Talk:University of Queensland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Universities (Rated B-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Australia / Queensland / Education (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon University of Queensland is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Australia (marked as High-importance).
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for other than editorial assistance.


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. (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed some of the more glaringly obvious pamphlet-esque sections that are not appropriate for an encyclopedia, others I've reworded to replace some peacock words. There is still lots more to be done to make this anything like a neutral article.

Reads like a college ad[edit]

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. -- Atamachat 16:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Notable alumni/staff[edit]

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. -- Atamachat 20:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Australian Financial Review newspaper of Monday 28 October 2013 says that before 1946 no Australian university awarded Ph.D. degrees. Is that true? When did the University of Queensland award its first Ph.D. degree, and to whom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darwen (talkcontribs) 01:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I had a search through the digitised historical newspapers for the words"doctorate philosophy university australia" and (while I didn't check every search result -- too many), the random sample pre 1946 all had the PhD awarded from an overseas university. The first one I found that related to a PhD at an Australian university was this 1948 mention of a first group of PhD candidates at University of Melbourne] which is consistent with the degree being introduced into Australia from 1946. So, while this is not definitive proof, the evidence seem to support the claim that there were none pre-1946. Kerry (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
First PhD at University of Western Australia in 1950. Kerry (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Improve Grammar, Sentence Structure and remove boosterism[edit]

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 (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC) "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) 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, "Selvin Vu" 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 Selvin Vu 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 Selvin 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. -- Atamachat 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 (talkcontribs) 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. -- Atamachat 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. Selvin vu's repeated reinsertions of the text is not acceptable. -- Atamachat 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 Selvin Vu. 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[edit]

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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Latin Name[edit]

Without getting into a lame edit war I'd like to note that the Seal of the University which is stamped onto my testamurs contains the Latin name TERRAE REGINAE UNIVERSITAS.

Current corruption allegations[edit]

Where is the mention of the ongoing corruption allegations and CMC investigation? Whilst these should be noted as current events, it would be useful and informative to include and update information about these things on the main page of the university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

2011 Scandal and VC[edit]

The scandal this year meets notability requirements IMHO but I also know some people are very against recent events as wikipedia is not a news website. My logic would be that any scandal big enough to scalp a VC will remain significant in a university's history, I imagine a well written paragraph on it and the VC/DVC's resignation would still be notable enough to be in the history section in 10/20/30/40/50 years time to warrant inclusion, after all losing a VC in that manner is a pretty rare event for a university! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you give a link to a source for this scandal so we can judge it? I have not heard of it. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Bduke, this is but one article about the recent scandal: Google will easily reveal more, as will the ongoing investigation. I am surprised you have not heard of it - it has made news even in Melbourne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Bduke - a statement by the Crime and Misconduct Commission (state corruption watchdog): — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Museum and Theatres[edit]

I have added a short paragraph that outlines the Antiquities Museum and the Anthropology Museum. There are other museums on the campus; apparently a Geology museum. Maybe someone can add details about those? I left the paragraph about the UQ Club (aka Staff Club) as its web page is there there BUT ... it definitely shut down in December 2011. The UQ Union runs the other facilities such as the Schonell Theatre. So that paragraph needs light editing, I don't have the time right now (gotta take care of research!) GermanicusCaesar (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Institute of Modern Languages (Queensland)[edit]

I just came across this new article, and I am not sure that it passes WP:CORP or WP:GNG. The sources in the article are primary sources, and so can't be used to show notability, and I couldn't find any likely-looking sources online. What would people say about merging that article here? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

  • I support that suggestion. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I also support it. The program doesn't seem notable enough to have a separate article from this one. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 21:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is a separate institute, with its own director 48 years. A large chunk of their services has been removed from the text of the article.[1] John Vandenberg (chat) 08:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
    Sorry, I probably should have mentioned that I removed that. It seemed overly promotional to me, but I wouldn't mind putting it back in if it can be sourced and rewritten neutrally. The main problem is that I couldn't find references to support notability, however. Notability doesn't depend on age necessarily, or on being a separate institute - WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:ITEXISTS spring to mind. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Oppose. I'm not convinced it cannot stand alone as its own article. Its still a little promotional, needs a tidy and some more references but I don't think it should be merged. I have been convinced there is a lack of reliable sources establishing notability. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
    The point is I couldn't find any suitable references to prove notability. If the references existed, I would have added them to the article. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I just spent a bit of time scouting about for some more references with a view to using them to add citations (as has been requested). I did a quick Google search and I did not find any newspaper articles although there was a group interview done by the ABC which someone from the Institute participated in. However, obviously the University of Queensland site could be a source . The Institute itself features at The University's annual report (the most recent available is 2011) has a bit of information which is located at - see page 51. I hope this helps. --PinkAechFas (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding text originally posted on Talk:Institute of Modern Languages (Queensland) (diff) by PinkAechFas (talkcontribs) 07:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
    Hi PinkAechFas, and thanks for having a look for sources. Unfortunately, sources linked to the University can't be used to prove notability - sources must be independent of the article subject to be useful for notability purposes. See this simple guide to notability on Wikipedia for more information. (Sorry if it's a little in-your-face.) If you have any other questions about this process, please don't hesitate to ask. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks Mr Stradivarius for the comment. --PinkAechFas (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

PS I thought I would just mention I was looking for citations (as requested) separate to the notability issue. I do note that articles (eg Telstra, Westpac and BHP) do have citations to their annual reports and to their own websites for bits and pieces. It was in a similiar vein that I noted the above. But I do appreciate and take board the comment made by Mr Stradivarius. Thanks--PinkAechFas (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You're right, it's perfectly ok to use these kinds of sources for article details. However, they don't have any bearing on Wikipedia's definition of notability. If you want to see the policy on using primary sources, it's at WP:PRIMARY. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks--PinkAechFas (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

merge UQ Club and Staff and Graduates Club sections[edit]

As far as I am aware (I was a member for about 20 years), these two are one and the same organisation. It was originally the University of Queensland Staff Club, later became the University of Queensland Staff and Graduates Club, then closed down. I don't think it was ever called the UQ Club, other than as a short form. Unless anyone has any evidence of the existence of a separate UQ Club, I'll merge the sections. Kerry (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on University of Queensland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's get this lede back to being a summary[edit]

The Manual of Style tells us that the lede pragraphs should be a summary of the article, covering the main points. However, much of the content of the lede paragraphs does not appear elsewhere in the article. I have relocated some of the material on the global rankings and alumni into the sections that already existed for that purpose. But the lede still contains a lot of information e.g. membership of Group of Eight etc that are not mentioned elsewhere in the article. It also lists a campus in New Orleans which is not mentioned in the later section on the campuses (nor on the UQ web page for its campuses! it would appear to be an affiliate relationship relating specifically to the UQ medical school). Try and think about it from the reader's point of view. What is a reader coming to this page most likely to want to know from a summary section. If it's too cluttered with "irrelevant to me" information, people will stop reading it. Kerry (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)