Talk:University of Oxford

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article University of Oxford 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.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject England (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Universities (Rated GA-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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject University of Oxford (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Ian Hislops Olden Days[edit]

On Ian Hislops Olden Days author of History of University College, Oxford, Robin Darwall-Smith explains Oxford's murky foundation myth evoking Alfred the Great in a land dispute, petitioning Richard II. Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for sharing. (For others interested, from 19:42 on iPlayer.) Probably not relevant to this page, but would be interesting to include on the University College, Oxford page. -- Fluteflute Talk Contributions 09:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Creation of an academic profile[edit]

I suggest to combine "Research & collection" with "Undergraduate study" to form a section of academic profile/academics. Most contents in the research & collection section aren't just about what the title suggests (like rankings/reputation and degrees which also contain undergraduate measurement). The scholarship mentioned in undergraduate section comprises that for postgraduates as well. If undergraduate studies are that important to be such lengthy, a subpage can be created with a brief summary left in the academic section of this page. Biomedicinal (contact)

There's definitely scope for expanding the information about graduate study and research. A subpage sounds like a good idea, but undergraduate teaching is what Oxford is famous for, and it's important this is still given due emphasis on this main page. I don't know how best to divide the page this into sections. But for an academic institution then trying to place everything under a single "academic profile" or "academics" section seems completely unnecessary. I suspect a "collections" section makes sense (museums/libraries/parks). I'm a bit wary of the rankings/reputation section, I don't think it should be as long as it is. -- Fluteflute Talk Contributions 01:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The guideline page stipulates the suggested flow and division of a university article. I think libraries & museums are about the academic environment provided by the institution to its students, so it can be placed in the academic section. In my opinion, the organisation of MIT page, where undergraduate and postgraduate studies briefly summarized are placed in the academic section together with rankings/reputation, libraries/museums, and research, can be a reference. Biomedicinal (contact)
The MIT approach looks possible, though not obviously better than the current form (guidelines are just guidelines, and are frequently US-centric). But PLEASE call it "Academic Profile" or similar, and not "Academics" which has an entirely different meaning in the UK, and would lead to endless edit wars. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Parks[edit]

A minor point, but the parks are in fact open free of charge. The Botanic Garden and the Arboretum, however, have an entrance charge for the general public. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Quodlibetica[edit]

A suggestion that with 6 volumes of the History of Oxford University available the historical section could well be written up as a separate, fuller Wikipedia entry.

The list of alumni seems unbalanced: Politics and Sport occupy too prominent a position, and medecine does not get a look-in (not even for Harvey and the circulation of the blood). The list of alumni by subject could follow approximately the order of precedence of the facultiesClive sweeting (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Clive Sweeting 18 September 2014

Oriel Noetics[edit]

Were the Oriel Noetics really prominent in Philosophy? Looks like more of a theological movement to me. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

As a Philosophy student, I've never heard of them. They're also not mentioned on the Philosophy faculty's history webpage. -- Fluteflute Talk Contributions 08:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; I have cut them out. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I denote a whiff of anachronism here together with a young man in a hurry. The Noetics were natural theology men. Natural theology was an intrinsic part of philosophy from the Stoics right up to their time. It is not so today. Disciplines have shifted over the centuries. (I believe a pharmaceutical store in Edinburgh about their time specialised in purveying 'philosophical instruments'!) The Noetics used Whateley's Logic and were generally taken to be philosophers. The faculty they evolved into was Lit.Hum. and not theology.

The end of Mander's article cited above is interesting. A clear agenda is stated: ...'gradual freeing of itself from clerical and classical roots'.Would the majority of philosophy teachers in the university endorse?15:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Clive Sweeting,23 September 2014

"Criticisms" section[edit]

A "criticisms" section was added in this edit [1], but in reality the section is purely about fossil fuel investments. The section seems to me to be contrary to WP:COATRACK, WP:CHERRY, and WP:RECENTISM, but it's not so bad that it should obviously just be removed, and I would value other opinions on this. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that it's not appropriate in its current form. I'd suggest reducing it to a sentence (or manybe two) under the Finance section. -- Fluteflute Talk Contributions 12:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds sensible; now done. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)