Jump to content

Talk:McGill University

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Upapilot (talk | contribs) at 03:27, 29 May 2018 (→‎"Coeducational" in lead). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleMcGill University has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 13, 2006Good article nomineeListed
April 6, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
May 9, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
June 5, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article
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

The lead

I reorganized the lead into : a brief description (its location) -> history -> the academic profile, with the removal of the heavily emphasized ranking part since the intro. should be a concise summary of the following sections without delivering undue weight to any particular portion, such as rankings and reputation. Biomedicinal (contact) 12:43, 26 February 2014


And Mario Bunge?

It is an Argentine prodigy who teaches at the university. [1][2][3]

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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)[reply]

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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)[reply]

"Coeducational" in lead

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
″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)[reply]
″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. So 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:McGill_University&oldid=843431030"