Talk:Ancient universities of Scotland

Scotland High‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Higher education

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles

Dundee

I'm unclear why Dundee is on the page... if it is ancient, then it should be in the list at the top. If it is not, then it shouldn't be on the page at all?

It is certainly odd for this university (alone) to have a major heading at the top of the content of the page?

Should it be in the list, or not? - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tim bates (talk • contribs) 14:55, 27 April 2006.

Of course it should be included - it shares every characteristic of an ancient and is a breakaway university from an ancient which one could say continues that traditions. It was also a founding member of the former Scottish Ancients association. I don't think it should go on the list at the top unless it is with some sort of special qualification since obviously it has not been chartered for the several centuries of the others - but it would be completely idiotic not to mention this major peculiarity amongst this group of universities.

To clarify though, Dundee isn't commonly referred to an ancient (although it does occasionally happen and there was quite an argument about it on the UoD discussion page) but will usually be included when discussing ancients in any sort of way. --Breadandcheese 04:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment that it is odd to be included. Dundee is included precisely because it is odd. It's a breakaway from St. Andrews making it govern by the Universities (Scotland) Act 1896. It is generally included in discussion of ancients because a lot of what distinguish ancients from others applies to Dundee as well. -- KTC 13:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that Dundee was also founded via an order in council as opposed to an act of parliament as is usual with modern universities. In addition everything that defines an ancient as an ancient (aside from age) is as a result of being goverened under the univerties scotland act. (Some might even say that being goverened under that particular act IS what defines an ancient) Dundee being goverened under the act therefore shares all the defining features. Dundee is an ancient in all defining features but age. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.36.37.173 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 30 April 2006.

I think what is odd is that it mentions the Law School individually in the Dundee section. The UofD took quite a few noteworthy departments away from St Andrews: dentistry, the Medical School (although St Andrews created a new one I believe they have to run it in Manchester for half of the degree as a result of having no hospital facilities to hand etc) and so forth. I'm not saying it should be removed, I'm just saying that it is odd to pick it out particularly for inclusion. --Breadandcheese 14:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that this is quite an old topic, but I, also, fail to see why Dundee University has a section on this page. I've lived in Scotland all my life and I've never heard Dundee mentioned alongside the old four. The possibility that St Andrews University had a presence in the city over a number of years, and the subsequent inheritance of organisational features, doesn't mean that Dundee University is regarded as one of Scotland's ancient universities. I'll put a citation mark after the sentence:

As a result, the University of Dundee is usually considered alongside the ancient universities, particularly those in a Scottish context.

If somebody can provide suitable third-party reference material, then I'll accept it; otherwise, I'll delete the sentence.--ML5 (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it's certainly self-evident why it has an included section - it is at least an anomaly if not in fact ancient in itself. You seem to suggest that there is some sort of disconnection between the UofD and Queen's College of the UofSA, there is not: Queen's College quite simply became independent directly from being an integral part of St Andrews. It was not simply a 'presence'.

Anyway, as for a reference, I have found a rather witty reference to the situation from the Principal and VC of the University of Dundee, Sir Alan Langlands, at the installation of Dundee's Rector in September 2007:

"The position of Rector is something that Dundee shares with only four other universities in Scotland - the so-called "Ancient Universities". For Dundee to be classed with the "ancients" - at a relatively youthful age of forty - feels a bit like finding someone getting up to offer you their seat on the bus when you feel that you are still a bit on the young side. But we accept this "ancient" tag, with grace, as a mark of our history and distinction and a reinforcement of the University's commitment to student representation at levels." [1] --Breadandcheese (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, okay? I can see why a university would like to be considered ancient, but when I was asking for third-party reference material, I was meaning from a source unlinked to Dundee University, not an address by the University of Dundee's Vice-Chancellor and Principal posted on the University of Dundee's official website.--ML5 (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is not assuming the status, but rather demonstrating the association. Anyway, here's a source from the Glasgow Herald referring to the five ancients that are members of the Coalition of Higher Education Students in Scotland, as quoted on a Strathclyde Uni webpage: [2] (highlighted, at bottom). Dundee was also a founding member of the Scottish Ancients Group - which adjusted to become CHESS when it took the non-ancient Strathclyde on board. --Breadandcheese (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I agree that you've provided third-party reference material - from the Herald, no less! This article should get a mini-rewrite to get Dundee out of the anomaly section and listed alongside the others.--ML5 (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/about/GeneralCouncil/ states "The General Council is a governing body unique to each of the four ancient Universities in Scotland - St Andrews, Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow." Nothing about Dundee. Not to mention that the wiki page of Dundee also distinguishes it from the ancient Universities in Scotland. Whoever added Dundee to the list lives in a dreamland, or suffers from inferiority complex because he/she didn't go to St Andrews/Aberdeen/Edinburgh/Glasgow but Dundee. 109.246.28.213 (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evident (and rather unpleasant) bias from the above poster who then decided to delete valuable information which had above been firmly decided to be retained. Dundee may not be ancient in terms of its foundation, but it is descended from an ancient university and has the form of governance which is only found in the ancient universities of Scotland. This unusual situation, in my view, merits mention and explaination in the article. I have reverted the article to its previous form. Dan (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statutory requirement

I've put a note on the discussion page about Students' Representative Council (Scotland), but just in case somebody here knows about this: this article states that SRCs are required by statute. Is this still, precisely, the case? Aberdeen SA — according to the Constitution posted on its website, here — has changed from having an SRC to a "Students' Association Council". – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The statutory name remains the SRC - but there's no particular legal obligation on them to always label the the body such. I imagine anything legal would maintain the statutory name.--Breadandcheese 07:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I'd say that this page adds very little to the coverage at ancient university and could be merged with no real losses. --Breadandcheese 06:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object to your unilateral redirect. If you wish to redirect please follow the correct consultation procedure. --Mais oui! 10:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:MM makes absolutely clear "to object to a merge purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you cannot do that without discussion" is not a good argument.". The procedure you refer to does not exist - and in fact, I did open it up to consultation at the time, tagging the pages for a long period of time (in fact, I believe it was you who took the tags down) - there were no submissions. Merging is a normal editorial action that "does not need to be proposed and processed".As a result of the invalidity of the objection, I have reverted it back under the 'be bold' policy (again found in WP:MM).

I should make clear that if you want to make a substantive objection to the merge then that is fine and I will of course engage in the usual dispute resolution procedure. However at present there seems to be no real reason not to revert here and a world of reasons to do so in order to improve Wikipedia. I do not feel I am being overzealous here when the only objection to what I believe is an eminently sensible change seems to be grounded in ignorance of Wikipedia policy. --Breadandcheese 11:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete my additions?

I thought the article would benefit from the further detail I added. Is there a consensus against adding the detail I did? - if so, no problem, but I wouldn't like something to be deleted if only one editor feels that way! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can create a viable page here, with more information than would be appropriate at the ancient university article, then I will support the page. As it stands, after the revert, I don't and believe it should be merged.

But yes, I can't see how there is any consensus in favour of you not adding information; in fact, it seems rather contrary to good sense. So I'd say go ahead and re-revert. Although equally remember you are covering a thin line in terms of usefulness here: there must be some unique content which is better covered in this page than in the ancient university page, or indeed at the pages of universities themselves. If none arises, then you'll probably find the article quickly merged into others. --Breadandcheese (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is clear:

[3]

--Mais oui! (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask exactly what you think the consensus is? From that, I gather (being one of the chief architects of that consensus), that it should redirect as it presented no different information to the ancient university article. I don't see how you can use that as a justification to retain the article in the form it presently finds itself without redirecting, yet exclude new edits...--Breadandcheese (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ancient universities of Scotland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ancient universities of Scotland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://education.guardian.co.uk/students/table/0%2C%2C1857547%2C00.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060327001623/http://www.archives.gla.ac.uk/about/publish/histcon.pdf to http://www.archives.gla.ac.uk/about/publish/histcon.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]