Talk:McGill University

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


 * Again @Shabel432098, discuss this on the talk page as opposed to starting an edit war. Now lets get the facts clear here.
 * 1. Maclean's does not have a "best university" ranking, nor does it use the phrase "best university", rather it uses "best X university" or "best university in X", as Maclean's does not have a singular ranking of institutions but three (based off primarily undergraduate, medical-doctoral, and comprehensive). My position has not changed in any of my edit summaries nor in my earlier attempts to open a discussion with you on this talk page and your personal talk page. Maclean's does not refer to any of the institutions that lead any of their rankings as singularly the "best university" as that is not how their rankings function. You're conflating the phrase "best university" for Maclean's preferred phrasing "best X university". That conflation is your own issue and yours alone.
 * 2. To answer this statement in your past edit summary: There's no official rule that "medical-doctoral" has to be included in the description, I'd advise you to read up on the guidelines and policies of WP:RS, as well as WP:UNI's own established consensus, which very much make it clear that issues of this nature should be presented as they are presented in the attributing source (which every source in this article states it's a medical-doctoral ranking, even in its headline), and not refactored to omit key details.
 * 3. Even if there isn't a policy or a WikiProject consensus that says it doesn't need to be there (which there is), you have yet to give ANY reason as to why it is perfectly fine for us to exclude such information. Simply, Maclean's operates several university rankings, and we need to disambiguate which one is being discussed (unless you are all for people mistaking that they were categorized as a comprehensive or primarily undergraduate institution). Again, there is absolutely no reason to obfuscate what the ranking is, especially when there is an actual need to disambiguate which ranking is being referred to. Forget rules the rules I brought up earlier, that's simply common sense in terms of presenting new information to an uninitiated reader. Leventio (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Leventio @Korensho Notwithstanding this past conversation, I also don't support the presentation of college rankings websites in the lede in accordance with WP:HIGHEREDREP and WP:UNDUE. GuardianH (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm generally in agreement with the consensus established in HIGHEREDREP, and because that statement places undue weight on a single publication's ranking over multiple others. That said, I'd be open to additional opinions from WP:UNI participants. Leventio (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Leventio I agree. Until removed, what currently stands is WP:BOOSTER; definitely WP:UNDUE weight meant to present the university in a more promotional light. I'll add the tag to reflect this. GuardianH (talk) 05:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * James McGill is an important figure in the University's founding. I two word addition clarifying his a significant aspect of his biography is relevant enough to make the lead.
 * I am happy to change the source to one where his slaveholding is mentioned in the first paragraph since that will demonstrate it's relevance. Chamawacka (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I also cannot see how him being a merchant is relevant of inclusion but the human beings that allowed for his trade to flourish are not worthy of inclusion! Chamawacka (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please note that the weight provided to information in articles is determined by Balancing aspects: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject".
 * IOW if articles about McGill University regularly mention that James McGill was a slaveholder in their second sentence, then so should this article. You obviously believe they should and you may be right. The problem is that sources, including the one you used, do not provide the same weight.
 * Note that the issue is not whether James McGill owned slaves or whether that is important. The sole issue is whether your edit gives it the same degree of prominence as in reliable sources. For example, if the McGill Univesity website home page said, "Welcome to McGill Univesity, the university in Montreal founded by James McGill, Scottish merchant and slave-owner", then I would agree with you.
 * Can you provide any reason, based on Wikipedia policy or guidelines that support inclusion in the second sentence?
 * Actually it would be helpful if you could find a source about McGill University that mentions its founder was a slave-owner in the second sentence. However, it must be about McGill University specifically, not about James McGill or any controversy concerning the naming of the university. IOW an article named "McGill considers changing its name" would not be acceptable, while an entry in "World's Top 100 univerisites" would. TFD (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

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


 * The assortment of university pages you chose is few and unrepresentative. Tallying the amount of articles with enrollment in the lede is misguided, but if you want some examples there are plenty, including the University of Texas at Austin, Ohio State University, University of Michigan, University of California, Los Angeles, Dartmouth College, and numerous others. Canadian articles with them include Université de Montréal, University of Waterloo, and are also numerous, not to mention other universities abroad like the University of London, University College London, and the University of Edinburgh.
 * Nothing is required per se, but MOS:LEDE does dictate that information in the body should be represented in the lede. And, here, in addition to the established practice of putting enrollment numbers in uni-ledes, the article has good detail on the number and history of the university's enrolment, hence its addition and why its appropriate. GuardianH (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Loudmals and User:Hdsksj4839, whatever you are trying to do, it's not going to work. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just as expected, this dirty, shameless, and retarded administrators named Drmies and Bbb23 blocked my account and ran away. They are believed to be the same person using two different accounts.
 * The only thing he can do is revert constructive edits and block users he disagrees with on the false charge of "sock puppet," rather than engaging in conversation and discussion. He aligns himself with another individual of low IQ, like GuardianH. They act as dictators, forming their own closed circles. Drmies even blocked editing on his talk page to prevent the influx of negative criticism. He is nothing more than a coward who blocks users and runs away. What a chicken.
 * I knew Wikipedia was a dirty playground where administrators and their allies stick together, excluding outsiders. However, these good-for-nothing individuals are corrupting the integrity of today's world and the transparency of the internet. 122.222.63.32 (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , you and I "are believed to be..." Don't know how many times I told student to be careful with passive constructions. IP, who believes that? And Bbb, where did we run away to? Is it a better place? Drmies (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Melchior2006, GuardianH, thanks for helping to improve this article. It's amazing what some people with a low IQ can actually achieve! Drmies (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , you figure blocking the IP will take away a free source of entertainment?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's getting boring. They're a long ways away from McGill. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Good decision. I think the IP may have a point, though, about my IQ. Dropping steadily, soon I'll descend to genius level, and I've always been shameless.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response Drmies and Bbb23, and for the kind-hearted laughs. Looks like IP has caught us red-handed, thwarting his plans of saving the internet, and presumably our villainly now goes unimpeded all while our devil-horns and tails are in towe and our hands are clasped together, rubbed mischeviously. GuardianH (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)