# Talk:University of Edinburgh

I commented out the quote from Thomas Jefferson as I'm not sure it belongs with the history of the university. link 
The fact that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a family member doesn't seem relevant, also the emphasis seems POV (ok Thomas Jefferson thought the courses were great in 1786, but...). Any other opinions?

There is a new article on the Regenting system in ancient Scottish universities, but about half of the page is off-topic, in the sense that it discusses what follows that system, and only in the University of Edinburgh. Hence, I suggest merging the section on Regenting system#Carstares' reforms into this page on the grounds of overlap, and to help solve the off topic problem at Regenting system. Klbrain (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, that's because it was called 'The Regenting System (Edinburgh)' until you edited it... The page is entirely on topic, once I return the correct title, since it discusses the peculiar aspects of the regenting system at the University of Edinburgh as largely distinct from St Andrews, Glasgow, and Aberdeen (e.g., Greek from the bajan class, examination by the town council, directly reformed by the Principal along Dutch lines, etc.).
This is, already, a long and dense article. I cannot see how merging the minutiae of Lee's theorised etymology of the word bajani and the various elements of what was taught to the Bachelors in the 16th would benefit this article (a general overview of the University and its history). Psychopompologist (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
The point behind the page move was, as you would have seen in the edit summary, a policy-based move based on WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE. The current title has a redundant disambiguation; it's also inconsistent with the scope of the article defined in the first sentence. If you really want to discuss  Edinburgh only, then the entire page should be merged to University of Edinburgh as it is certainly redundant. Klbrain (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
> If you really want to discuss Edinburgh only, then the entire page should be merged to University of Edinburgh as it is certainly redundant
See above, as you have added nothing new. Psychopompologist (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure what problem you're trying to solve here, @Klbrain. The article in question was written specifically about the regenting system as practiced in Edinburgh, which is distinct from other universities. If you want a general article discussing all Scottish universities, you're free to make one - but you can't just rename the Edinburgh-specific article and then criticize it for not covering the other universities.
Merging the regenting system into the main article isn't something I would support, same as @Psychopompologist. The history section is already quite long, and I don't see what's gained from integrating all the more specific details. I would support linking to the The Regenting System (Edinburgh) as a See Also in the appropriate section of the historical overview though. — Arcaist (contr—talk) 09:14, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
Oppose for reasons above, and because the article is still relatively new, so we're less likely to find out what other editors may add in future if the article is spliced into the already huge UoE article. Moreover, there's a good chance the Regenting System paragraph would be scioned off to make an independent article again to prune the UoE article. I do support the proposal to add a See Also linking to the Regenting article. Chrisdevelop (talk) 03:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Closing, with no merge, given that there doesn't seem to be an appetite for this. Klbrain (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

That university has now published its multi-year Race Review about its links to slavery and racism, which is also getting some significant press coverage, e.g. in the Guardian [1] [2] [3] [4], but also elsewhere [5] [6].
There are probably a few things from the Review we should integrate into the historical sections, and probably also some other places. But since this is a GA, I wanted to brainstorm this first. Any strong feelings about how we go about this? — Arcaist (contr—talk) 14:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this. It seems to me this merits either a new heading in the History section, or an entirely new section: ‘Social policy’ that would not restrict us to Race as a protected class. Such a section might lay out the university’s historical and contemporary approaches to what are now termed ‘protected characteristics’ under the Equality Act 2010:
age
disability
gender reassignment
marriage and civil partnership
pregnancy and maternity
race
religion or belief
sex
sexual orientation
There are references already throughout the article, such as in the Staff Networks and Research Projects that could cross-link. Chrisdevelop (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

The University of Edinburgh is NOT a 'public university'. It has a royal charter giving it the status of a private university. 192.41.114.230 (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Nubzor [T][C] 16:54, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
I think you’ll find Public university#United Kingdom and Private university#United Kingdom effectively summarise the definitions of public and private universities used in the UK. As a largely publicly funded and publicly regulated institution, the Unversity of Edinburgh clearly fits into the public category. — LittleDwangs (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2025 (UTC)