Talk:University of Helsinki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Finland (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a WikiProject related to the nation of Finland. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-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 Start-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for University of Helsinki:

There are no active tasks for this page
    • Contribute to the "Libraries and museums" section.
    • Diffuse the "Architecture" section's contents into "Campuses" or "Libraries and museums".

    Architecture section[edit]

    I think points of Architecture should be merged into the "Campuses" and "Libraries and Museums" sections. Okeekobee (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

    Campus[edit]

    What sets this campus apart from most other university campuses in the world is its central location and the seamless way in which it segues into the rest of the city What is the basis for this statement? Many Universities are set in the centre of cities, and they often reflect the architecture of the time/place they were built and so generally fit seamlessly into their environments. I really don't think this is unusual at all.--Alun 1 July 2005 18:06 (UTC)

    As the article actually points out, "campus" is hardly the most correct term to use for a traditional urban university. It might be more appropriate for the peripheral areas. Uppland 3 July 2005 20:02 (UTC)
    I have assumed that the University itself uses the term campus. Helsinki University is clearly not a campus university (I work in Meilahti, a long way from the centre). If the locations for the various buildings are not officially called campuses by the University, then why not just call them sites? As in The University is located on four main sites.... If the University explicitly uses the term campus for the various sites, then it could be mentioned that they are not conventional campuses, but are called such by the University. Anyway I don't really see what your point is. My point is that universities based in city centres are not unusual, so this fact doesn't set this campus apart from most other university campuses in the world...., in this context use of the term campus is irrelevant. We appear to be misunderstanding each other here.--Alun 7 July 2005 12:25 (UTC)
    I actually think I understand you perfectly well. My point is that it is the very use of the American word "campus" which forces the text to explain something which is actually quite normal, making it appear unusual, while it is so only in relationship to more recent "campus universities". I have no idea what terminology the university itself uses, or if the use of the word "campus" in the article is simply the result of adapting to an American terminology perceived as normative. Uppland 7 July 2005 13:00 (UTC)
    Well I don't seem to understand what your point is. My point is that there is nothing unusual about having a University spread out over several locations in a city centre (something the article originally said was unusual). I don't think that the term campus is American. There are numerous campus universities in the UK, as well as many city centre universities (like Cardiff where I went). If your point is that the use of the word campus is inapropriate, then I quite agree, and have already suggested changing it to site. The only reason for not changing it would be if it is an official term used by the University of Helsinki itself, which I have also mentioned. So if you agree, maybe I'll re-word the article somewhat to replace the word campus with something more appropriate. What do you think?--Alun 8 July 2005 06:01 (UTC)
    I have no disagreement with you, have never pretended to disagree with you, and don't see why we are having this argument. The word campus is American, and originated in Princeton.[1] My point is that whoever wrote the passage about "campuses" may be catering to a perceived American reader's expectations. I live in Uppsala and have frequently been asked by visiting Americans "where the university is", or where "the campus" is located. It is obvious that many Americans expect a university to be collected more or less in one place, and many Europeans are aware of this and may even have more knowledge of American universities than of other European ones. I have no knowledge of how Finnish universities use the word "campus"; I know it has been borrowed by traditional Swedish universities like Uppsala and Lund, but it is not used for the older parts of the universities located in the centre of the town, only for various peripheral complexes. --Uppland 8 July 2005 08:19 (UTC)
    I'm not aware that we are having an arguement. I am merely trying to determine your position relative to mine. I'm looking for clarity not confrontation, surely people should be allowed to express their oppinions without rancour, how else will we acheive consensus? It seems that we actually agree that the term campus is not appropriate for this article. In any case the relevance of the term was never actually the point of my initial comment, so I have become confused as to how your point (about the appropriateness of the word campus) has any bearing whatsoever to the point I was initially making (about how city centre universities are NOT unusual), which is why I am seeking clarity. The term campus may have been coined (with repect to universitie) in the US, but as far as I'm aware it is in common enough use in universities accross the English speaking world (certainly in th UK) to be considered a general English language term for a university (or part of a university) based at a single site, and not a specifically American term. This is my oppinion and you are perfectly entitled to hold a differing oppinion if you so wish.--Alun 8 July 2005 09:55 (UTC)
    The university itself widely uses the term campus nowadays. Both in Finnish (kampus) and in English. (There is the "city centre campus", and three other main campus areas that are not in the centre, but some 3-8 km away. In the past, the university facilities were more scattered around, but at least since late 1990s (maybe earlier) there's been an effort to concentrate all activities to the 4 main campuses.) So, I think the term is appropriate enough for the article, and that there is no need to replace it with "site" or some such. Take at look at this page, for example, to see what kind of terminology they use: http://www.helsinki.fi/inbrief/.
    While at it, I'll point out that "none of the campuses have student accommodation" is slightly incorrect, because at least the Kumpula campus has some student housing right next to the university buildings, and also in Viikki there's accommodation basically in the same area. The mention does have a point though, in a way, because these student apartments are not directly owned by or related to the uni, but instead are managed by HOAS [2], a student housing organisation. To live in these flats, however, you have to enrolled at the uni, or some other educational institution in the Helsinki area. Of course, all this is a bit complicated and tedious, and not really worth mentioning. I really do not know what's the best way to describe the campus areas in the article. :-) --Jonik 8 July 2005 18:33 (UTC)
    Thanks for clearing that up. Seems to me the article is about right as it stands then, what do you think? By the way does a campus have to have accomodation to be considered a campus? Not according to this definition--Alun 8 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)
    That's a good point, too. I removed the explanation as it stood. I guess the person who wrote that in the first place was indeed "catering to a perceived American reader's expectations" or something. To make matters very clear, we could of course add a senctence such as: The campuses are not similar to typical American campuses, but perhaps that's not necessary. :-)
    (So at least now the article is about right. To make this into a good article though, someone ought to expand at least the history section. (Preferably a lot, since the uni has a long history, and because it has on many occasions been of great importance to Finnish historical developments in general.) And perhaps also the "notable people" part which is currently just scratching the surface. I mean, as far as Finnish statesmen, scientists, cultural figures, etc, go, quite a big percentage of them have attented this university.) --Jonik 8 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)

    Trivia Section[edit]

    Aside from the gross indentation this section creates, we ought to resist the dubiously fashionable spread of these 'empirical' league tables. They have been demonstrated to favour certain kinds of institutions of higher education, they simplify and mislead the understanding of the institutions character and social place and, more importantly, only serve to turn wiki-pages into university advert brosures. Though the addition and effort is appreciated, I submit that paragraphed presentation of the institution's quality ought to be prefered. Thanks all the same. 81.129.7.241 (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

    Well said! Anyway, the section should have been named "Rankings". It had nothing to do with "Trivia". Okeekobee (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

    Category:1640 establishments vs. Category:Educational institutions established in the 1640s[edit]

    Category:Educational institutions established in the 1640s is itself a category within Category:1640 establishmentsRobert Greer (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

    Bologna compliance[edit]

    "As of August 1 2005, the University complies with the standards of the Europe-wide Bologna Process and offers Bachelor, Master, Licenciate, and Doctoral degrees.[1]"

    • Bologna is not a standard but soft policy and it is much more than BMD-structure. I thinkt his phrase should be reconsidered or reformatted to include wider perspective of Bologna process --Murrur (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

    UNI-LINEAR University Ranking Ought Not To Be Included[edit]

    Given the a) implicit ideological tendencies; b) the English language-culture bias; c) the empiricist fetishism; and d) the instrumental rationality inherent in the university rankings mentality (in theory and in praxis), I don't think it is in the interests of a considered and thoughtful article on the university's history and social context to include such 'statistics' here. To include them, aside from the critical reasons hinted above, is surely to make the first step in turning this unique online information compendium into a tacky university applications brochure that only serves vested interests, whether ideolodical or more concrete. (Welshentag) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.177.188 (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

    Nicely written. While I agree with your reasoning, the unfortunate reality is that wikipedia is an information source. A large people researching Helsinki University will use Wikipedia, for a number of different reasons. A large chunk of these users will be considering going to the university, or will be interested in how their old university is doing. The ranking of the university is of interest to these people as it is informative - they can see if their university is declining, or progressing, or whether it's advisable to go there. Any information is valuable information, particularly given the fact that it is the norm to have a rankings section on university pages on Wikipedia. By deleting one that has been contributed you are denying the easy access of information that people arrive on this page expecting to see. (ArthurGD) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArthurGD (talkcontribs) 10:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

    The fundamantal point is that, aside from the inherent prejudices in favour of large, scientific, multi-faculty, English-Speaking institutions, the very notion of applying a unilinear ranking is by necessity the creation an instrumental logic. Therefore, the 'rankings' merely empirically fetishise certain quantifiable variables. This means that the 'quality' of the university is NOT something to be found in the rankings. What the ranking are, are a discursive set of power relations that favour certain institutions and certain cultures of higher education over others, allowing certain imperatives of eco-cultural competition to colonise academic culture. These tendencies have to be resisted whenever and wherever because they are insidious and creeping. If you don't make a stand they become erosive in the long run.

    More relevantly, the uni-linear rankings consistently present universities such as Helsinki (peripheral European culture, non-English speaking, socially oriented Humboldtian ethos etc...) unfavourably and unfairly. To put the argument in your mundane terms, 'the information is wrong'. It misrepresents, and it does so in regular, identifiable, and predictable ways. The greatest criticism levelled at wikipedia is that, as an intersubjectively constructed compendium, it will tend towards the lowest common denominator. In other words, without any clear editorial decision making, the general cultural and socio-economic tendencies of the times will colonise the encyclopedia without any agential descrimination of choice over quality. I'm not talking here about a need for an editorial 'power' or 'authority', that goes against the ethos of wikipedia. What I suggest is that contributors can be persuaded through discussion not to include certain types of highly contested, problematic, and potentially damaging 'information' in the interets of encyclopedic quality, impartiality, and in reistence to clearly identifiable discursive tendencies.

    Perhaps you should bear in mind that, if people mostly come to this article to treat it like a brochure, to produce quality you shouldn't always give people what they want. Aside from this, if you really must include something, try the German CHE 'rankings'. Its more sophisticated, thoughtful, and it is NOT uni-linear. Thanks for taking the time to read what I wrote before, I appreciate it!

    Notable alumni, faculty, and staff[edit]

    We might want to separate the "notable people" section to "alumni", "faculty" etc. and state more clearly what is the relation of the person to the university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.13.18 (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    I agree with the above. One could further divide the alumni subcategory into Nobel laureates, business, law, religion, history, mathematics, music, athletics, ect. According to what they are known for. Okeekobee (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
    I think the "Notable alumni, faculty, and staff" list should be converted to a sortable table with columns: "Name", "Degree", "Years/Term", "Position(s)", "Notes", "Reference". Okeekobee (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
    I created a separate page for the sortable tables, set them up and linked the two pages. Now the tables just need to be filled. Okeekobee (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

    I just threw in teuvo teivainen there, but noticed there is a whole bunch of others missing that are probably quite more merited than bubi the sports journalist... perhaps someone who has more to do with this article might consider a "people related to the university of helsinki" listing article or category as many other universities of high academic merit have. Gillis (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

    Karl Harald Felix Furuhjelm - Governor of the Siberian specific department, Russia.--Peruanec (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

    Why is Pekka Himanen on the list?

    I don't think it is a good idea to have a separate "people related to the university of helsinki" listing article: this info is directly related to University of Helsinki and does not need a separate entry. Eezacque (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

    Jaakko Tuomilehto case[edit]

    User:Noacer insists on having this on the article. Here is the HS article. I think this has so little to do with the university, that it does not merit a mentioning in the article; see WP:RECENTISM. The issue seems to be with unethical research practices of a single researcher and, is to my mind largely a matter between the academy and the individual, not so much with the university. --hydrox (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

    A notable person could include the most published academic in the history of Finland. The University of Helsinki chose to ignore Tuomilehto's fraudulent activities because they happened when Tuomilehto was over the road at the Academy of Finland and on leave from the University. The choice of Vice Rector Marakov to allow Tuomilehto to resume his post as department head of Public Health without any inquiry reflects both on the university and Finland's most accomplished researcher. I suggest that "notable" is an apt title for Prof Tuomilehto and his "no questions asked" return to the University.
    Perhaps the Wiki title should state "Notable persons and Alumni who make the University Look Good Only"Noacer (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    First of all, the statement
    [[Jaakko Tuomilehto]] (b. 1946) Defrauded Academy of Finland http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Celebrated+researcher+duped+Academy+of+Finland+for+grants+and+violated+ethics/1101980819300 ]]
    you are trying to enter into the article is badly formatted. You should follow established formatting and use footnotes. See WP:FN.
    Secondly, what you are trying to enter into the article could be considered defamation. As you even yourself stated, Mr. Tuomilehto is a notable career researcher. What you are trying to enter into the article makes no mention of his career, even field of research, but instead labels him a 'fraud', when even your source does not use this type of language. --hydrox (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

    The Lancet incident[edit]

    How does the incident relate to the history of the University as a whole? The paragraph should be rewritten or deleted. It reads like a news release. Okeekobee (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

    In University Chanchellor's reply published in Lancet he says that an independent investigation was conducted and no evidence for misconduct was found. At least it would be fair to add reference to that. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2812%2960022-1/fulltext.

    But I think the paragraph could be deleted as well. The incident was hardly a major thing in the history of the university. I have never even heard of this whole incident before reading this article and replies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AICrane (talkcontribs) 02:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

    Libraries and museums[edit]

    The "Libraries and museums" section is missing information about:

    • The Main Library (Kaisatalo)
    • Viikki Campus Library
    • Meilahti Campus Library (Terkko)
    • Kumpula Campus Library

    - Cracklenose (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)