Talk:McGill University

If you attend or have attended McGill University, you can add this userbox on your userpage: {{user McGill}}, to display this on your userpage:

This user attends or attended McGill University

Including "Canadian" and "public" in lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spate of SPAs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EdUniversal Ranking?

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

November 10 incident

I've removed the section detailing the events of November 10 on the basis of WP:NOT#NEWS. However, I could see an addition to the "History" section about notable protests. The "McGill français" demonstration of 1969 [1] was an important event in McGill's history. It seems to me that the protest of November 10 (although dwarfed by the events of 1969), could be added to such a section as a one- or two-line update on notable protests. Sunray (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Infobox - land area

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