one university article anyway. Besides, why the rush? It has only been less than 24 hours since we started this Talk page. And only 1 editor (ElKevbo) has expressed an opinion beyond the "parties-of-interest" so we should not be declaring the matter closed and declaring that it is fine to treat one university differently from all the rest of similarly-situated universities simply because it looks better to remove "coed" from McGill but not from the rest. Let us wait for a few days or weeks to hear from other editors and contributors besides ElKevbo to share their comments and thoughts on this specific Talk page. That is precisely why Upapilot created this Talk page, correct?? Jacknpoy (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Commenting just to add my support of the comments above on why there is no need for co-ed to be in the lede. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Still does not explain why other WK public universities all over the world are indicated as coed and these entries can be edited even today to indicate that they are coed, with the sheer exception of one school (McGill). Again, coed and public are obviously not synonymous which is why other editors have indicated them both for hundreds and hundreds of other universities in WK. Hopefully, there will be others besides the same 2 editors writing and commenting here, so that we can get a clear and fair consensus on this matter.Jacknpoy (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm aware of one Wikipedia essay that gives weight to the kind of precedent you're talking about, but there is no guideline or policy to that effect. Editors are not required to give that precedent the same weight that you do, or any at all.
Don't ask me for my opinion on the content issue, as I don't have one. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I guess so. It is disallowed for McGill University, yet over the past 4 weeks we have put in "coed" for other public universities and no one seems to mind or care, so that "case by case" basis you mention is just fine with us, too.Jacknpoy (talk) 03:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why these two images need to be deleted when they are legitimately used in WP articles. These images: 1) were properly uploaded by their owners into Wikimedia Commons; 2) they are clearly licensed under the proper Creative Commons licensing provisions; and 3) they give the user the right to remix, transform, etc. Rather than just say "they will be deleted" offer advice in clear and simple English as to how these two properly licensed and credited images can be retained for continued use in WP. After all, they are used purely for "educational and scholarly" or non-commercial purposes so let us help each other, rather than simply condemn and threaten to delete.Tansyderby (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Gallery of rich and famous

Latest comment: 5 years ago28 comments8 people in discussion

An editor has been adding a large number of images to a gallery of notable people, and the number of images has now reached 32. We all love pictures, but a consensus was reached at MOS:IMAGES that images must be significant and relevant to the article's context, and not merely decorative. Images of former students contribute little to school articles. Unlike images of lecture halls or libraries, photos of people who have passed through a school's doors and then gone on to become athletes or politicians or scholars... is just puffery and window decoration. WP:GALLERY also cautions against shoehorning images into an article unless "a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images". Pictures of famous former students does not meet this criteria. Yes, other other universities have pictures of former students, but this is a good article, and should therefore strive to comply with the manual of style. The gallery of rich and famous needs to go. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

That is entirely incorrect for the following reasons:
1) Every WP article about a university or college has a section on "Notable People" or "Notable Alumni" precisely to showcase their famous graduates/alumni, not just any student or former student. The McGill University section on "Notable People" contains a listing and photos of alumni who have distinguished themselves as presidents, prime ministers, senators, Nobel Prize winners, Pulitzer Prize winners, other awards winners, etc. So they are not "merely decorative" or "just puffery";
2) More importantly, every WP university or college article, under the section "Notable People" or "Notable Alumni", contains a listing and photos of its own distinguished or high-achieving alumni such as presidents, prime ministers, senators, Nobel Prize winners, Pulitzer Prize winners, even award-winning actors and actresses, exactly just like McGill University. There is no difference. See, for example, Harvard University, Yale University's List of Yale University people, University of Pennsylvania, Columbia University, Brown University, Darmouth College, Cornell University, Stanford University, University of Oxford, University of Amsterdam, University of Heidelberg, University of Copenhagen, University of Cambridge. The list worldwide goes on and on;
3) So many universities like Yale (List of Yale University people) contain over 100 listings and photos of their famous alumni, so the number of showcased alumni is irrelevant as long as they have distinguished themselves in their chosen fields. Photo captions, like those in McGill University, already clearly indicate exactly their achievement for notability purposes.
These three factors clearly do not make the McGill University section on "Notable People" any different from any other WP university or college article. It does not in any way violate MOS:IMAGES because listings and photos of alumni are relevant to the section on Notable People or Alumni and bear directly on the standing, prestige, history, and achievements of a university. Let us put it this way: If they violate any WP rule or policy, you bet all these listings and photos of notable people of every university in WP would have been deleted by editors a long, long time ago. They have remained there for good reason. They are what they are: Notable alumni whose face recall/recognition is important to anyone reading about a university. Again, that is why lists and photos of famous graduates of any university are there in WP for any reader to see.Tansyderby (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Just 15 university articles are featured articles, "the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, as determined by Wikipedia's editors". I have listed them, along with the number of images of notable people each contain:

A) Wikipedia is not a repository of images, and Wikipedia is not a "photo album".

B) Conceptually, college students are nothing more than temporary customers of a business, of which a college is the business. We don't post photos of famous iPhone customers / Apple developers / Apple employees in the Apple Inc. article, thus should be the same for college articles too. Wikipedia articles are suppose to be about the topic, such as a college, not the customers that attend the college.

C) My preference is DELETE all photos from "notable people/alumni" sections of all school-type articles, such as colleges, high schools, ...

D) Photos might be fine in a "List of Notable people" sub-article, but I lean towards NO because of similar "photo album" abuse.

E) • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

As you will see, all the colleges and universities I listed above, except for one (Dartmouth), are NOT featured articles based on your list of 15 featured articles. And yet all non-featured articles I noted carry a list and photos (some over 100 photos) of their "Notable People" or "Notable Alumni" in WP. Regardless, we cannot just make an exception for one or two colleges like McGill and allow the rest to have photos and listings of their famous alumni. Either we allow all colleges to keep their photos and listings (my preference) OR we delete them all. To be fair and objective, it is really a case of "all for one, and one for all."Tansyderby (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Magnolia677, I think it's been a while since this was judged to be a GA, and since then the PR fairy finished a couple of times, I suppose. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Please do not engage in a unilateral deletion of images unless and until the issue is resolved here. That is why we have a Talk page. It looks like one or two editors (Magnolia677 and Drmies) have a personal grudge against McGill University, so they want to limit/confine their actions and deletions to this university and not to any other university in WP. Be fair and objective : 1) The issue of having photos in the "Notable People/Alumni" section of ANY university is still UNDER DISCUSSION in this Talk page and remains UNRESOLVED for all universities in WP, not just McGill; 2) your deletion is intended to single out McGill University while allowing and even encouraging other universities in WP to keep and/or continue posting hundreds of photos for their "Notable People/Alumni". NOT FAIR. Either we delete any Notable Alumni photos for all, or we keep them for all. We have to be consistent, not engage in personal vendettas for no apparent reason at all. Thanks for your cooperation and fairness.Tansyderby (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
It looks like you're employing some passive/aggressive language while promoting this university. Since there's only one of you, "unilateral" applies only to you, homeslice. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Passive/aggressive language (assuming that is even true) has nothing to do with the issue of whether Notable People/Alumni images should be permitted for any university. Do not skirt the issue. And only you Drmies and Magnolia677 seem to be ganging up against, and interested in removing the images of prominent alumni from, McGill University. So why only McGill University, and not Yale University or Harvard University or University of Copenhagen or any other university in the world??? And why are you two deciding this issue on your own, by deleting images only from McGill University? What purpose does this Talk page serve if only the two of you decide the real issue? What is your axe to grind against this one school?Tansyderby (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Again, "Wikipedia is not a "photo album" • Sbmeirow • Talk • 10:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
"Cherry picking" articles with numerous photos isn't evidence of what's typical, instead when looking across numerous colleges of all sizes, the average number is closer to zero photos. Though I prefer none, neither am I on a rampage to trim notable sections that have only 1 or 2 photos. This article had 32, which is far too many! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The notable section of University of Copenhagen should be moved into a new article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 10:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The question is not what is typical or not. WP has policies and rules -- and should make up policies and rules if there are none -- that apply universally to similar articles with similar issues. There are many universities in WP with more than 32 pictures. I noted some of them above. I can add more. In fact, the reason why we added to the McGill images is precisely because several alumni complained that several other universities in WP have an entire album of images for their notable people. The point here is, assuming you come up with a biased maximum of 20 or 30 images for Notable Alumni per university in WP, why don't you trim any other university, like List of Yale University people, that contain than 20 or 30 images, not just McGill University? Otherwise, it is like saying that because there are only (a minority number of) 200 articles in WP that are laden with profanity, out of 40,000 total articles, then WP editors can just make an exception and censor, delete, edit all images in one of them, and leave the rest alone. Now that is "bad-cherry picking." A rule or policy exists to apply universally, regardless of whether one or 1000 articles violate/s or deviate/s from it. We should make up a rule now that says no more images permitted on any Notable Alumni section of any universities. Or we can establish a limit to the number of photos permitted per university. I am fine with either one or some other UNIVERSALLY applied policy. But it seems no want here wants to do any of that, because evidently the target is -- and you are just targeting -- McGill University for reasons that are baffling to anyone.
So it seems that no want is seeking any consensus on what the WP policy or rule should be as to images -- and the ones here on this Talk page are the same ones who deleted the images from McGill University. Hence, I will wait until today to establish a consensus about a definitive WP practice, rule or policy that applies to images in all university profiles on WP, not just one single university. And if NO DESIRE TO ESTABLISH consensus, we need to submit this matter to both mediation and arbitration, each serving a particular purpose.Tansyderby (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The moment someone goes "OH SEE YOURE ONLY PICKING ON THIS ARTICLE SO YOU HAVE AN AGENDA" I'm pretty much done. Can't argue against that--of course one could block whoever throws out such ridiculous allegations because of the blatant violation of WP:AGF. ElKevbo, if this ever gets to a policy discussion or an editing guideline, will you let me know? And if it ever gets to arbitration--well, I'm not going to hold my breath for that. Drmies (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

In fact, the reason why we added to the McGill images is precisely because several alumni complained that several other universities in WP have an entire album of images for their notable people.

@Tansyderby: Who is "we" in this sentence? And to whom are alumni complaining? I ask because if you work for the institution or otherwise have a conflict of interest then you shouldn't be editing this article. And if you happen to be paid to edit this article, directly or indirectly, then you should not only refrain from editing this article but you must also declare your status as a paid editor. ElKevbo (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: Yes, who is "we"? In a discussion with User:Randykitty regarding an edit to Journal of Medical Economics, Tansyderby stated here:

Top-ranked because most journals, in any field, do not reach an impact factor of even 1.0 or an median h-index of 36 like the JME. But will remove from now, as we realize the impact factor is way outdated from 2011 and a new, much higher one (as the journal ages) should be available soon.

Randykitty asked Tansyderby a number of times who the "we" is, but no answer. Then yesterday on Wikimedia Commons, after being notified that two copyright-protected images were about to be deleted, Tansyderby wrote here:

No idea what you are talking about. The owner of the photo, Adam Fagen, at our request, uploaded his photo of the subject into Wikimedia Commons yesterday under "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license" with user right "to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work - to remix – to adapt the work.

Also yesterday on the Commons, Tansyderby wrote here:

Not sure either what is wrong with using this photo for a WP article when the owner uploaded it under a Creative Commons license with user right to transform, remix, etc. Can you explain in plain and simple non-technical (WP) language what exactly we need to do to continue using this Wikimedia image for a WP article, instead of resorting to technical tags???

Following that, the copyright status on the Flickr image changed, and the image was re-uploaded here by another editor.
Who is the "we" Tansyderby? Magnolia677 (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I knew you would ask the who are "we" question just to change the subject. Do not change or deviate from the real issue which is: What is/should be the appropriate WP rule, practice or policy regarding images on the "Notable People/Alumni" section of any WP university entry/article, and why is it not applied universally to all university articles with the same issue???" That is the question for mediation and arbitration.
"We" refers to the McGill alumni who raised the issue with me as an editor after which "we" agreed that, through me, "we" should include more images of McGill alumni just like the dozens and hundreds of alumni images found in WP university articles. I do not work for McGill. I am not an alumnus. I am not paid in WP. No conflict of interest whatsoever. The ones who have clear conflicts of interest are Magnolia677and Drmies who initiated this Talk page, are advocating their bias against McGill University, while at the same time undermining this page by deleting all McGill University images before even a consensus on the question has been reached and without doing the same deletion for other universities with hundreds of alumni images like Yale and Copenhagen. Why are you and User talk:ElKevbo so afraid to deal with the biases and conflicts of interest of yours and Drmies ??? Are you Magnolia677 that biased, too, or have an equal grudge against McGill UniversityTansyderby (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe you. Given your actions and accusations I will no longer assume good faith of your edits. If you would like to come clean and retract your unfounded accusations then perhaps we can find a way to start over. But until then I will not respond to your questions or comments. Your misunderstanding - genuine or willful - of conflicts of interest makes me question whether you should be allowed to continue editing at all. ElKevbo (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I also do not believe you. Regardless of what you and I believe, regardless of whether you want me to be stopped from editing on that pretext of yours, you have not answered or helped to answer the basic question: What is/should be the appropriate WP rule, practice or policy regarding images posted on the "Notable People/Alumni" section of any WP university entry/article, AND why is it not applied universally to all university articles with exactly the same issue??? As I have been saying all along here, I do not care what policy is used or what policy is arrived at by Talk page consensus, mediation, etc. What I care about is that it is applied to all exactly situated university articles in WP. I really hope you can help with this question, since that is really the only question here, rather than deviate from it. Help us here set a universally applicable rule.Tansyderby (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tansyderby: Magnolia677's list illustrates that Featured Articles vary greatly in their use of images of people. But I believe the general rule of thumb (and I'm sure someone more bureaucratically minded than me could find a section in the Manual of Style that explains it) is that the "People" section,like any section in a long article, has only enough photographs to fit beside the text without spilling over by more than a few lines; exactly how well it lines up will of course depend on the reader's screen setup, but galleries are cautioned against because they easily become large and indiscriminate (also they vary markedly in how readers will see them on their screens). For example Yale University has three images in the section on "Notable alumni and faculty", two on the left and one on the right. You have referred to List of Yale University people, which is entirely about the people and thus has a whole strip of images down the side. I think those different treatments in the main article and the list of people offer a reasonable model, and that this article could have one or two alumni/faculty images (I would clear space by removing some existing images, because there are rather a lot: is it really necessary to have a second version of the arms, for example?) whereas List of McGill University people, which is currently devoid of images except for Nobel and Pulitzer medals, would seem suited to a representative selection of portraits like the corresponding Yale article. However, I see my own alma mater has mini-galleries for each type of person, whereas the list of people has zero images. This puzzles me; there may be something on the list talk pages about its being difficult to choose, but if I were you I'd go boldly illustrate the list article for McGill. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear Yngvadottir: Finally, finally. Yours, I must admit, is the only objective discussion that I have seen so far in this Talk page. I like and agree with your idea. Just to make sure I understood it: You are suggesting that, like List of Yale University people, any university WP article, including McGill, with many listings and images of famous alumni, should free up the "Notable People/Alumni" section of the WP university main article, and instead consider posting those images in a separate WP article devoted to List of (so and so University) people? If that is your proposal, I perfectly agree and will do it there and encourage other McGill alumni to do it in that section, to be at par with List of Yale University people. Maybe this is the consensus we have long been waiting for on this question since your suggestion is fair and universally applicable to all universities. And maybe if we can proceed this way, there might be no need to submit to WP mediation and WP arbitration. So many, many thanks to you and hopefully we can all agree on this solution that you proposed since, I repeat, it is doubtless fair and universal in applicationTansyderby (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@Tansyderby: You write: "'We' refers to the McGill alumni who raised the issue with me as an editor after which 'we' agreed that, through me, 'we' should include more images of McGill alumni". You were questioned about your "we" reference back in February 2017 when you edited the Journal of Medical Economics; long before this gallery issue emerged, and on an article with little connection to McGill University. Please explain. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
As you will see, I have not since visited that Talk page for the Journal of Medical Economics (which is unrelated to the discussion in this particular Talk page) since if I recall another editor took over. So that is probably the "we" there. I no longer edit it so I no longer visit it either. Now, it is your turn to please explain to me why you chose to delete all images only at McGill University, leaving it with zero images in the Notable People section, BUT you would not dare touch any images/photos (not even one) for all the other WP universities notable alumni section. Please explain. My thanks to you.Tansyderby (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • This is an WP:UNDUE problem.....a picture of let's say Mark J. Poznansky......does not help people understand this article..... if the images were of famous professors, this would make sense. Like ethnic groups.... there's no real neutral way of picking these people.--Moxy (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Anyway, it seems that the consensus here is that any images of famous alumni from any university (and they are the same = presidents, Nobel Prize winners, royalties, award-winning actors, etc.) should be posted in the separate article accompanying each WP university main article and so titled, "List of (so and so) University People." I think that is fair and universally acceptable and applicable: 1) It will not burden the main university article/page (which is already lengthy on its own) with images of famous alumni; 2) It offers a specific place to post all these images, especially considering that top-ranked universities like Harvard, Yale, Oxford, and McGill have so many famous or high-achieving alumni and therefore a lot of posted images. Each of these famous university alumni also have their own separate WP biographical article, which already upholds or validates their notability in the first place. WE thank again Yngvadottir for doing a great job at consensus-building. Tansyderby (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tansyderby: You have disclosed here that you edit on behalf of McGill alumni. You have also edited articles about McGill alumni, such as Marc Tessier-Lavigne, Harold Tafler Shapiro, and David H. Hubel. This violates Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, and you are strongly discouraged from editing this or any article about McGill University. In your 120 edits to Wikipedia, you have insulted and bullied other editors, while bragging here that "I cannot further waste my precious time on this anymore (since I do not get paid for this when I earn $344/hour in my current profession)". None of the editors you have insulted here get paid either, but one thing Wikipedia editors seem to agree on is that paid editing and COI editing is not tolerated. To that end, I have reverted your edit to List of McGill University people. Other editors are welcome to revert me, but if you Tansyderby revert me, I will report you to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. If your alumni friends want a photo gallery they are welcome to start a Facebook page. Thanks for your understanding. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Magnolia677:: I know you will not stop imagining and accusing me of a fictitious conflict of interest because the "edit history" of McGill University clearly shows that : 1) you were the one who deleted and kept deleting the notable alumni images; and 2) you could not give anyone in this Talk page any reason why you deleted all those images ONLY for McGill University and not any other images of notable alumni in any other WP university article. You simply have a grudge against McGill and that is obvious from your history of editing it and your messages here. That is pure and clear conflict of interest.
I already said in this Talk page of McGill University that I have nothing to disclose since I have no conflict of interest, I am not paid as an editor, I am not an employee of McGill or any McGill alumni, etc. WP can easily verify that my user name is not for a paid editor. You are free to report if you wish and they will not find any interest conflict on my part. No public university or alumni pays to edit for WP. Keep in mind, too, that McGill University IS A NON-PROFIT, PUBLIC AND GOVERNMENT-FUNDED UNIVERSITY and will never do a marketing or promotional campaign anywhere, anytime, especially through WP. As a public institution, anything and anyone that McGill pays for is publicly disclosed, and you can go check that for yourself. So you are obviously imagining way too much with this supposed conflict of interest if only because you are running out of excuses to delete images of McGill's famous alumni. Just because I edit McGill does not mean I have a conflict of interest. I also edited other articles unrelated toMcGill. You just cannot accept that a viable consensus/solution has been reached in this Talk page of McGill University for posting alumni images in the List of university people of any university so you keep on making up this conflict of interest theory. Respect and recognize that consensus and move on. Otherwise, I will seek arbitration to suspend you as an editor. Do not undermine the consensus established here by harping on some conspiracy theory that you based on innuendoes and lies you just made up. I can see from your pattern of editing that you are really the one who has a conflict of interest. Tansyderby (talk) 01:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to chip in to express my support for Yngvadottir's proposition that we move notable alumni images from the Notable People section to the List of McGill University people page. I agree that it would cumbersome and against Wikipedia guidelines to have a large gallery of images in the Notable People section. On the other hand it is inherently difficult to make a neutral selection of a subset of notable alumni (notability is subjective). If we can agree that we shouldn't have all or most notable alumni images in the Notable People section, then it follows that they should be deleted altogether. I'd also like to express my disapproval for both Tansyderby's and Magnolia677's conduct in this discussion. Personal attacks and unfounded accusations are unjustifiable even when your position is correct. I also disapprove of Magnolia677's reverts on the List of McGill University people as it was based not on Wikipedia editing or quality guidelines but purely on an alleged conflict of interest; especially as it was done in the immediate aftermath (and in contravention) of the consensus emerging from this discussion. Upapilot (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

On Images

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There seem to be too many images on the right side of the page. Mainly, the rutherford parc image as well as the MUHC image seem to be out of place. Moreover, they push the faculty table into the middle of the page and it just looks messy. Could an administrator consider removing those two images? Recursion changed the game (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Recursion changed the game (talk • contribs) 21:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Lead section's notable alumni

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Before my edit to the lead section's paragraph on the notable McGill alumni, the paragraph was very long and praising McGill very hard. It dominated the lead section with a half of the entire word count of all the lead section. However, the article doesn't spend that much time talking about its alumni. The alumni section is quite shorter. For that reason, blowing up the size of the alumni paragraph in the lead feels like an advertisement. I know McGill is renown and respected, but the lead is supposed to represent the article. There should be more content in the lead about McGill's history, academics, administration..., basically all the other sections in the article. Sociable Song (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I have since curated the alumni paragraph in the lead, basing it off of FA status articles on universities such as Dartmouth College. The paragraph has been shortened to about half its original length. Hopefully this is an improvement. Jonahrapp (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Please fix the lead

Latest comment: 4 years ago20 comments6 people in discussion

The following edit in the article's Lead, by Kupal123, "Like any other university, McGill witnessed many important “firsts” during its formative years. These included the election of its first Principal in 1824, the establishment of its first academic unit and first faculty in 1829, the conferment of its first academic degree and Canada's first ever medical degree in 1833, affiliation with its first teaching hospital in 1834, the construction of its first ever permanent building in 1843, and the establishment of its first and oldest existing endowed chair in 1846, among others" is disruptive, incorrectly cited, and does not follow the guidelines of a Lead section. I have discussed this with the user on our respective talk pages but he continues to insist it must be a part of the Lead. Respected user, Magnolia677 agreed that his edits have been unconstructive and disruptive, and stated that it would be removed, yet the user continues to re-add it and revert my own corrections.

I propose we revert the Lead to its previous status, with the first paragraph as follows:

McGill University is a public research university in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Founded in 1821 by royal charter, granted by King George IV,[1] the university bears the name of James McGill whose bequest in 1813 formed the university's precursor, McGill College. Twelve years after it was officially established, McGill awarded its first academic degree and Canada's first ever medical degree.[2] The college adopted its present name in 1885.

Jonahrapp (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The reason I am not reverting his edit is that I have already done so twice, and do not want to violate the three-revert rule. I can't believe it has been active on this GA article for over 2 hours and no one has reverted it or even attempted to improve the errors in spacing, citing and word choice yet. Disappointing on Wikipedia users/administrators' part and embarrassing for McGill University. Jonahrapp (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Lead not the place to list things like first and people.--Moxy 🍁 13:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I support Jonahrapp's proposal; it is more encyclopedic and better complies with Lead section. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I am fine with the shortened Lead, if it does not not include anything about any "first" in the history of the university. It should just read the way it was until early this year before "McGill awarded its first degree" was added by Jonahrapp:
"McGill University is a public research university in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Founded in 1821 by royal charter, granted by King George IV,[1] the university bears the name of James McGill whose bequest in 1813 formed the university's precursor, McGill College."
So we should remove the first degree awarded by the university if we are not going to add other "firsts" besides the first degree awarded by the university. Otherwise, there is no justification for differentiating the first degree from the first school and first faculty of McGill university. In fact, even way more prestigious universities than McGill like UCLA, Michigan, Cornell, etc. do not have in their Lead anything about their first degree awarded or any first in their histories. And we will just end up putting in our personal, subjective opinion there to keep that sentence about the first McGill degree awarded, while leaving out other equally important firsts, like its first school established, etc.Kupal123 (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, please keep it plain and simple, consistent with other WP university articles which should serve as benchmarks in this matter. The first academic degree and any other milestones ("firsts") do not belong in the Lead. Move them and show them in the history section and other sections below the Lead, which is how any other WP university/college article does it. Where there is WP debate or edit war, we should adopt the convention set forth in other similar/equivalent articles (in this case, about colleges and universities). That is how consensus is gained in WP and edit wars/debates are resolved in WP.Tansyderby (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I just saw now that editor Moxy has fixed the opening paragraph of the Lead and removed any "firsts" in McGill history from that paragraph. I perfectly agree and wish to thank Moxy. I have no more edits or comments to make at this point. Kupal123 (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
There is already established consensus here that any "firsts", "oldest", and similar qualifiers should not be in the Lead. Please refrain from further editing the first paragraph of the Lead.Tansyderby (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
"Firsts" as has been the topic of discussion above, refers to all that is post-establishment of the university, i.e. first degree awarded, first chancellor, first academic unit, first building etc. By your logic, "no first of any kind" (see below), we should not include the year the university was first established (1821), or the year its name was changed, or anything that marks its history (always a "first"). I have requested that this page be extended confirmed protected. Jonahrapp (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
After clear consensus was established a few hours earlier, I see that Jonahrapp is back at his old game, sounding more and more like the propaganda machine of McGill University. No such thing as first established. The university was established in 1821, period. You need to stop beating around the bush with your twisted logic, since there is already consensus on the Lead opening sentence per discussions above. If you start all over again, and assert that "first in Montreal" is just fine, then others will pitch in and also add that McGill University "was the first or oldest university to be located on Mount Royal," the "first or oldest English-speaking university in Montreal," and endless other trivialities. The consensus for excluding any "first" or oldest, etc. is precisely to follow WP university articles and to remove any reference to milestones. As pointed above, editor User:Moxy even made it clear when he said "Lead not the place to list things like first and people", regardless of whether it pertains to the university, the city in which it is located, the mountain in which it is found, the language which serves as its medium of instruction, etc. That is the point there. Put all your "firsts" in other sections of the article, but not in the Lead, which is a summary section. Abide by the consensus already reached right here Kupal123 (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I am not a propaganda machine for the university. I am simply a Wikipedian trying to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia, especially GA status articles, unlike you, who from your edit history appears to be making only disruptive and unencyclopedic edits. Moxy also suggested that the Lead "Should follow the examples set forth by the most viewed FA class articles of the same topic.....University of Michigan..Dartmouth College," the latter of which states explicitly in the Lead that it is the ninth-oldest institution in the U.S. Please explain how "the oldest in Montreal" a city with nearly 30 universities and colleges, is a triviality and can be compared to "the oldest university to be located on Mount Royal, a small part of the city with only one other university." Please explain how being the oldest English-language institution of higher learning in the Province of Quebec and one of the oldest in Canada (which has nearly 100 universities) is a triviality, or how this would be considered a "milestone" in its history post-establishment. Throughout this process not once have you made an edit that is constructive or positively contributing to Wikipedia, so quit bashing and take your sass somewhere else. Jonahrapp (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Also, just because Moxy wrote one sentence that supports your argument, doesn't mean a consensus was reached. You must have forgotten that the next entry in the discussion immediately after Moxy's was the following, by another respected Wikipedia editor, Magnolia677, stating "I support Jonahrapp's proposal; it is more encyclopedic and better complies with Lead section." As I said, I have requested extended confirmed status for this article to stop the edit warring, as a consensus has clearly not been reached.Jonahrapp (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
You simply do not get it, Jonahrapp. Consensus has been clearly established to keep out any "firsts" because they do not belong to the Lead. It is not just Moxy, and other editors here, but the WP convention on university articles. You cite one exception, the WP Dartmouth article (you can include other Ivy League university articles if you want) because it says "it is the ninth-oldest institution in the U.S.". But you neglect to say that "ninth-oldest institution in the U.S." (unlike your oldest in Montreal) has historical significance which is why it is underscored and has an entire WP article under that label. Being one of the nine colonial colleges is entirely different from being the oldest in Montreal or being the oldest located in Montreal's mountain or being the oldest English-speaking Montreal university. I would not compare McGill to any Ivy League university, which is non-pareil. And like I said, if you put in "oldest in Montreal", then that Lead will endlessly expand, with other editors also adding in that McGill was "the first to be located on Mount Royal" and "the first English-speaking university in Montreal", etc., etc., etc. No end there will be. And your only defense is your own subjective calculation that being the oldest in the city is more important than being the oldest located in a mountain or the oldest in terms of language of instruction, blah, blah, blah. Your distinction is your own alone. We do not buy it. And you are not entirely honest when you say that Montreal is "a city with nearly 30 universities and colleges" because you know that there are really only 4 universities in Montreal, and the rest of the 26 that you count in are nothing but two-year junior colleges (called CEGEPs). Just be honest. And throughout the process, you have done nothing constructive but keep editing where consensus has been achieved. I do not also believe that you are not a propagandist for McGill University, since ALL YOU HAVE DONE FOR ALMOST AN ENTIRE DAY NOW IS JUST EDIT THIS ONE ARTICLE ON McGILL UNIVERSITY, WITH OVER 80 EDITS THUS FAR TODAY, AS YOUR CONTRIBUTION PAGE CLEARLY SHOWS, and the day is not even over yet. No more edits or reverts on the first paragraph of the Lead. It is over now.Kupal123 (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
First of all, I did not make 80 edits to this page today, but rather 24, 14 of which were minor edits to punctuation. You are inflating your facts in an attempt to make a mockery of me, but you don't seem to realize that people can see my edit history. Of the 10 real edits I did make on the page today, only one was in regards to "firsts" in the introductory paragraph of the lead, while the others were very constructive edits regarding the issue raised below (see Talk:McGill University#Notable alumni in the Lead.). I cited Dartmouth not because I was comparing the two universities but because its article has FA status, which is the highest quality status a Wikipedia article can achieve. Saying "I would not compare McGill to any Ivy League university" shows just how little research you conduct before typing, given that in reality McGill outranks multiple Ivy Leagues (particularly Dartmouth, Brown..) in overall rankings, research output, alumni, hirability etc. — if you actually read any of the articles you edit you'd know that (oh wait, you don't even edit any articles on here). Anyone who reads your responses sees how ridiculous you sound, with your unsubstantiated claims, "blah blah blahs" and your all-caps anger management issues coming to light. Unlike your false claims about my edit history, I actually looked at yours and found that of the 47 edits you've made in the last 2 years, 20 were made today alone, all on either the talk page for McGill or my own talk page--never constructive, always hostile, negative, angry and disruptive, as Magnolia677 put it here. I would usually never suggest to someone to stop trying to improve Wikipedia, but I think you should pick a different hobby. Jonahrapp (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I really do not of any person here in America who has heard of McGill compared to Dartmouth (except perhaps the Ivy rejects who went to McGill). Dartmouth is Ivy League calibre, McGill is not and well below Toronto and UBC in any ranking done outside of Canada. I make no false claims. Take a snapshot of your edits just today, one day, March 14, 2020: over 80 and all about McGill, whether on the McGill article and talk page, or on my talk page. No one can beat you on that. Unbelievably incredible. Get a life. Go ahead take a snapshot of your McGill-related edits and paste them here. You will see that you are lying again -- just like you were lying when you said McGill has over 30 universities. And if you add your McGill edits from two years hence, you will have way more than 80 and way more than triple my edits.Kupal123 (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry but "knowing people" doesn't mean anything when actual facts exist (see WP:WEASEL). I see now that this has truly become personal and your disrespect for and personal bias against the institution whose article you are supposedly trying to protect here has become apparent, further suggesting that this is not a place for you. I didn't say "McGill had 30 universities", I said quote, "'Montreal,' a city with nearly 30 universities and colleges." You are clearly very tired. This whole discussion has turned into personal attacks rather than constructive comments to improve the article for McGill University, and therefore belongs on one of our talk pages, not here.Jonahrapp (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I am not going to engage you anymore in needless debate. I have a life. It is very obvious that when you say "Montreal has 30 universities and colleges," you are justifying and implying that it is worth writing in the Lead that McGill was the "first" out of 30 university-level schools in Montreal to make that "first" look significant or more important than "the first university located in Mount Royal" or "the first English-speaking Montreal university," or other firsts. In reality, there are really only 3 other universities in Montreal and adding in the 26 junior/post-high school colleges (CEGEPs) is mixing apples and oranges. Yes, I am clearly very tired of this whole McGill article being turned as a marketing tool for McGill. Your over 80 edits in just one day (of that article, its talk page, etc.) are way more than double all my edits in 2 years. Anyway, the point is you cannot put in your first degree thing anymore, and no more editing of the Lead first paragraph is allowed. Thanks.Kupal123 (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Actually, it was not Jonahrapp, but me, who added the info that "McGill is the oldest university in Montreal," and "McGill awarded its first academic degree and Canada's first ever medical degree." on the lead section. I was not aware of the "alleged consensus" that "any type of first is not allowed to be mentioned" in the lead (according to User:Kupal123 and Tansyderby). I personally agree with Jonah. Kupal, how can you prove that "Being one of the nine colonial colleges [referring to Dartmouth] is entirely different from being the oldest in Montreal", considering the fact that Montreal is a city with nearly 30 universities and colleges according to Jonah? Your logic does not make any sense. Likewise, go to wiki pages on Cambridge University and Oxford University. The Cambridge University page clearly states that Cambridge is the second-oldest university in the English-speaking world. And your personal bias against McGill makes it clear that your logic has many intrinsic flaws. You stated, "I really do not of any person here in America who has heard of McGill compared to Dartmouth (except perhaps the Ivy rejects who went to McGill). Dartmouth is Ivy League calibre, McGill is not and well below Toronto and UBC in any ranking done outside of Canada." Wrong! Your logic is not backed up by any reliable sources. For instance, McGill always ranked higher than UBC in the QS world university rankings. The only reason that you want to omit the aforementioned info (McGill awarded its first Medical degree in Canada) is because your own "firsts" were not included. You are just dumb. dumb. dumb. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.88.165.241 (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Actually, it was very clearly Jonahrapp who added the info that "McGill is the oldest university in Montreal," and "McGill awarded its first academic degree and Canada's first ever medical degree." A simple review of the article's Edit History will show that he not only put them in. He even stated why he added them. See Edit History: "20:20, 14 March 2020‎ Jonahrapp talk contribs‎ 147,675 bytes +121‎ Modeled the lead after most viewed FA class articles on universities, such as Dartmouth College. Added that the university is the oldest in Montreal, and shortened/cleaned up the paragraph on alumni." I will not anymore engage in any discussion because the Lead opening paragraph is already set in the sense that no more "firsts", "oldest" or any qualifying university milestone is allowed. The consensus has been reached and it is all over now. God bless.Kupal123 (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
ACTUALLY, I was simply re-adding the information that was previously in the lead before all of this hub-bub, and simply gave my reasoning for why I believed it did belong in the Lead after someone removed it. If you look further back at the edit history, I believe from a few weeks ago, you will see that the user above is correct and you are mistaken. Thank you to the user above for your support in this issue and for supporting quality in Wikipedia articles.Jonahrapp (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Frost, Stanley Brice. McGill University, Vol. I. For the Advancement of Learning, 1801–1895. McGill-Queen's University Press, 1980. ISBN 978-0-7735-0353-3
  2. ^ "About McGill". Retrieved 2020-01-26.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:McGill_University/Archive_3&oldid=1028823318"