Talk:University of Queensland

Advert

Reads like an advertisement, please address the tone so that information is presented in an objective manner-Reconsider the static (talk) 03:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I second that. No other university Wiki page I have seen produces so much puffery. UQ already survives by virtue of its Marketing Department alone. Let's not allow that here. 119.12.226.70 (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Reads like a college ad

KBurchfiel (talk) 00:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC) If I were given the first section of this article in plain text, I would have thought I was reading a school-published pamphlet. Could someone go through and neutralize the language?

Agreed and tagged. A Nobel laureate and a cancer vaccine are both notable but do they belong in the intro? "Breakthrough" is a bit of a peacock word. Rees11 (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed that information from the lead and cleaned up some of the unnecessary peacock language. I've also noted where references are lacking. -- Atama^chat 16:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Notable alumni/staff

I noticed that there's already an article called List of University of Queensland people that contained nearly all of the information in the "Notable alumni" and "Notable staff" sections. I moved the information in this article that was missing from that one to be sure that nothing was lost, then reduced both sections to a single section with a hatnote. I think that the section can later be expanded to a more thorough summary, but it shouldn't be restored to the long lists that were there before. The advantage of a spin-off article is that you can reduce the amount of text here to keep the article managable. -- Atama^chat 20:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of..

"and is internationally recognised for its research in a number of fields including the biosciences, nanotechnology, sustainable development and social science". On the basis that it is biased; the source contains peacock terms such as "state of the art", plus it is clear that it was written by the university ("our" identified strengths). Also statement cannot be directly verified by the source, ie the list of "research strenghts" is not directly linked to the assertion of "international recognition". In need of third party verification. -Reconsider the static (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Improve Grammar and Sentence Structure

CheeWee (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2008 The tone has been edited and more neutral now. But can someone improve the grammar and sentence structure of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.75.84.153 (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent issues

Look, I have nothing against the univeristy itself, I am just a strong believer against the use of Wikipedia as some form of advertising platform. I am willing to compromise, ie re-introduce the information as long as it is worded in an appropriate manner and does not contain peacock terms. To the two anonymous IPs, "Selwin Wu" and others, please do not continue your current editing style, it is highly disruptive. Put in neutral content, don't use misleading edit summaries and actually acknowledge the problems instead of simply reverting. -Reconsider the static (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have semi-protected this article for a few days to encourage discussion here about the dispute. Content disputes are to be solved through discussion by seeking consensus, and not by reverting, which is disruptive and can be seen as an edit war. Those types of behaviours will not be tolerated, so please get talking and sort it. Wikipedia is not meant to serve as a promotional medium, it's meant to be neutral, with facts backed up with sources. Nja²⁴⁷ 11:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness, I think that Selwin Wu has been trying to address complaints in their latest couple of edits, addressing the copyright violations from the university's web site. I'm not experienced with the world of copyrights, but how much does the original have to differ from the version here? It looks like Selwin took information from History of UQ and changed it slightly, maybe one word per sentence. That makes it not a literal copy, but it's pretty obvious where it was derived from. -- Atama^chat 16:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

A copyright violation is a brick wall here (offending material must be removed immediately, and WP:3RR does not apply). See WP:C and WP:PLAGIARISM. Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please try to include constructive input to make the article more original and informative instead of nonconstructive removal of whole sections of the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Munrostreet (talk • contribs) 05:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The sections that were removed weren't constructive to begin with. To fix an old house you have to remove the rotten wood first. Copyright violations have a zero tolerance on Wikipedia and will be removed, and people who insist on reintroducing the material will be blocked. That's policy. -- Atama^chat 06:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at WP:PLAGIARISM, it seems pretty clear that the entire history section has been plagiarized from this page. It's significantly identical, and should be completely rewritten. Selwin wu's repeated reinsertions of the text is not acceptable. -- Atama^chat 06:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Remove the entire section? I'll try and do a complete re-write of it, but it'll take some time. -Reconsider the static (talk) 09:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with removal of blatantly slightly altered plagiarised section. I've warned Selwin Wu. the edits are of major concern. LibStar (talk) 11:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the 2 sections on the article that were just lists of the colleges and groups associated with it. These lists do not improve a reader's understanding of the subject in any way, and actually cause the article to look messy. Other schools/universities do not have these lists on the main page. Netalarmtalk 03:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

link to facebook community page

can anyone link this to the relevant facebook community page "University of Queensland" so that the info and emblem may appear, as with qut, griffith, and just about every other Australian university?