Talk:Australian National University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Universities (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Australia / Canberra / Education (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Australian National University is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Canberra.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Australia (marked as High-importance).
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for other editorial assistance.

Article layout[edit]

I have begun to organise the article in line with Wikipedia's guidelines on articles describing universities. I chose to incorporate the ANU Library, CPAS and E Press sections under the Acton campus section for better organisation, I also intend to add in a description of the National Film and Sound Archive here -AlcanderFrancis (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Remove section on IAS[edit]

The institute for Advanced Studies no longer exists. Its schools have been merged with teaching areas and now function purely within the Colleges. This will require a big cleanup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

John XXIII College?[edit]

Why does this college appear separately from the others on this page, it is very inconsistent t o have it formatted this way (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Requires article consolidation[edit]

We should consolidate all the subarticles as they are not notable enough to exist, and should be merged into this one. Ive created a bug report for it. [1] (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC).

Undeveloped, Needs more effort -- Compare to Melbourne or Sydney University[edit]

Please can we develop this page more? It is unsettling that ANU to have such an undeveloped wiki. Compare it to Melbourne, Monash, Sydney -- they have far more depth and interesting detail.. See Cornell University for a nice example.

Agreed. We could start by organising the Academic structure section by tabulating Colleges and Institute of Advanced Studies section (see University of Melbourne). There doesn't appear to be any need to detail each of the component colleges ect of the university on this page with PR guff. It is unnecessary detail on a broad article about the university. Any specific information like this can be forked to specific wiki pages, otherwise the ANU page turns into gratuitous advertising. Any thoughts? A nicely set out table similar to University of Melbourne? Fincle (talk) 06:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The IAS no longer exists, this should be merged into Colleges.--xtfer (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


Campus stubs and redlinks[edit]

I really can't see the value of the stubs for the halls of residence or the redlinks for the precincts. I think we should only break the information out of this main article when it is too big and cumbersome. I would be surprised if anybody would wish to write an article of more than a paragraph or two on say the Baldessin precinct. I cannot imagine there is much to say on Burton and Garran hall either. I used to live in Burton - fine hall of residence but really ... an article? Happy to be proved wrong.--AYArktos 11:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The Fenner Hall and Ursula Hall articles were quite detailed, I thought the other ones might get to something like that eventually. But youre probably right about the precincts Cfitzart 11:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I can't see any reason for the precincts to have articles, as I can't imagine them containing anything of interest to even the ANU community. Do you know if there's any reasoning behind them (i.e. is there a law precinct, a science precinct, or are they just random?). If so, it'd be nice to note which faculties are in each one, as opposed to buildings (which probably have no relevance to anyone outside of ANU).
The hall articles are another matter - they can be quite interesting. There is some precedent at other universities for having them (such as at Monash), and I think they're helpful to have if they're done well - the Fenner article being a good example. Ambi 16:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I was under the impression the precincts where a recent invention used to break the uni map up into fairly equal sized parts. I don't think there is much thought into what goes where within the University, apart fromt he fact that the undergraduate stuff is mainly contentrated in one half of the university and another side is mainly halls and colleges. Martyman 23:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I've did alot of work on the Bruce Hall page over the past couple of years. I think its worth having a page for them. I also think its worth having pages for the individual colleges and research schools. They are redlinked on the template, waiting to be filled out. Khing (talk) 08:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Pruned from page[edit]

=== Recent events ===
On Friday 5 August, 2005 at 1.50pm an explosion in the Research School of Chemistry blew out three windows, burned the roof and caused an evacuation of the University. No-one was injured although it caused $1 million in damage. [1]

I have removed the above section from the article as I feel quite strongly that it is not noteworthy. The university has suffered many, many fires in the last 10 years I have been working here. Many of them much more notable that the most recent one at RSC. Add to that, that the article in the Canberra Times is wrong (Less than 1/3rd or the university was "evacuated"). If we are just including recent events without regard to notability maybe we should include the burst water main of yesterday, or the many different construction projects started or finishing around the university at any time.

If anywhere the fire should be mentioned under the article for the Research School of Chemistry, Australian National University. If anyone feels strongly that it should remain in the article please comment. Martyman 21:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It may look a bit out of context there (perhaps it needs to be part of a history paragraph encompassing things like the burning of Mount Stromlo), but I do think it warrants mention in the article. And for the record, while some of the IAS areas may not have been evacuated, to my knowledge the entire undergraduate area of the campus was. Ambi 00:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no article for the Research School of Chemistry, as that has been deleted, so it should go in the main ANU page.

There have been many other fires here that I know of in the past 10 years. In the past 3 years there has been 3 in our research school alone (RSPhysSE). Granted none of them caused as much damage as the RSC one but they did involve the fire brigade putting them out. Going back further almost half of RSPhysSE burt down back in the 60s. The Coombs building was quite badly burnt a few years ago. I just think trivia like this would be best dealt with in a more detailed article about the research school in question rather than the university article.
From our side of the campus you could not even see smoke. The emails I recieved on the day where:
There has been an explosion and fire in the Research School of Chemistry. The fire brigade is in attendance. There is dense smoke on campus and it would be prudent for staff and students to stay out of the smoke. Staff and students should stay away from the area while the emergency is being dealt with. The police have closed off that section of the campus. As far as we know there have been no reported injuries.
The fire in RSC is now under control. Staff and students should not cross safety barriers until permitted to do so. Some areas may remain closed for at least the rest of the day. So, unless there is reason not to do so, staff and students close to the affected areas may go home.
Martyman 01:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
It caught the attention of the national media, and there were police going through every building forcing people to evacuate quite some distance away. Even stuff over in the law faculty was cancelled, for gods sake. It's hardly trivia, it is recent, and as you admit - none of the other fires have caused as much damage. Ambi 04:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Maybe it would look better at the end of the article, rather than near the beginning? Alot of wiki articles seem to have news or recent events at the end.. You could also mention the other fires you just talked about here. Cfitzart 02:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
This would be a good idea, methinks. Ambi 05:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

OK then, I defer to public opinion. I must say, I am amazed they evacuated Law, that is a long way away. If someone wants to try and make it fit into the article better please go ahead. For now I have reverted my removal. Martyman 10:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


I've removed this: 'In 2004 the ANU began offering an advanced four year science degree, The Bachelor of Philosophy (Honours), or PhB. This research focused degree is Australia's most prestigious science degree. [2]' from under the Science description. Both Arts and Asian Studies also offer this degree, so would require similar writeups - but it isn't really important enough to warrant front page stuff. Besides, there's already an entire page about PhB degrees in general (including those at ANU).

Chancellor of the Australian National University[edit]

If no-one objects I will merge Chancellor of the Australian National University to here. No point splitting off the list. - Randwicked 11:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

...and the same for Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University. - Randwicked 11:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Please don't. Large lists are inappropriate for an article of this size, and would have to be de-merged if were ever to try and get this featured. Ambi 11:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, has this been done before? So it has. My apologies, but if two or more editors come to the same conclusion independently maybe they are on to something. Nevertheless I won't merge it, but I think there should be a more prominent link to these lists in the article than JUST in the infobox. How about a paragraph or two about governance? As it is there's more prose in the lists than there is in the main article. - Randwicked 12:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
A section about governance would be really good; it would help highlight these pages, which are a bit too hidden at present, and could incorporate some of the text here. It's mainly the lists which really don't fit in the larger article, yet I think are helpful to have on Wikipedia. Ambi 12:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It is worth noting that all Vice Chancellors since 1991 have refused to acknowledge letters of complaint regarding misconduct by staff of the ANU (criminal defamation, hate crime, discrimination, persecution, inciting mobs to cause severe injury, students being asked to falsify data to 'up the publication rate', etc).

It is impossible to have such matters investigated, as there are no independant bodies that the ANU is answerable to (for example, Chub is a past head of the Australian Vice Chancellors committee, the Science Academy has been chaired by a past Deputy Vice Chancellor, etc). Because of its special position, the ANU cannot be touched by ACT Human Rights or the Commonwealth Ombudsmen (in fact, the ANU legal office has boasted 'the Commonwealth Ombudsmen does what we tell them to.')

In 1991, the Vice Chancellor formally withdrew all rights of students to file complaint regarding workplace discrimination and bullying in response to an horrific incident in which a student was mobbed and severely injured at Ursula Hall. The change in regulation was effected immediately (within 24 hours) upon notification that a complaint had been lodged. 'Budget constraints' were cited as the official reason for this change of policy.[PEC] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You are nuts. There are many many avenues of appeal: Commonwealth Ombudsman, Administrative Appeals Tribunal, ADJR Action in the Federal Court, complaint to the Minister of Education... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the chancellors are not notable enough to have there own separate article, and should be merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

housing listings?[edit]

Not really the place maybe, but a little help anyone? I'm moving to Canberra in a couple months. Can anybody clue me in where to find online aparment listings (bikeable to campus). Google is not helpful; either that or there's only 20 apartments in Canberra. Derex 20:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Not really the place but anyway, having connected, welcome to Canberra. Try . The suburbs you may want are inner north; but inner south, Woden, Weston Creek and inner Belconnen are all easily bikeable too. Probably Gunghalin and Tuggeranong, while bikeable would take too long. Regards--A Y Arktos\talk 21:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
For info on what is in what district see Suburbs of Canberra :-) --A Y Arktos\talk 21:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, mate. Moving halfway round the world has its little challenges. Derex 21:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
It depends what campus you're referring to, but ANU has a really good housing database on their website if that's where you're going. Rebecca 05:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Secondary college[edit] should we add this?? Shinigami Josh 09:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I am in favour. Khing (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Rankings in Introduction[edit]

It seems like around 60% of the introduction to this article is dedicated to ANU's rankings rathern that e.g. location, name, founding etc. á la e.g. Cornell University. Any objections to compressing the rankings down to one short sentence?• Leon 23:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The ranking section below seems redundant. Perhaps after a sentence in the introduction, all other ranking data should be confined to it's own section. And more importantly, how about the ranking data be presented in a tabular format, to maintain consistency with many other pages of universities, for example : [[3]]


I think the massive chunk in the beginning on the ANU's world ranking is rather embarassing - particularly for those who embrace it are some of the most educated people in the world.

The chunk seems like an over-justification/compensation for something that really isn't true. First of all the sources that have been quoted use arbitary primitve statistical survey methods. Newsweek simply combined the results of of the Times and Shanghai - a monstrosity in survey/statistical terms!!!

In addition anyone who is insightful enough to pay close attention to the rankings would surely question why the ANU ranks higher than known research and undergraduate/graduate powerhouses such as Dartmouth, Brown, Rockefeller, Carnegie Mellon, University of California San Diego etc?

It just goes to show that not merely quoting sources is enough. The sources that you quote need to be valid in themselves. Otherwise, you'll simply attract dismay instead of well deserved admiration. Fredreck 11:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "Dartmouth, Brown, Rockefeller, Carnegie Mellon, University of California San Diego etc" are no longer as good as the ANU. TImes change. Maybe they were 10 years ago, or whenever you were at college, but today, ANU is surely a more research intensive institution. The rankings give a good indication - eg oxbridge, harvard still at the top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Peacock terms[edit]

This article is using peacock terms throughout to show off the topic:

ANU is regarded as Australia's (and the Southern Hemisphere's) leading University...

ANU is particularly strong in research,

In 1960, ANU began offering undergraduate degrees, beginning another era of national leadership — this time based on excellent teaching.

ANU graduates hold top positions in government, business and academic fields, both locally and abroad.

The ANU College of Asia and the Pacific focuses on study relating to Asia and the Pacific region, and is the leading school of Asian Studies in Australia.

The ANU College of Law, established in 1960, is one of Australia's top law schools. The College is a leader in International Law and Public Law.

The ANU College of Science is the largest of the ANU's Colleges, and is widely considered to be the leading institution of scientific education in Australia, and one of the finest in the world.

It should'nt be a promotional page for ANU, but a factual, informative article. Excessive and unsubstantiated use of words like leading, finest, excellent, top, etc diminish the factual basis of the article. Rather than simply saying a College is one of the finest in the world, give information about faculty, publication record, notable achievements and let the reader decide. Although peacock terms may be unavoidable in some instances, this article relies on them too much (c.f. Stanford University, which is a 'leading' university but the article does not state this).

:The article certainly does seem compromised, and almost worthy of a POV label. I'll see what I can do to bring the article into line with those on other leading universities. Mostlyharmless 02:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Way too showy. There also seems to be a lot of emphasis on the rankings especially the THES ones. Most of the top American universities' wiki sites have completely dropped THES rankings as it has been recognised as an uncredible source. In the 2007 rankings, the ANU was ranked above Stanford, Cornell etc. Doesn't this call for suspicion in the methodology? Fredreck (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Photo of Kim Sterelny needed[edit]

Apparently he is headed over ANU way. Could someone there take a photo of him for his newly created biography? Richard001 (talk) 10:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I should do that. He's down the corridor from me. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

ANU People photo requests?[edit]

While we're at it, are there any other requests for photos of ANU professors? Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No they are not notable enough for their own articles

Schools and centres[edit]

The sections on Schools and Centres are incomplete - many schools are missing - and out of date. Also, the relationships between Colleges and Schools could be better indicated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtfer (talkcontribs) 00:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Clean up[edit]

I've tried to reorganise the article as it was primarily hyperlinked lists. What I think the article needs now is expansion to the history section, clarification of the relationship between the colleges, schools and centres, something on current research, and some better photos. Maybe a better photo of the Law College, Sullivan's Creek, University Avenue etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus for a multi-article merger KeithbobTalk 19:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I propose that several articles about separate components of the university be merged with the main article on Australian National University. A lot of the information has been duplicated, and believe that the parent article would be better for it if they were all consolidated. Examples include:

Bezza84 (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I think we need to carefully consider these separately. I might agree with a merge for the first five, but disagree strongly about the last one. The ANU library is clearly notable in its own right. There is no need for table, so I have edited it. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see how the article about the football club could be merged into the main article - its rather detailed and is of questionable notability. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Bduke, thanks for your feedback. I have had a closer look at the library article per your objection, and was hoping that you could elaborate on why you strongly believe the library should have its own article. I can concede that the library has an important role within the university, holds some rare collections, and was the first university library in Australia; however the article has been marked as an orphan since Feb 2009, and a lot of the good university articles have information about their libraries incorporated within the main article (refer to the University of Oxford and Yale University as two examples). Thanks also about the bullet points - I'm still learning the finer details of Wikipedia formatting. NickD, thanks also for your feedback. I have had a look at the Wiki articles for a number of leading universities, and most of them provide only a snippet of information about the sporting teams and links to dedicated articles. As such, I retract my vote to transfer that article also. I'm hoping to try clean this article up during the university break, and hopefully help raise it to a GA+ level. Bezza84 (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I am a graduate of Oxford University and you are simply wrong. The Oxford University Library is the Bodleian Library. which, as you see, has its own article. As a copyright library in the UK, of course it is notable. The ANU library is similarly notable, as the library of the national university. Of course there should be some information about the library in the university article, with a pointer to the article on the library. You are also wrong in saying it was the first university library in Australia. The universities of Sydney and Melbourne had libraries before Federation. The library article needs work, but it notable and far too long to merge into the University article. In contrast, as suggested above, the article on the soccer club should probably be deleted with the merest mention somewhere else. --Bduke (Discussion) 12:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The ANU library isn't a legal deposit library so that comparison isn't really valid. The ANU also isn't 'the national university' - it's actually a fairly standard university, albeit with a much stronger emphasis on research than teaching than is the case in any other Australian university. On the other hand, the ANU's library system is fairly extensive so it might be notable in isolation, but some sources are needed to establish that. Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it is not a legal deposit library. Originally I thought it was. I think you are wrong about the importance of the ANU. The Research Schools are quite different from the Faculties, so while student teaching in the Faculties in subject X is fairly standard, the research in the Research School of subject X is certainly not. There is nothing "fairly standard" about the Research Schools - look at the number of Fellows of the Royal Society and the Australian Academy of Science just for a start, and then look at their success in obtaining ARC grants. ANU was set up as a national university with only the research schools. The Faculties, teaching undergraduates, came later from a merger. The presence of the research schools makes the library one of the best in Australia and there should be sources reflecting that. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Bduke, my mistake with the info on the library - that'll teach me for relying upon a single reference. I concede your point, but still think some more information about the library should be added to the main article. Bezza84 (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • There's no good grounds for merging at least the Student Association and Union articles; almost every student union in Australia has its own article, and merging would result in an inevitable (but unnecessary and unhelpful) loss of content or undue weight on that topic in the broader article. I think forcing all these articles into the central one would make GA status for this article very difficult to obtain. Rebecca (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
As the creator of the Academic Structure article, I was actually trying to remove the information from the main article; the information could possibly be reintroduced, but not as the original mess of hyperlinks.--THobern 12:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • There has been some great feedback here. Does anyone have any opinions on the Academic Structure and Medical School articles? Bezza84 (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I'd suggest merging both of them into the main ANU article; they're core parts of the university. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I couldn't agree more with Nick. Merge all three of them. It would be much better to have these as three separate articles. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Rebecca the Student Association and Union articles, although small, would probably be less if they were merged into a larger university page and useful information would be lost. Also, it is important to remember that the student representative bodies are distinctly separate entities to the university and are separate but connected institutions. Its ok to have fairly short contained Wikipedia pages ongoing connected organisations so long as they have enough content and weight to be of public interest. Fincle (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

COI - promotional edits by IP from ANU[edit] is an IP address at ANU, per this and has been making promotional edits, doing all the usual things described Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism. Am seeking page protection to end this, and have filed a case at COIN Jytdog (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Header Changes[edit]

Hi Jytdog, I have noticed that you seem to have a beef with this page in particular. Do you have a COI on this? What is your intent? Personally I am not affiliated to the ANU but I have seen that your striking reverts have consistently reduced the information on the page.

Also if you will note, the existing and far superior line now is:

ANU is a member of the Group of Eight and the International Alliance of Research Universities. As Australia’s only member of this association, ANU enjoys close relationships and exchange partnerships with the University of Cambridge, University of Oxford, University of California, Berkeley, Yale University, Peking University, National University of Singapore, University of Tokyo, University of Copenhagen and ETH Zurich.[14][15]

This is well substantiated and I have offered a concession by removing the word prestigious from IARU. This is critical information to any prospective student as exchange life and reputations vis a vis other universities is a critical factor. I am a 3rd party not from the ANU on this but i feel this would be critical in helping me decide over other Universities. To me this is factual enough and does not possess any element of academic boosterism.

Even if you do not respect the University please respect others who are looking to make the best possible choice since wilipedia will likely be their first stop. If you'd like id be happy to cite the various IARU GSPs available to signify the close partnership within the universities— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

ok, i am willing to leave some of this there, but i removed the prestige-by-association listing and the dead link. please do read WP:Avoid academic boosterism Wikipedia does not exist for promotion! Please read WP:PROMO. ANU can create its own marketing material. that is not what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, thank you for seeing reason. As mentioned, I am a bystander with no interest in this and have no interest in furthering the marketing of ANU. However I feel the above focus on the IARU which is a unique tenet in every country be it the UK or Singapore a key deciding consideration. Thus it is extremely useful information to have. I agree the prestigious term might have been boosterism and thus i have removed it for good. I will update the links accordingly as consented. Thanks and have a good day — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, I feel that the "prestige by association" is something that is implied from the reputation of all the universities inside the IARU, ANU included. However, citing the members and the close exchanges is fair game. While I can concede your movement of the section to the bottom of the package. i feel that critical part should be included. Let's face it, most laymen have no idea what IARU is but this is a factual statement showing how these universities within the association interact and provide opportunities. Cooperation is a two way street, concessions have to go both ways