Talk:McGill University/Archive 4

I noticed that Moxy removed the paragraph in the lead about the university's alumni. While I agree that the list was quite extensive and a bit too long for the Lead, I believe that it is important to include certain information about the university's alumni there, such as number of Rhode's Scholars, Nobel Prize winners, Prime Ministers etc. (see Harvard University, University of Cambridge etc.). I will spend the next half hour or so attempting to clean up the paragraph on alumni that was previously in the Lead. Thank you. Jonahrapp (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you on this point. Restore the alumni paragraph. That is the convention followed in other WP university/college articles.Tansyderby (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

As of right now, I have edited the paragraph to appear as follows:

McGill counts among its alumni 12 Nobel laureates and 145 Rhodes Scholars, both the most of any university in Canada,^[1] as well as the current prime minister and two former prime ministers of Canada, at least eight foreign leaders^[2], 28 foreign ambassadors and more than 100 members of Canadian Parliament, United States Congress, British Parliament, and other national legislatures. In the arts, McGill alumni include nine Academy Award winners, 11 Grammy Award winners, at least 16 Emmy Award winners,^{[note 1][3]} and four Pulitzer Prize winners.^[4][5] In sports, 121 Olympians of varying nationalities who have won over 35 Olympic medals have graduated from McGill,^[6] as well as the inventor of the game of basketball,^[7] the inventors of modern organized ice hockey,^[8] and the pioneers of American football.^[9]

whereas previously it was the following:

McGill counts among its alumni 12 Nobel laureates and 145 Rhodes Scholars, both the most of any university in Canada,^[10] as well as five astronauts,^[11] the current prime minister and two former prime ministers of Canada, the current Governor General of Canada, 15 justices of the Canadian Supreme Court,^[12] at least eight foreign leaders,^[2] 28 foreign ambassadors, over eight dozen members of the Canadian Parliament, United States Congress, British Parliament, and other national legislatures,^[2] at least 10 billionaires,^{[note 2][2]} nine Academy Award winners, 11 Grammy Award winners, four Pulitzer Prize winners,^[4][5] two Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients,^{[note 3]} at least 16 Emmy Award winners,^{[note 4][13]} and 121 Olympians of varying nationalities who have won over 35 Olympic medals.^[6] McGill alumni invented the game of basketball,^[14] the modern version of organized ice hockey,^[15] and played an important role in the development of the modern game of American football.^[16] McGill University or its alumni also founded several major universities and colleges, including the University of British Columbia,^[17] the University of Victoria,^[18] the University of Alberta,^[19] the Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry at the University of Western Ontario,^[20] the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine,^[21][22] and Dawson College.^[23]

All of the information in the previous paragraph is included in the notable people section of the article. Hopefully this was a good workaround. Jonahrapp (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Jonahrapp. Good job with the alumni paragraph restoration/improvement. But please restore 3 phrases, which other WP articles like Harvard, Yale, Princeton contain and so that they follow the convention adopted there:

1. "at least 10 billionaires"

2. the universities that McGill alumni founded

3. "and the current Governor General of Canada" (i.e., if we include the prime ministers, all the more include the GG, in the same way that alumni from the current royal families of some European universities are noted in the Lead).

Thank youTansyderby (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I have done so, but I fear it is too similar now to how it was before and a little too comprehensive. I will leave it to others, if there are any complaints.Jonahrapp (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Jonahrapp. Just one very minor edit for you to kindly add: 100 members of the Canadian Parliament. THE is currently missing. Comprehensive is fine, since it still strictly follows convention in other WP university articles. Thanks.Tansyderby (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe "members of Canadian Parliament" is fine, as the term "MP" refers to "Members of Parliament" rather than "Members of the Parliament". Jonahrapp (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I looked it up. "Members of Parliament" or "Members of Congress" is fine, but when qualified with the nation of origin, it becomes "the Canadian Parliament" or "the U.S.Congress". Anyway, I put in the "the" already. Thanks for all your work, especially on the alumni part.Tansyderby (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I have since changed the sentence altogether, and condensed "100 members of Canadian Parliament, United States Congress, and British Parliament and other national legislatures" into simply, "100 members of national legislatures," so this should no longer be an issue. Thanks. Jonahrapp (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Should follow the examples set forth by the most viewed FA class articles of the same topic.....University of Michigan..Dartmouth College.--Moxy 🍁 19:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Moxy, I will look into it and try to format it so that resembles that of Dartmouth College, as I prefer this format over the one used for UMich. 144.82.9.34 (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

There is already established consensus here/above 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) 20:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

You misinterpret the type of "firsts". The discussion in the lead is regarding "firsts" in the university's development (i.e. year of first degree awarded, year of first chancellor etc.) and does not include the university being the *first* to be established in Montreal and one of the first in Canada. Do not remove my edit until a third person reviews this discussion. See FA (Featured Article), Dartmouth College.Jonahrapp (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

No first of any kind allowed. That is the convention established even in other WP university articles. Editor User:Moxy even made it clear when he said "Lead not the place to list things like first and people." You need to stop tampering with the Lead and reinterpreting consensus. Do not change anything unless there is another consensus different from what is clearly established already.Tansyderby (talk) 21:06, 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", we should not include the year the university was first established (1821), or the year it's 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)

I also think Tansyderby misunderstood the meaning of "first." 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 the fourth in the world. There's nothing wrong to say that McGill is the oldest university in Montreal or when it awarded its first degree. Why so picky about the "first"? Is it because you care about the consensus, or is it because you just want to impose your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.88.165.241 (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree. I suppose it is up to an administrator or another higher-up to decide how to proceed. Personally, I feel that the intro paragraph is now lacking and should be reverted to how it was after my edit, prior to Kupal123's revert. Jonahrapp (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• The paragraph on alumni, as it stands now after my edits, is as follows:

"

McGill counts among its alumni 12 Nobel laureates and 145 Rhodes Scholars, both the most of any university in Canada,^[24] as well as 10 billionaires,^{[note 5][2]} the current prime minister and two former prime ministers of Canada, the current Governor General of Canada, at least eight foreign leaders,^[2] 28 foreign ambassadors and more than 100 members of national legislatures. McGill alumni also include nine Academy Award winners, 11 Grammy Award winners, at least 16 Emmy Award winners,^{[note 6][25]} four Pulitzer Prize winners,^[4][5] and 121 Olympians with over 35 Olympic medals.^[6] The inventors of the game of basketball,^[26] modern organized ice hockey,^[27] and the pioneers of American football,^[28] as well as the founders of several major universities and colleges^{[note 7]} are also graduates of the university.

"

Jonahrapp (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The above is better.--Moxy 🍁 15:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• I made a minor edit to the paragraph. The previous version highlighted the university's role in the creation of American football. I find this to be a very odd statement for the page to make given the University's larger role in the creation of Canadian football, which is the sport actually played at McGill and which originated prior to the American version. With conciseness in mind, and given that the origins both the Canadian and American games are so closely intertwined, I have edited the paragraph to refer to gridiron football to encompass both versions. --PlasmaTwa2 08:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I wanted to add up to date acceptance rates. It can either be put in the lead or in a separate section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardmayfield (talk • contribs) 00:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Lead does not meet MOS:LEAD, article has a lot of unsourced information and cleanup tags. If these issues aren't resolved, GAR may be in order. (t · c) buidhe 21:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Trump University had a very erratic listing)

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

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

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

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

I've been doing a bit of occasional cleaning up in some sections where I have some knowledge/interest, but there are a lot of problems throughout the article that will take significant work to fix. Other than the problems you've already highlighted, I'd also say the article is overly long and has too much information about obscure details - it's one of the longest university articles I've come across. I think we should add a Template:Overly detailed to the article until this is resolved. 80.42.156.96 (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The Other facilities section of the article lists Huntsman Marine Science Centre as a McGill facility. However, I cannot find any evidence that it is owned or operated by McGill. It appears to be a facility that is occasionally used by McGill, but is not part of the university. Unless a source can be provided that demonstrates otherwise, I propose removing the text about it. Tangerine6789 (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Removed, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McGill_University&type=revision&diff=988468313&oldid=988249433 Tangerine6789 (talk) 10:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

First off, 121.88.165.241's source (referenced on 2018. 04. 10) is from Maclean's 2018 University Issue (published on 2017. 10. 11), and my first source is also from the 2018 Issue (referenced on 2017. 11. 13). This source explicitly refutes 121.88.165.241's false claim that McGill has the highest average entering grades of any Canadian university.

Maclean's 2018 University Issue (published on 2017. 10. 11) https://www.macleans.ca/education/university-rankings/university-rankings-2018/

Maclean's 2018 University Entering Average (referenced on 2017. 11. 13, from Maclean's 2018 University Issue ) https://www.macleans.ca/education/what-grades-do-i-need-to-get-into-canadian-universities/ This source explicitly refutes 121.88.165.241's false claim that McGill has the highest average entering grades of any Canadian university.

Maclean's 2019 University Entering Average (published on 2018. 10. 11.) https://i.redd.it/6e68bmmuhgf21.jpg This also refutes 121.88.165.241's false claim that McGill has the highest average entering grades of any Canadian university.

Now, 121.88.165.241 has to come up with concrete evidence to back up his claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Normieo (talk • contribs) 13:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Normieo, Accuratewiki2021, and 121.88.165.241: I have applied full protection on this article for two days to halt the ongoing edit war. During this time, please review both the guide to dispute resolution and the verifiability policy, and then discuss the disputed content here. You may want to consider starting a request for comment or requesting assistance from a neutral moderator at the dispute resolution noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 15:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, reading the simplified ruleset is the best way to get acquainted with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Newslinger talk 15:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Let's discuss about the validity of your sources one by one.

1. Your first source: Your first source (https://www.macleans.ca/education/what-grades-do-i-need-to-get-into-canadian-universities/) was written on 11/13/2017. The original source (https://www.macleans.ca/education/canadian-universities-minimum-entering-grades-by-faculty/) was written on 4/10/2018. If you are familiar with Occam's razor, it's pretty clear which source is the latest and more reliable.

2. Your second source: In this case, your own source (2019 Macleans' ranking; https://i.redd.it/6e68bmmuhgf21.jpg) proves that McGill has the highest entering grade (90.5%). Your own source refutes your claim. Hilarious, isn't it? That's why I added this source to back up my claim.

3. Your third (?) source: Your third source (academic.ubc.ca/sites/vpa.ubc.ca/files/documents/2018-19%20Enrolment%20Report.pdf._) is a 65-page UBC Enrollment document. You claimed that it clearly gives out the data that UBC Vancouver Campus has an entering average of 91%, which is numerically higher than McGill, but it's not relevant to our discussion. You have no understanding of statistics. First of all, you are not talking about UBC as a whole. UBC Vancouver Campus is just a part of the university. You have to average out both Vancouver and Okanagan campuses' entering grades. Okanagan campus's entering grade is merely 85%. Second, you need to come up with a comprehensive source that compares each university using the same methodology (such as the admission data from Macleans). According to your 2019 Macleans source, McGill's entering grade is the highest. UBC is 88.6% while McGill is 90.5% (https://i.redd.it/6e68bmmuhgf21.jpg).

Since your second source (https://i.redd.it/6e68bmmuhgf21.jpg) is the latest source we can get, do not talk about your first source. Not even necessary.

--Accuratewiki2021 (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The lead for this article needs some extensive work. The most obvious issues are:

1. The paragraph about notable alumni contains many statements that either have no references, have circular references, or are original research.
2. The sentence about world rankings ("In all major rankings, McGill consistently ranks in the top 50 universities in the world and among the top 3 universities in Canada.") contravenes WP:UNIGUIDE: "In the lead, do not use rankings to synthesize an image of the institution, whether good or bad." I note also that the text is not supported by the references - McGill is ranked outside the top 50 in one of the rankings referenced.
3. There are some excessively specific facts that I don't think are suitable for a lead section, e.g. the long sentence about Rutherford: "Notable researchers include Ernest Rutherford, who discovered the atomic nucleus and conducted his Nobel Prize-winning research on the nature of radioactivity while working as Professor of Experimental Physics at the university.", random financial facts: "McGill has the largest endowment per student in Canada. In 2019, it was the recipient of the largest single philanthropic gift in Canadian history, a $200 million donation to fund the creation of the McCall MacBain Scholarships programme." and information about academic affiliations: "The university is one of two universities outside the United States which are members of the Association of American Universities, alongside the University of Toronto, and it is the only Canadian member of the Global University Leaders Forum (GULF) within the World Economic Forum."
4. There are several elements recommended by the lead guidelines in WP:UNIGUIDE that are missing, namely: "describe multiple campuses if present" (no mention of Outaouais Campus), "coeducational/single-sex, 2/4-year" (both missing), "It should be mentioned whether it is an undergraduate-only institution, or if graduate programs are present (and if so, specific stand-alone programs like medical, law, and divinity schools should be mentioned)." (all missing), "mention distinguishing academic, historical, or demographic characteristics" (some missing features are that: 1. McGill is one of three anglophone universities in a Quebec (a francophone jurisdiction), 2. it's the oldest chartered university in Quebec).

I'll post a suggested rewrite here if I find some time, but if others would like to start addressing some of these issues that would be great.

Tangerine6789 (talk) 22:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I've written a draft for a new lead section here. It's not perfect, but I think it's a big improvement over the current lead and goes some way to addressing a lot of the problems I highlighted above. Please let me know if you have any comments/feedback.

Tangerine6789 (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Changes implemented: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McGill_University&oldid=1032322273

Tangerine6789 (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Reason for edit request: International ranking table was somehow removed by someone. I think it should be restored if you are going to include Maclean's domestic ranking.

Change X (Current version) " It has held the top position for the past 16 years in the annual Maclean's Canadian University Rankings for medical-doctoral universities.^[1] "

to

Change Y (suggested edition)

" McGill is ranked among the world's top universities by major educational publications,^{[2] [3] [4] [5] [6]} and it has held the top position for the past 16 years in the annual Maclean's Canadian University Rankings for medical-doctoral universities.^[1] " Balancetalk032 (talk) 09:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

This prose was removed as part of a lead rewrite to trim it down some, and there seems to be some consensus for the current lead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The academic sections on Wikipedia is looking very sparse and seems to focus on academic achievements and entry level requirement. I think it would be good to flesh these our a bit so they're more descriptive of the programs at the school. I'm happy to take a stab at it, but it would be helpful if someone could review them for neutrality after the fact. --Beatrice Usher (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Mcgill CoA.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).