Talk:University of Edinburgh
| WikiProject Universities | (Rated B-class) | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||
| WikiProject Scotland | (Rated B-class, High-importance) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
| WikiProject Edinburgh | (Rated B-class, Top-importance) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
| Text from History of the University of Edinburgh was copied into University of Edinburgh with this edit. History of the University of Edinburgh now serves to provide attribution for that content in University of Edinburgh and must not be deleted so long as University of Edinburgh exists. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see this history; for its talk page, see Talk:History of the University of Edinburgh. |
Archives |
|---|
Contents |
[edit] Iconic?
This is a peacock term and we therefore should not use it. --John (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Peacocking
Renowned is one of the exemplars of puffery given on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Using such vague and unprovable terms is poor writing style, and adds nothing to the article. Instead it would be better to improve the 'Academic reputation' section of the article giving examples cited to reliable sources of the university's renown. An example of how to do this is given at WP:PEACOCK—Jeremy (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Edit request from , 24 November 2011
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
where is states is the only scottish university to be a member of both Russel and LERU is a bit confusing, Glasgow is also a member of Russel , and edinburgh is the only member of LERU. It kind of implies that Edinburgh is the only Russel Group university in scotland
Edinburghgeo (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Puffin Let's talk! 14:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
it kind of implies that edinburgh is the only member of both russel and LERU, it isnt, because Glasgow is also a member of the russel group, thats what i feel need clarifying . it implies it is the only member of the RUSSEL GROUP, what it should say is somethin on the lines of 1 of 2 members of RUSSEL and the only scottish member of LERU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.4.1 (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Tuition costs and inclusion in the lead
The statement below was removed by 46.10.10.235 (talk)} with the edit summary: Not appropriate for introduction; also not true. St. Andrews also charges 36k for 4 year degree. This section is to discuss the validity and significance of the statement. SENATOR2029 talk 12:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
It has the highest fees in Europe, so is certainly significant. You could say joint highest or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.151.170 (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I oppose the inclusion of this in the introduction of the article. Here is a reference that St. Andrews also charges 36k per 4-year degree: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-15259988
Additionally, tuition is higher at Richmond University in London - a private University: http://www.richmond.ac.uk/cms/pdfs/Undergraduate%20Tuition%20Fees%20EU%20Tuition%20New%20Students.pdf
Finally, I understand how some people might be angry that the University suddenly becomes much more expensive for English students, but that's no reason to attempt to slander its reputation by posting false statements in the introduction of its wikipedia page. Moreover, I cannot find a single prominent University in the world's top 50 that has ANY mention of tuition fees on its wikipedia page at all. Therefore, I am removing this statement, as it is not only false, but also inappropriate for inclusion. 188.74.105.81 (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
You have missed the point, it says jointly, and stresses public, please get your facts rights before making changes. There are other articles which also mention tuition fees in the top 50 also. There is no reason it cant be included. I go to the University, im not saying its right, but its an important fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saariselka1 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Then, why not go and edit Cambridge's wiki article, say that it is "jointly" the 2nd most expensive university in Europe. This is ridiculous. You must be a complete moron to think this is something reasonable to include in the introduction of a encyclopedia article. 188.74.105.81 (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Also, amazingly enough, the St. Andrews article doesn't include the same "most expensive" claim anywhere in the entry at all. So why should Edinburgh include it? Maybe your mum dropped you one too many times on your head, whilst you were young, but please spare your mental retardation for your similarly challenged friends and not the public. 188.74.105.81 (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)