Talk:Trinity College Dublin

Jedi archives link

...is broken. All I'm getting is a tripod logo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.1.136 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the reason or this is that tripod don't allow their images to be linked to from other sites. Try it yourself, copy the image url into your location bar. --Jasonm 02:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Ban on Catholics

The Roman Catholic Church had a policy until 1970 under the Archbishop of Dublin John Charles McQuaid of excommunication for Catholics who took a place, although they could receive a special dispensation.

I remember, when I was a lad in Dublin, hearing that only John Charles McQuaid applied this rule and Catholics from dioceses in other parts of Ireland didn't have a problem getting dispensations. I suspect the rule started as a bit of empire building - JCMcQ trying to get Catholics to got to his Catholic University (which later became UCD) instead of to TCD. Anyone know of evidence for these unfounded assertions of mine? --81.187.181.168 21:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

From 1637 to 1793 Catholics were banned from attending college outright - this was not due to the hierarchy wanting it so, but rather "the law of the land". However the hierarchy did disapprove of attendance at the college until 1970, and MacQuaid was a large force behind this ban during the twentieth century. The Catholic University of Ireland was long gone before MacQuaid appeared as a power, and it is quite doubtful that it was empire building. Certainly a referencing/review of any sources may be called for. Djegan 22:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Name

Anyone have any comments regarding a move to University of Dublin, Trinity College? Not a serious proposal by me at the moment but should emphasis on the university title be more appropriate than the college as this article is essentially about both? Djegan 17:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not really. It follows the model of pages such as Balliol College, Oxford or Trinity College, Cambridge. WóCoill 13:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. And the page needs to be slightly redesigned to be more similar to the Oxford and Cambridge college pages. For example, the box containing the seal should contain either a photograph or simply the escutcheon on an azure background; the scarf of the College should be shown; sister colleges; and links to the College and the Boat Club. 20;36, 27 Nov 2005

I don't agree. Trinity is not in the same category as an Oxford or Cambridge college for a number of reasons. The boat club link is reason enough not to use the Oxbridge infobox - in the context of TCD there is no reason to confer any sort of special status on the boat club. I like the scarf colours though. --Ryano 23:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Name. Ainm. I removed the Ollscoil Atha Cliath lark from the infobox. That is a translation into Irish of the name of the College. English Wikipedia doesn't serve to provide translations for people. Or do you disagree?

As their has not being a concensus to remove I have reverted back to irish name. Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary but it is hardly unreasonable to provide a translation of its name into an official language of the state. Djegan 19:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

As regards the name University of Dublin, Trinity College if we are going to remove this then we are going to remove alumni figures as well - the table and article is not just about the college. Djegan 19:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

May I politely suggest that you changed it back because you were insulted that I didn't like your innovation. What does the alumni amount have to do with the heading of the textbox? Alumni are alumni of the College, are they not? The article is called Trinity College, Dublin, but you feel the infobox shouldn't be? Please change it back or post a reply.

Actually alumni are graduates of the University. The College does not have any graduates. -Isaw

The use of University of Dublin, Trinity College has being used on the infobox for several months without any complaint. Theirfore should it be removed then I believe this should be by consensus and not unilateralism. Djegan 20:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Fock me you're right. The addition of the Irish brought my attention to it and I thought YOU were being unilateral! Anyway. Isn't it an inconsistency?

Inconsistant in what way? Djegan 21:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Because the page is called Trinity College, Dublin. I'm too tired to argue really but it all comes back to the difference between the College and the University and what the identity of the place is.

The infobox need not use the same title as the page (a lot of pages differ in this sense). Whilst in theory the college and university are different evidence tends to be skewed , and it is a grey area. Djegan 12:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It's wrong anyway, there shouldn't be any "baile" in there. It's not the University of Dublin town.

The use with "baile" was until quite recent used by the college/university itself, also the Irish version of the Constitution of Ireland spells it as "Ollscoil Bhaile Átha Cliath" (variation with a "h" for grammatical sense) - with "baile" is the accepted formulation by many and is by no means incorrect. Djegan 13:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

THe Use of "baile" would confuse "Ath Cliath" -dublin or litteraly the hurdle ford with "Baile Atha Cliath" -Dublin town. Also is the problem of confusion with DCU Do they use "Cathair" for "city" in Dublin city University? -ISAW

Serious identity crisis.

The College/university uses Ollscoil Átha Cliath [1] (i would never say Ollscoil Baile.. ) Fabhcún 00:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

You wouldn't want to insult poor djegan though...

By all means change the Irish title if you want, to a variation that suites your taste. And I am quite sure Fabhcún can speak for himself. Djegan 13:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I have a few minor problems. Catholics were allowed in but only under a very restrictive oath. At that time Catholics couldnt vote. It was not till after 1829 they got the vote and much later they had equal treatment under law in trinity. The GSU has a link to the Statutes http://www.gsu.tcd.ie/files/Statutes-Current.pdf

The provost still has to be not alone Protestant but Church of Ireland. Failing that the Vice Provost must be (which is why the last two vice Provosts were C of I). 
Of course they were appeasing the "upper crust" while penalising the lower

class Catholics Sir Henry Parnell, A History of the Penal Laws against the Irish Catholics, . Fourth edition. London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, Brown and Greene. 1825.Isaw 22:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)ISAW

1 Geo. II. C. 9. Sect. 7. was not very kind to Catholics either.

Johnstone Stoney sent his daughters to College in England because they were not allowed in Trinity so I dont know about Trinity being the first ancient college to allow women. I am sure they were in Oxford or Cambridge.

The Croquet Club are about to adopt colours for scarves.

The distinction between the University and College are interesting. The University awards degrees and the Chancellor is also a Visitor to the College. The University Senate also has two seats on the Council. There was around 1800 (i can check it) a plan to have a second College, Kings College. since the 1997 Universities act the Oireachtas had a committee look into the challange to the Bill. The debate about the 1997 Bill (eventually the 2000 Act) is on the Oireachtas web site. http://www.irlgov.ie/bills28/bills/1997/0197P/default.htm Isaw 22:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)ISAW

Originally as in Westminster University of Dublin seats were in the Dæil and not the Seanad. http://www.irlgov.ie/oireachtas/a-misc/historical-note.htm All Sinn Féin candidates in the twenty-six counties were returned unopposed and took 128 of the 132 seats. The remaining four seats were filled by Unionists representing Dublin University (Trinity College). Isaw 22:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)ISAW

Split

If someone wants to make a differentiation between Trinity College, Dublin and University of Dublin then now is the time to do so as the article is currently in an inbetween mode. Djegan

I definitely think that should be done. The University does have several aspects unique to itself. Regarding the Oxbridge box or Irish University box: the University box as it is is unsatisfactory. The seal of the College was never granted by a heraldic institution; it is the arms of the College (the shield) with a circle around it, effectively. It should be replaced with just the shield. There are some other aspects of the Oxbridge box which could be incorporated, such as the scarf colours. The Boat Club link may not be appropriate: in Oxford and Cambridge Colleges, the Boat Club often acts as an SU/Ents type group too (e.g. Trinity Ball, Cambridge). Also: the box should not read "University of Dublin, Trinity College" at the top. I suspect this is a modern title used by those embarrassed that Trinity doesn't have "university" in its name. There is still a distinction, even if it is small. Look at your exam papers: they only say "University of Dublin" as it is the University concerned with them.

Does anyone else have a comment? I think a split could be a good thing but it would need to be done correct - retain IrishUni box for UOD article, ensuring material is not duplicated and that the overall standard is increased. These would be prerequisites. Djegan 23:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I Have a list of degrees of the university which would complement a new article. Djegan 23:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The list of degrees is in the Statutes. Names of current and past Senators could also be listed; Norris and Co represent the University, not the College.

No they dont! They represent their point of view but are voted in by graduated of the University. Isaw 22:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)ISAW

On this topic, I came across this page, concerning a student's dispute with TCD. I don't pretend to understand the issues, but he does provide links to a lot of stuff which might be relevant to the question of splitting the article, including Seanad debates from 2000, when the singularity or duality of TCD/UD was an issue. Interesting quote from Thomas Mitchell, Provost at the time: "This is an argument into which we should not get too deeply because it tends to be complicated and confusing." --Ryano 13:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Quite a good link - maybe neccessary to context with legal rangling - on a quick read it kind of reaffirms my own opinion that a split would be quite difficult and somewhat artificial. UOD and TCD are not like one of the Oxbridge universities and their many colleges: as the Universities Act, 1997 (Interpretation)[2] says:

"Trinity College" means the College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity of Queen Elizabeth near Dublin established by charter dated the 3rd day of March, 1592, and shall be held to include the University of Dublin save where the context otherwise requires in accordance with the charters and letters patent relating to Trinity College;

"the University of Dublin" means the university established by the charters and letters patent incorporating Trinity College and which said university is further provided for by the letters patent of the 24th day of July, 1857;

This only adds to the argument that the university and college are one in the same thing. The most recent law does not deviate much from this[3]. Indeed their is much to be gained in status by presenting the university and college as distinct legal entities - maybe we need to face the fact that they comprise one entity for practical purposes, viz the University of Dublin, Trinity College?
Djegan 22:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Ryano, excellent link, how did you come across it? While University of Dublin and Trinity College refer almost always to the same thing, they are both different names for whatever it is they're referring to. If you get me. Using "University of Dublin, Trinity College" is not really a solution. It was never used historically and using it now almost amounts to a rebranding. Djegan, I really don't think you should have changed the title on the infobox. The page is called "Trinity College, Dublin" and the infobox has the seal of the College (admittedly called the "University seal" on the College's site) so "University of Dublin, Trinity College" is an inconsistency. I have changed it back; let me know anyway if you disagree.

That link was sent to me in connection with my work, I didn't know what to make of it but it seemed quite relevant to this discussion! I agree that "University of Dublin, Trinity College" should be avoided - we shouldn't create new formulas here on Wikipedia. --Ryano 11:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"University of Dublin, Trinity College" is not a new formula; if we do a google of .ie alone we find 145,000 hits, as against 189,000 of "University of Dublin" (which by default will include some of the former) — its a widely used name and not by any means original research placing it here. Djegan 18:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like you're right, Trinity seem to be using it themselves extensively. I can't say I remember it ever being used in my day. --Ryano 02:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I am in favour of splitting it. If anyone can read Gladstone's speech in the Commons, 13 February 1873 on the issue, it's well worth it. He explains the many reasons that the two should be considered distinct. Areas such as proposed new colleges, parliamentary representation and conferring of degrees especially on students of institutions other than Trinity College would be specially relevant to that page. It would also mean that information like ties with Oriel College, Oxford and St John's College, Cambridge could be added to the infobox of the Trinity College page. I have a list of Chancellors that would be relevant to a UoD page. Regarding the definitions above, they don't shew that the two are one. The second definition merely states that it was founded by the same charter. William Quill 15:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

When you say that "Trinity seem to be using it themselves extensively", that doesn't mean that any central authority is mandating it. It seems to have become popular but without any direction from anyone. The last Junior Dean, for example, used it with both the College and University shields; however, the Junior Dean is the Dean of the College and likewise the Registrar of Chambers. In fact, almost every service and title in Trinity relates to the College. One way of distinguishing would be to see which titles in Oxford and Cambridge are used by many Colleges (Junior Dean etc) and those only used by the University (Chancellor, Proctor). Djegan: "University of Dublin, Trinity College" may not be an invention of Wikipedia, but it is a new trend. The University/College needs to do some sort of branding exercise, but I'm reluctant to encourage this lest the place becomes "University of Dublin, Trinity College" because of current trend and, God forbid, a new "crest" is invented. Happy Christmas.

Comma

The College website calls it Trinity College Dublin (without a comma), or occasionally "University of Dublin, Trinity College" (which no one calls it). Can someone who knows how to do these things change the title to Trinity College Dublin?

There is no University Website. Mary Robinson is not Chancellor of the College. There are no university Staff but there are University officers. You might include the Orator and Senior master non regent and the Caput. Isaw 13:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)ISAW

Better not to change it, "Trinity College, Dublin" is the accepted short form of its name, for instance this Act of the Oireactas [4], this act also gives the long official form. In many ways its the corporate image of the institution that they are trying to present, by using an shortened or simpified title - sometimes it is pure carelessness. Djegan 17:12, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This discussion reflects a real problem: what is the name of the institution? I feel that it it's short form is "Trinity College", the "Dublin" referring either to the city or the University. The correct way to address the College by post is "Trinity College/Dublin 2". The comma must be retained. It might be useful to create a seperate page for the University of Dublin, showing its arms, degrees and details on the University senate. 20:34, 27 Nov 2005

Much of the Legal Wrangle was resolved in the row over the Universities Act. If you read the committee discussions you will note an exchange over the Rugby team (all spiorts teams are named for the University and not the College). Look at the eventual wording in realation to the 2000 Charters and letter patent Act. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/front.html Section 1: "the College" means the College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity of Queen Elizabeth near Dublin established by the Foundation Charter of 1592, and shall be held to include the University of Dublin save where the context otherwise requires in accordance with the charters and letters patent relating to Trinity College;" Section 2 : wording "together with those additional members of the Governing Body who, not being Fellows or Scholars, are for the time being members of the Governing Body."

Makes student members of Board and external members of Board, members of the Body corporate along with the Fellows Scholars and Provost. Isaw 13:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)ISAW

Problems

Two problems with this page:

• The reference to TCD/UCD rivalry is POV and a little silly.
• The reference to 4-yr degrees being unusual in the "British Isles" is simply wrong. Four year degrees are standard in Scotland, and at least one other Irish University has four year degrees. Perhaps what was meant was that 4-yr degrees are uncommon in the English university tradition, of which TCD is part (historically at least).

BrendanH 11:51, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

Where does the article mention the term "British Isles" (as discussed above) in the disputed section, it only deals with Ireland, and only states "as is common in Ireland" and makes no reference to the "British Isles", nor makes any implication to same!

Moreover the sentences which mention "British university model" would appear only to refer to disciplines and studies moving towards the US model as discussed in the previous sentence rather than paragraph!

Please clarify references as appropriate Djegan 19:20, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

DJ, the text has changed several times since I wrote the above comment. I made changes to it myself yesterday, because the claim that 4-year BAs are standard in Ireland is simply wrong. UL has them, with a year or so off campus, UCC, UCD, Maynooth and NUIG all do 3-yr, DCU I don't know. Other degrees differ (BEng, BSc etc). BrendanH 09:11, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

DJ, I've adapted your change a little bit, because in most Univs, BAs are already restricted by subject, so it already means humanities (even business courses do not end in BA but BComm or BBS). Does TCD award BAs in engineering and science? BrendanH 10:14, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

oops, my apologies for the date thing - You are correct, the BA is generally a standard 3-year course, however the BA in TCD is offered outside traditional (in terms of Ireland) business and humanities faculties. The BA is conferred in all faculties and is by far the most common degree of the university, it is a must in the case of the degrees in engineering, dental science and physics - many other disciplines also offer it as part of the programme structure - all faculties offer the BA and it is essentially a degree awarded for three years study to be followed by an additional years study leading to honours in the specialism. For instance the honours BAI (Baccalaureus in Arte Ingeniaria("the art of engineering")/Bachelor in Engineering) degree is awarded after the successful completion of a BA. Can any TCD graduates/students (or anyone else who knows) add to this or clarify this discussion? Djegan 22:47, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

I believe that the BA designation is indeed awarded on the basis of three years study, 'with honors', or BA(Hons), awarded after the successful completion of a fourth year.

I am a TCD graduate and here is an explanation; in effect, the 3 year BA and 4 year BA (hons) only really operates in the Science faculty, where those who are studying general science and have completed 3 years can leave with an 'ordinary' BA. In all other cases you must complete the 4 years to recieve a BA (Hons) - you don't recieve a BA after 3 years, if you leave without completing 4th year you get nothing!! In exceptional circumstances eg. illness preventing you from taking finals they will award an ordinary BA but this is very rare. Most graduates complete 4 years and have a BA (hons) the exceptions are medicine (6 years), Dentistry (5years) and speech therapy (5 years). The university is unusual in Ireland in that most science graduates recieve BA (hons) rather than Bsc, which leads to confusion, it is really just an old-fashioned system, with the Bsc being a newer development in universities. So therefore science graduates recieve a BA (hons) and Engeneering a BAI. However graduates from the health sciences (nursing, Physiotherapy, Occupational therapy) do recieve a Bsc Hope this clears things up!Fairywings 10:25, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

In Arts at least you can indeed get an "Ordinary" or "pass" BA after 3 years, but this is only by arrangement and, as Fairywings mentions, there should be exceptional circumstances such as illness. However I wouldn't say it was "very rare". A handful are given out each year at least, in my experience.

The BA (Hons) is not the only degree you can get after four years, there is also the BA (Mod) for graduates of a two-subject moderatorship (such as myself).

Finally, Speech Therapy is only 4 years. --Ryano 10:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The above is slightly incorrect. For most courses in the faculity of science an honors degree is called a B.A.(Mod.) not a B.A.(Hons). Graduates of engeneering are awarded with two degrees: a B.A. and a B.A.I.. The B.A. is a pass degree and is in recignition of there first three years of study but is awarded at the same time as the B.A.I.. Similar to natural science they can choose to finish college with a B.A. after performing significantly well in there J.S. exams. This is usually only the case if the student didn't do well enough to proceed to forth year. Also i might as well mention here that mod. doesn't stand for 'modern' as in other universities but 'moderatorship'.

Societies

The date of the Phil is disputed, and there is good reason to believe that the 1853 Phil had no connection with the 1684 Phil. The Hist date, however, is not disputed. When it left the college it remained intact and kept its session number, and then re-entered unchaged. WóCoill 12:30, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Although the session number of the Hist did indeed begin from "1st" upon re-entry to college for a brief period (at least 16 years), the actual date of the foundation of the society is not disputed. Article6 14:07, 03 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll grant you that. I wrote that at a time when the Phil date only had 1684, and the Hist date only had 1843. The College Calendar has both dates for the Phil, and only one for the Hist. That seems reasonable enough to me, although the older Phil date only appeared in the Calendar during the 1970s. Even you must admit that the Hist has an unbroken line from 1770, whereas the same cannot be said of the Phil. WóCoill 13:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

This isn't an ad hominem argument, just clarification that the Hist did not always see itself as having been in continuous existence since 1770. I have heard of Hist documents from the 1960s with the old session date thereon, though I'll reserve judgment on that until I see them for myself. Regardless of whether that is the case or not, the unbroken tradition of the Hist is rarely (if ever) doubted nowadays. The question is simply how much importance this should have in deciding the age of the other society. Also, bear in mind that College Calendar is not a perfect document in relation to these matters. Dublin University Chess Society is dated to the 1800s, yet was in abeyance for some time until about 2000. Article6 19:11, 10 June 2005 (UTC)

I note that this Phil vs Hist business has re-emerged with a recent edit. I think any reasonable neutral observer would agree that the Phil's claims to foundation in 1683 should be qualified in some way. Can we agree a formula here and then stick to it? Here's my proposal:

"...the University Philosophical Society and the College Historical Society, more commonly known as The Phil and The Hist, both of which make claims to be the oldest undergraduate society in the world. The Phil's claim is based on continuity with the Dublin Philosophical Society (which existed between 1683 and 1731), although the existing society has only been in continuous existence since 1843. The Hist was founded in 1770, but traces its origins back to the historical society founded by Edmund Burke in 1747."

This may be a little verbose, and in fact probably gives the "controversy" more space than it deserves. I would be happy with the first sentence on its own - details of foundation dates can be found on the respective articles on the societies. In any case, I think we should try to agree on some form of words to spare us all the tedious reverting. --Ryano 15:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Book of Kells damage

The article currently reads "Though it (The Book of Kells) has been exhibited in other locations, damage caused on a recent loan to a Japanese institution has led to a policy of never allowing the book to leave Trinity again. As far as I know, the damage occurred while on loan to Australia, not Japan. (see here. It happenned in the year 2000, which probably does not qualify as recent anymore. Does anyone have more recent information? Dsmdgold 16:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK It was a few microgrammes of Blue from ONE of the Manuscripts. Luke I think. It was not Matthew. It did happen in Australia. It was a good excuse not to lend it ourt again. Pressure was coming from John Bruton and four other TD's to bring it to Kells. Bill Simpson was the Librarian then he has since moved to Manchester I think. He would have the whole story. IsawISAW

Having looked at the edit history, this was added today by an anon editor. I will change the statement to reflect the Guardian article linked above. I will leave it to others to decide if this piece of info needs to be in this article at all. (The damage is discussed in the Book of Kells article.) Dsmdgold 16:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the confusion arose from a recent Trinity News article stating that the ban was IDENTIFIED when a request came from a Japanese institution. The damage did happen in Australia. I'd say this anon user didn't check their details properly. 134.226.1.136 17:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

thats what happened, sorry about that.86.2.146.37

Should S.U. policy be added to S.U. section

The Union is mandated to support calls for a tricolour to fly over Trinity, for a pro GLBT rainbow flag to fly over Trinity, and to lobby in favour of the ban on coke products, which its members voted for overwhelmingly by 51%

THe tricolour DOES fly on certain days Isaw 22:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)ISAW

Same anon IP made a spurious-looking GLBT-related edit at another page, and I came across this while checking their contributions. Not sure whether this one is legit, but the 'overwhelmingly by 51%' did not inspire me with confidence, so I removed it pending verification. --Calair 03:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I again removed this as I don't consider it to be pertiment to the article, and is not of encyclopedic value without being framed within a larger explanation of the activites of the S.U. Also, this person claims that the talk page should be used and not delete, yet they obviously have the same problem. --Jasonm 02:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Coke/Nestle Ban: http://su.netsoc.tcd.ie/index.php?module=pnForum&func=viewtopic&topic=1040 Flag issues: http://su.netsoc.tcd.ie/index.php?module=pnForum&func=viewtopic&topic=1070 Trinity News did have an article about the rainbow flag being mandated to fly over Trinity. Can't seem to get their website, but for anyone in town, call into the SU, (House 6) and there are copies of the paper available. The picture is on the front page. All this information is factual. If the S.U. should have a section at all on this page, it's objectives are pertinent, and should be entered. Jasonm is right that things should be framed within a lager explanation, but the way to do this is not to delete accurate information, it is to add to it until the article is complete. 134.226.1.136

The issue isn't whether or not it's factual (I know that it is). I just don't think that those details about the SU are relevant to the current article. Maybe if the SU had a seperate article they could be placed there. The coke/nestle ban and the flag issues are just some of the policies of the SU and are arguably not the most important. --Jasonm 15:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The Coke issue has been voted on twice in the last few years, and will be an important part of the campaign of at least one of the candidates for S.U. president in the upcoming elections. It is defintely one of the most important issues the S.U. has decided to deal with as it shows the S.U. approach towards many issues. The flag policy has had quite an effect and it is entirely justified to have in the article as once again it shows the S.U.'s position on this issue, but also it's position more generally. What other effective issues do you feel define the S.U.? Why should they not be entered into an encyclopedia, seeing as they are the issues the organisation has chosen to define itself by? If there were a seperate S.U. page they would belong there, but till there is enough info to be moved accross, this section should be allowed to grow here as long as the information is factually correct.

P.S. I amn't trying to cause any offence by supporting this information, if I was just trying to be flipant, I'd mention the official "S.U. Wand Committee". 134.226.1.136 17:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I just don't think the information is relevant to an article about Trinity College. Does the coke ban show the SU approach to many issues? An explanation of the approach it shows would be nice. I mean the SU section doesn't even have a creation date for the SU. Why are these issues so important anyway? Maybe there were more important issues that occurred in the seventies/eighties/nineties.

Yeah why not include the Maoist takeover of the SU in the 1970s? Or Bacik taking the SU into the courts to campaign for abortion information and bankrupting the SU in the process? Or the Joe Duffy years? The coke ban is not currently of major international cultural and historical significance.Isaw 22:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)ISAW

I agree student union issues should not be in the article unless they are controversial or notable, issues of the late eighties/nineties that student unions dealth with where (often very) controversal social issues. Chocolate bars and fizzy drinks trivialise those issues that wher conversial then; abortion, contraception, divorce (and other issues) defined student union activities an odd twenty years ago.

Djegan 21:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for deletion. Had I known the material to be factual, I'd have left it there despite my objections to the presentation. I came here checking an anon IP's recent edits after that IP made a dubious edit over on Chick Publications; I found one made by the same IP, posted at a similar time of day, on a related topic, worded in a sarcastic tone unsuited to Wikipedia, so I felt it ought to be deleted until confirmed. Since it's been confirmed, I'll leave the question of relevance to others who know Trinity better. --Calair 23:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Djegan, the reason Nestle is banned is because of their support of brest formula over brest milk in developing countries, putting children at risk. The Coke ban is in support of Columbian unions who say their members are being targeted by death squads supported by Coke. How are these trivial issues? However, even if they are trivial, these ARE the policies the SU is concerning itself with. The very fact that they no longer act on the issues you mentioned is worthy of mention in itself. It may be a radical suggestion, but if there is a section for the student union, shouldn't it talk about what the union itself has defined itself by. 86.2.146.37 18:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Teh wiki is about Trinity College and not about the political policies of the SU which change from year to year. Isaw 22:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)ISAW

I returned the information to the page, with an edit to remove sarcasm. The original delete was done over fears of authenticity. As info is authentic, it should at least be restored temporarily. I think that it should be added to and moved to a specified S.U. page with a link from the main Trinity Page. This would require more info to be given before a page on its own is warranted. 134.226.1.136

I still don't think this information is pertinent. The wikipedia is not the trinity news. This is just recent information, and it's importance to the union appears to be a matter of opinion. I'm considering deleting this. --Jasonm 03:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes to the Status Section

My entry to the Status section page has been repeatedly removed. Please refrain.

Your not in a place to make demands. Some of your edits included misspelling words so I doubt you. Waste your time somewhere else. Djegan 14:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I have not made any demands - you are the one being aggressive. If you notice, I qualified my request above with a 'please'. My entry has simply provided an alternative and well recognized view of Trinity College within Irish society. If you read my proposed changes, you will see there are two qualifying words - 'alternatively' and 'arguably'. These imply that my entry is providing balance to a dicussion of Trinity College Dublin. Please, do not supress FOS. I would also like to add that I am a graduate of the university.

You have being reported for vandalism, and blocked. Djegan 14:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I contest the removal of this section. I think it bullying to keep removing my contribution without any discussion.

Taking an excerpt for WP:POV

"Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POV's). Inherently, because of this, most articles at wikipedia are full of POV's. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" policy.

Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know:

   * Who advocates the point of view
   * What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)" 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaphysicist (talk • contribs)

You are expected to cite your sources. If this POV on TCD is a notable one, then you should have no trouble finding prominent people who share it. See Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial for more examples. Demiurge 16:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite any external links that support your contention? See WP:CITE also what wikipedia is not would be appropriate reading as you maybe violating several key points (original thought, soapbox, crystal ball, battleground). Djegan 16:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Metaphysicist, I draw your attention to WP:CIVIL. Accusing other editors of "bullying" is not acceptable around here. Please also note the 3 revert rule, which forbids you (as well as myself and Djegan, of course) from reverting an article more than three times in a 24 hour period. Demiurge 16:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• • That three revert rule is the only reason why I have not reverted Metaphysicists latest change, someone was banned yesterday (an anon) for inserting the same paragraph (not me of course!). Djegan 16:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Could someone suggest how I might cite a 'down-on-the-street' public opinion? I have lived in Dublin for 34 years and I have first hand knowledge of this particular side of the publics perception of Trinity College. I also experienced the other positive side too. Metaphysicist 16:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Your personal experiences would come under WP:NOR I'm afraid. Demiurge 16:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Personal experience are OR, as above, but if the impression is that widespread, it should have been mentioned in newspapers, magazines. Personally I think I know what you're getting at, but can't cite sources myself either. I remember the three Unis in Dublin all had different reputations, but without a good reference you can't really put it in. Remember policy is about verifibility, not truth, by removing the sections, no one is saying that they are incorrect, just unverifible (see WP:V) Find a newspaper article expressing a similar sentiment, put it in with a reference, and few would object. Regards, MartinRe 17:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks will try.Metaphysicist 17:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I shouldn't butt in, but to my eyes references would not be enough. The contribution is unadulterated POV (the fact that there are elements of truth in it is neither here nor there). BrendanH 21:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Have we not already cleared up that POV (unadulterated or not) is OK, once cited or given reasonable explanation? Is it not part of policy that representation of ALL POVs in an article constitute NPOV? ALL POV == NPOV. Is there an intolerance to criticism of TCD among the editorial crew for this article? Not a bad word must be said about the university? I don't mean to be uncivil. Metaphysicist 21:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not part of any editorial crew, more of a drive-by shooter in this case, but my opinion is that the problem is how your motivation shows through in your tone -- you're having a good slag at TCD (and in certain respects it is deserved) but you're slagging off your own bat. The trick is to report someone else's slagging, but that (by design) will limit your ability to put your own opinion through. My own suspicion is that you'd get farther these days by looking for criticisms of general preciousness and lack of self-criticism rather than the "dormant republican agenda" line. BrendanH 21:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, though the "Dormant republican agenda" was actually my favourite bit, heh heh :-))

I might admit that the presence of my contribution as it stands might not be a natural fit with the rest of the article, given that the rest of the article has taken a very matter of fact approach. It is POV and bias, but all POV is bias in an absolute sense. Is there any other type of symmetrical contribution that could be written to offset my POV? Could this other content and my contribution as it stands be combined and put in another section, maybe at the end of the article? Or should I start a new article? The university system seems to be very well covered as it stands. My POV should be heard, even if it's in the murky backwaters of a spin off article... Metaphysicist 22:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Their is no point in talking your case to the article West Briton. Djegan 23:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• The problem is that you haven't cited your contribution, and you've presented it in a very non-neutral way. Please don't reinsert your edit until you've addressed those problems. Demiurge 15:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Also, I remind you that you are in breach of the three revert rule, and you are liable to be blocked from Wikipedia if you revert the article again. Demiurge 15:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, Demiurge, you reverted four times in the last 24 hours or so (barr a few minutes), so the reminder about not breaching the three revert rule is also applicable to you. :) MartinRe 17:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Is the reverting vandalism subject to 3RR, at worse I think its a grey area. Djegan 19:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism is not subject to 3RR, but a content dispute is not vandalism. MartinRe 19:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• If you take a closer look at the timestamps, you'll see that I did not in fact breach 3RR, and was careful not to. Demiurge 19:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I did look at the timestamps, and four reverts in 24 hours +8 minutes looks like breaching 3RR, if you read the intent of the rule, as it describes making a fourth edit just outside 24hours as an attempt to "game" the rule. BTW, I agree that the section in question shouldn't be in there as it's uncited and very POV, but getting into a revert war isn't the way to solve it. Regards, MartinRe 19:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of TCD

(New section to aid readibilty to answer a few Q's above)

• Q by Metaphysicist: "Is there an intolerance to criticism of TCD among the editorial crew for this article?"?

Many articles have sections dedicated to critism to the topic in question. However, if you read them, they are reported (i.e. cited) critisms, not critisms in general. They are often in the form "A was critisied by B for not doing C (link to paper). However, the critisms recently inserted are in the form "A doesn't do B according to vague group B (no link), so we have no way of knowing who B are, nor exactly what they said. That is why uncited claims, especially extreme ones are removed, as, without a citation, it can appear to be simply the editors POV, not a reported opinion by a notable person/people. Editors should not write their own POV (although it's hard not to be slightly biased in some cases), so I'm worried by your comment of ("My POV should be heard"). Think of reporters and papers, there's a factual section, and a section for editorals where editors can express their opinion. In wikipedia, there are no editoral sections, just the plain boring facts. Regards, MartinRe 19:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Negative perception - Disputed Section

Amongst the proletariat, and some other sections of Irish society, the university is regarded as a WestBrit (West Briton) haven, one of a few remaining scars of the British occupation of Ireland. A dormant Republican agenda - or prehaps more accurately, a collective Republican unconscious - may one day see it disappear from the face of the Irish landscape, or at least fall from prominence in it's current form. The provision of important educational services to a vibrant Irish workforce withstanding, on balance, it's institutionalized, rigid, exclusory, elitist values and prevalent cronyism might be regarded as an undesirable relic of times passed. One could argue it does more harm than good in Irish society, with this harm manifested vigorously in the elitist, exclusory and self-important mindset of a large proportion of its graduates. One might also generalize and assert this argument applies to the university system in general, but Trinity College in particular, because of it's imperialist roots, has always been a perpetual target for this type of criticism.Metaphysicist 17:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've put this section back into the talk page as per WP:CITE#When_there_is_a_factual_dispute as it's difficult to discuss anything with the target of discussion missing! Plus, this is exactly what talk pages are for, according to Wikipedia:Talk_pages: "Questions, challenges, excised text (due to truly egregious confusion or bias, for example), arguments relevant to changing the text, and commentary on the main page are all fair play." However, I've put it at the end (in date order, like all the rest of the sections) so it doesn't look like an alternative article. Have to go eat now, will be back with comments on the disputed section later. Regards, MartinRe 18:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I accept it should stay, for the time being, but as a general principal a talk page is not for rejected propaganda. It must be noted that the above is deeply Irish republican in measure and it appeared, in the first instance, on the day after the events of the 2006 Dublin riots. Djegan 19:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yikes!! I thought these kind of notions had died a death a long time ago! (Yes, I'm an alumnus of TCD.)Autarch 17:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Metaphysicist, what is your problem with TCD - compare it with other universities, if you want. Autarch 16:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The timing of the piece is completely independent of the Dublin Riots, but the phrasing "dormant republican agenda" may have been influenced by the temporal coincidence. It would have been spectacular if our Republican heroes had stormed the campus of Trinity College on their way to the Dail. I wonder why they didn't see it as an opportunity? :-)) Metaphysicist 19:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely hope your saying that just to spite me, but i am not here for your entertainment either. Djegan 19:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. Could you explain how that crack might spite you? Is it possible for POV to spite? Also, you sincerely hope? Why??

Metaphysicist 19:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you both please concentrate on discussing the disputed section rather than each other, please? Remember Wikipedia:No personal attacks Regards, MartinRe 19:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Some of the riot occurred on South Leinster Street - right next to TCD! Seems the rioters were more interested in smashing windows than anything else! Autarch 20:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Getting back on topic, problems with the above piece include:

• "the university is regarded ..." By whom? When? "The proletariat" is a very vague term, plus there is no citation of when they said this. WP:CITE
• "may one day" - unless someone said that this might happen, and was reported it is pure specualtion - WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball
• "institutionalized, rigid, exclusory, elitist values and prevalent cronyism", you cannot just say "X is Y" unless you have a factual source. For opinions, like the above, you must say who holds these opinions, i.e. cite your sources.
• (The rest of the paragraph has similar problems)

In short, please remember that WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought so critical reviews of anything (Art, TCD), whatever so long as it's observations of outside parties and not a "personal essay". Currently, with the lack of sources, and high level of bias, it reads like a personal opinion/essay. Also, please remember that the more extreme the opinion, the more mainstream the source must be to give it weight (If a alien ate my elvis baby type mag, printed an article on successful cold fusion, it would hardly be included, but if the Times did, that's worth a mention) MartinRe 19:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to quote this POV on the Dublin Riots. It's at http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74528, Summary/Appraisal section. Metaphysicist 19:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

An entire paragraph from a copyrighted source is proably too much, so I've taken the verbatim cut and paste out and left the link. Regards, MartinRe 20:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Plus it has nothing to do with Trinity! Could you please address the problems in the disputed section, and that alone, discussion of the riots, etc, or other type of chatter is not relevant here, and will probably be removed. MartinRe 20:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems lost on him - universities in general are seen as establishment - consider UCD. (Look at its' postal address to see what I mean.) Autarch 20:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

New photos

I just uploaded a few new photos of Trinity. I'm not sure about the positioning of the images. Opinions welcome. --Jason 18:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

How about photos which show the Pomodoro Sphere Within Sphere and a link to the one similar Pomodoro's in the Vatican and in the US (Outside the UN building in New York I think)?Isaw 14:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Isaw

Ok, I happened to take photos of it too. I'll put one up later. --Jason 14:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

New photo uploaded. --Jason 01:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Some of these photos should be replaced with more professional looking images; preferably taken on a day with blue skies and with the base of the camera held parallel to the ground! Loft3 23:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the professional photos on the tcd website are not under any sort of free license. If there are any professional photographers that have photos or would be willing to take some that would be good. I only took the photos recently and until about now there hasn't been many clear days. If I take new ones, I'll use my tripod next time! --Jason ^(talk) 23:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It would make sense if a photo of the Long Room could be included here. 84.203.3.151

Merger: University of Dublin

Their is a University of Dublin article, what do people think of merger to this article? Djegan 19:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Obviously their are benifits and drawbacks for two articles. Two articles means the elimation of duplicated material so theirfore alumni, chancellor, seal and two of the bottom templates would need to be removed from this article and moved to University of Dublin. Are two articles in this form sustainable? Djegan 19:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't see any strong argument against a merge myself. Palmiro | Talk 21:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I would be for a merger, even though the University of Dublin did confer DIT degrees in the past. --Jason 21:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have not made my mind up yet but a separate university article could have its merits; alumni, chancellor, seal and other things are of the university even if the separation of the college and university is a little abstract at best. Djegan 23:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I support a merge. The formal distinction is thin in substance. BrendanH 23:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I am against merging, as two articles allows us to separate certain things so that the Trinity College, Dublin article would deal with the college itself, such buildings and student life, with the University of Dublin page dealing with degrees, parliamentary representation and any other University specific matters. Having them in two separate articles makes it clear what belongs where as in this case there is confusion. The College page is also getting bigger, so it would do no harm to move some of the information as we are able to. William Quill 09:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm against a merge, its seldom that the distinction is made in such clear and easy to follow terms as we have on Wikipedia. Bolak77 18:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The seal would not go to the University page. The seal shouldn't be on the Trinity page in the first place. It was never granted by the Ulster King of Arms. It's just the arms that were granted surrounded by mantling and the latin name of the College.

I am not going to merge the two articles, basically its 3 against 2 of the people who voted with user accounts, taking Palmiro's vote as a possible weak merge. As I see it I would encourage a University of Dublin article but the quality of it needs to be vastly improved and not simply a rehash of the Trinity College article. In this improvement some of the university specific information from the Trinity article could be ideal. Djegan 20:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

College closure

Of all the things that should be in this article, that has to be one of the least relevant. College is closed on other occasions, including Christmas day. And other time there is a protest in the city centre. --Jason ^(talk) 17:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, generally articles should not be so informal as to list recent, minor details in excess (eg St. Patrick's Day) whilst ignoring more important details. Djegan 20:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Membership of organisations

Trinity College, Dublin is not itself a member of the EUA or IUA as it is a college and not a university. However the University of Dublin (which Trinity College is the sole constituent college of) is a member of the EUA and IUA.

I am not so sure of that interpretation, it is an ambigious area. You can find the EUA membership by selecting Ireland. In terms of IUA I would suspect that the college is a member rather than the university, as the NUI is not a member but its constituent universities (formerly constituent colleges) are. Its often rather abstract and unclear, the link between the college and university, and needs some clarity in the article. Djegan 13:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The University listed on the EUA website is "The University of Dublin - Trinity College", University being the operative word entitling said entity to membership of the EUA.

Question of Ranking

I thought it best to name the source of the global academic ranking, Shanghai Jiao Tong university, which has been widely criticised for its bias towards achievements in science and technology at the expense of the humanities. This ranking should not be the sole indicator of the 'Status' of TCD.

The overall perception of decline implied by the ranking is a poor reflection on the quality of Trinity's scholarship and it's worth pointing out that TCD is joined in the 200-300 category with highly regarded international institutions including the London School of Economics, Keio University of Tokyo, Japan, Georgetown University in the USA, Delft, Netherlands, and St. Andrews in Scotland!

I also added the Times Higher Education Supplement's ranking and the FT's favorable ranking of the Trinity MBA programme. 151.202.69.244 21:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Buying an MA

The site says that for "a nominal fee" a graduate can have a Master in Arts degree conferred on them - as far as I know the fee is now in the region of €700.

Trinity Ball

Does the Ball really deserve a mention? It's really a glorified disco. Autarch 20:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It is more, biggest private party in Europe or so they say. it should stay Fabhcún 23:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, stay it does, but does anyone have a source for the figures? 86.43.66.207 16:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)