Talk:University of Oxford/Archive 1

message: __TOC__
I have removed Richard Burton (actor) from the list of "scholars" (for the third time) because I don't feel that the list of scholars should be simply a rehash of the lists of alumni which already exist on the individual colleges' pages.  I'm not sure how the person who began this list intended it to be used, but it's obvious from the other names present that it was reserved for those of some academic standing - not those who did a short course at Oxford and didn't even take a degree.  I hope other contributors agree. --Deb
:Well, I for one do not agree that you should be the one to get to decide who gets to be on the list and who doesn't.  I keep putting Richard Burton back on because he's listed in a booklet I bought while I was there (taking a short course one summer), and I consider that if Oxford sees fit to include his name in its official booklet, he should be in the Wikipedia article.  Lots of the people on the list didn't get degrees, and some of them weren't "scholars" by your standards, either -- some of them were even kicked out, I think.  This is a list of people who attended Oxford, and he did, so I say leave him on the list. -- isis 18:25 Dec 15, 2002 (UTC)
::Having watched the recent edit war it occurs to me that in the future, the list of scholars could (and probably will) become too large and unwieldy for the main article (a look at "what links here" will give you and idea of what I'm talking about; that's just the tip of the iceberg).
::I see only two ways to avoid this, one being to decide on a level of "scholarship" which would qualify a person to be on the list, the other being to do away with the main list altogether, and distribute them among the individual college pages (many of which are conspicuously empty at the moment).
::The disadvantage of the first is that there is probably no way to do it objectively (retaining NPOV).  I doubt there is a standard that would please everyone.  The disadvantage of the second is that we'd probably lose Bacon, Boyle, and Duns Scotus (and possibly others in the future).  My own opinion is that the second would be better.
::Hephaestos
:I completely agree.  There is no point in duplicating the list, and we could get round the problem of losing teachers and academics by having a separate list for them within each college. Deb
:The 'pedia has many lists (and many longer than this one) of much more dubious reference value than notable persons who have attended Oxford.  I question, for example, why anyone would consult a list of persons who died of cancer or were said to have been other than heterosexual.  Moreover, the individual college pages focus on "alumni" whereas this list includes the undergraduates who never became alumni.  Having the lists on both the Oxford and Cambridge pages both provides meaningful information about them and illustrates the point that Oxford is known for literature and Cambridge for science. (Have you ever seen an encyclopedia article about Oxford that didn't list some former students, and not just alumni?)  Removing information from the 'pedia, no matter how little you personally value that information, is censorship, and I'm strongly against it.  Deb's problem isn't with the list, it's with having Richard Burton on it, and we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath-water -- let's just focus on solving her problem, shall we? -- isis 05:15 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC)
:Deb's problem with Burton seems to be that she thinks he is one of "those who did a short course at Oxford and didn't even take a degree" instead of a regular undergraduate student.  Here's what Michael Hall wrote in the "Exeter College" article in Oxford ( & ):
::"Exeter's 20th-century undergraduates have included the actor Richard Burton and J. R. R. Tolkien, the author of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings and professor of Anglo-Saxon."
:Thus, Burton was a genuine student who dropped out.  And I think naming just those two students from that college tells the reader something meaningful about Exeter and Oxford, too. -- isis 05:30 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC)
Let's get this straight - I have no problem with Burton being listed as a former student at Exeter (in fact, let's change the name of the college lists to "former students" instead of that awful word "alumni"), and I'm happy to let you have your own way on that subject, Isis.  My objections were, firstly, to his being listed as a "scholar", and secondly, to your altering the title of the main list so that it duplicated the ones on the individual college pages.  Anyone who has been at Oxford identifies with their college rather than with the university as a whole, and it has to be a good thing to move the lists accordingly.
There is much confusion over Burton's achievement in getting into Oxford - many ill-informed websites, and even some books, foster the myth that he "won a scholarship to Oxford at the age of 16".  You won't find this on his "official website", because it simply isn't true.  The facts are these, and you can check them out in his autobiography.  At the age of sixteen, he was forced to leave school and find work as a shop assistant.  His former teacher, Philip Burton, recognising his talent, adopted him and enabled him to return to school.  In 1943, at the age of eighteen, Richard Burton (who had now taken his teacher's surname), was allowed into Exeter College for a term of six months study.  This was made possible only because it was wartime and he was an air force cadet.  (Even nowadays, Oxford is not that egalitarian.)  He did not win a scholarship, nor did he study for a degree, nor did he "drop out".   He was, however, a one-time student.  --Deb
What do people think of the bit about Magdalen being 'perhaps the most beautiful'... POV? EddEdmondson 07:59 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC)
:Well, it does have some of the best grounds - a lot of the colleges don't have any greenery.  And architecturally, it's pretty impressive.  And it does only say "perhaps" and "one of".  I think it's probably the most popular with tourists, if that's of any relevance.Deb 18:04 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC)
Large parts substantially rewritten; what was there before was factually incorrect and misleading. 16/7/03
An unknown person removed the references to the Halls that preceeded the Colleges as being older than the three colleges of original foundation.  I am not sure why he/she did this, since it is factually accurate.  For references, see "Being an Medieval Hall in Oxford University" or "A History of Oxford University".  I am placing the information back.  Anyone who has a reasoned objection to it, please say so here.
Automaton 27 July 2003
The new version of the Halls-to-Colleges line is better (if rather long) but the obsessive need to mention SEH is not really justified. SEH has barely existed as an independent institution for substantial parts of its history; conversely, some colleges are the offspring of older Halls (Worcester; Oriel; Hertford; etc). 28.7.03
I have to disagree with your removal of SEH. Given that the information I included was factually accurate, I do not see that removing it is justified.  As well, the statement that SEH "has barely existed as an independent institution" is not accurate.  While Queen's College retained the university-mandated right to name the head of house for many years, SEH was always an autonomous institution (and, for example, conflicted with Queen's during that period on a wide variety of sectarian issues).  The halls that gave rise to Worcester etc were in fact not older than SEH.  By comparison, I note that you did not remove my paragraph about Blackfriars which (as I stated in the paragraph itself) did not exist at all in Oxford for centuries after the Reformation.  The reason I feel it is important to list both Blackfriars and SEH is that they represent links to a more ancient organisational structure that in many ways defined the university.  Given that the information is correct, I do not see what purpose is served by removing it. Automaton 28 July 2003
:How nice to see other people, both of you knowledgeable, having the disagreement on this page, instead of me.  For what it's worth, I think the mention of SEH could be profitably reinserted, but reworded to take account of the criticism. Deb 18:14, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Good move. Deb 21:20, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

message: Do you like the table? I think it's quite useful. Sky 16:36, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it looks lovely. Nice work. Deb 21:01, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you :-) Sky
---
Someone deleted parts of the table. What was the reason for it? I don't mind changing the colour, but taking the motto, memberships, etc. out?!? Sky 15:37, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Table

message: Does anyone know where I can find a list of the college scarf colours, similar to this, I'm trying to make the Oxbridge scarf colours article a little more even handed, but it's proving difficult.
* I found most of what I wanted here.  Scarf colours page is pretty complete now, but still looking for a few other college such as All Souls and Greyfriars -- Prisonblues 12:49, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  College Scarf Colours 

message: It would be helpful if the individual college pages gave some info on what subjects they taught. Do different colleges have different specialisations? Seabhcan 23:46, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting question.  They do tend to have their strengths, but perhaps not to the extent that it would be helpful here.  Students may get their teaching at another college, and in any case specialisations can change over the years.  I'm not sure wikipedia is the best place for that kind of information. Deb 18:14, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So, all colleges more or less teach everything?  Thats amazing - completely different from the usual College of Science, College of Engineering structure of other Universities. Perhaps this should be said clearly somewhere in wikipedia? Seabhcan 19:07, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subjects? 

message: Sorry, folks, but if you genuinely believe that admission to Oxford is based exclusively on academic merit, then heaven help you.
Whilst I would agree that this is the case in a good 90% of instances, there are a significant number of people who get in on reputation alone.
: agreed - and that the Oxford interview process selects without error those candidates with the highest "academic merit and potential" is also disputable. --Eddy b 12:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think 99% of people who get in have straight "A" grades in any case. Deb 11:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms of Oxford 

message: In the 1970s my Indian-born father was on an exchange program that took him to Oxford for the better part of six months. Our family now resides in Canada, and growing up he often told my brothers and sisters (myself included) that during his time there, some ingenious scholars took the time and energy to put toilets on the Radcliffe Camera overnight as a joke. 
I have seen pictures of the Radcliffe Camera (not having had the chance to go to England personally) and, despite my father's penchant for honesty, find his tale hard to believe. (He also says that another group got one of its members to dress up as an Eastern prince - who subsequently got wined and dined by a number of colleges before the charade was exposed, of which I'm equally sceptical.) 
I'm sure there are other former students of Oxford who attended the university at the same time and frequent Wikipedia... So please could someone tell me, are my father's stories true? (We, his children, owe him a gourmet dinner if they are.) -- 65.92.74.38 17:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I was at Oxford between 1974 and 1977 (so obviously I'm old enough to be your mother).  The first of your tales doesn't ring any bells, but the second one certainly sounds familiar.  I think I may have seen it written up in a student newspaper (but of course that doesn't guarantee it's true...) Deb 19:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Copycat, I'd think, because I wouldn't have been interested in anything that happened at "the other place"! Deb 21:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pranks at Oxford = True or False?

message: As is the case for many other British universities, University of Oxford admission often favors fee-paying overseas applicants over EU-students of equal strength for undergraduate studies. This is a broad development, and understandable from a fiscal point of view, but it nevertheless tarnishes the University's academic credibility in the undergraduate sector.
Can we cite some evidence for this allegation? Otherwise it should probably be removed. Flapdragon 21:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  bias in favo(u)r of overseas applicants? 

message: I have created a series of templates for former students of Oxford's various colleges.  There are still plenty to do, but if you want to add one the the templates to your user page then feel free.  See Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education/United Kingdom/University of Oxford for complete list.   Deano 18:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  College templates 

message: Re: 
:On June 20 1214, a charter of liberties was granted to the University by Nicholas de Romanis, the papal legate, which authorised the appointment of a chancellor of the University. 
Was that all that the "charter of liberties" did? It would be good to be clearer, and to have a citation. (I googled but didn't get far.) --Singkong2005 02:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charter of liberties  

message: I think that information on how Oxford currently ranks needs its own section; for one, rankings fluctuate every year and therefore, though important, cannot be considered defining characteristics.  Also, selectivity can be quantified, and therefore ranked.  To say that Oxford is highest in selectivity because it is perceived as such by the public is unneccessary when data, less debatable, can instead be used to back up the claim.  Courier new 03:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Changes 

message: Hey gang, I'm trying to clean up College application, which currently has a tag on it saying it doesn't come from a world-wide perspective.  (This probably stems from the fact that the article starts, "In the United States...".)  I was hoping to get the perspective of non-American editors to "globalize" this article, and Oxford seemed like a good non-American place to start.  I'd appreciate it if y'all (a little U.S. twang for you) would take a gander and give it a different perspective.  Truly, JDoorjam     Talk 18:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little help from the British 

message: There are a lot of free images of Oxfod on the commons, would someone please remove the unfree images from the aritcle and replace them with free one? Thanks.--Peta 05:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: The term "Scholar" has a very specific meaning in the context of an Oxford college (and probably elsewhere too, at Cambridge and maybe Durham). It means a person who has been formally admitted to a specific category of college membership (usually after their mods or prelims at the end of the first year, on academic merit). Scholars are entitled to wear a different academic gown from other junior members ("Commoners") and usually receive a very token amount of money. At some colleges they receive additional privileges such as free meals one or more times each week. They formerly sat in different places in Hall and at services in chapel.
Elsewhere a scholarship is usually a purely financial affair, intended to assist a student with their tuition fees and living expenses (at Oxford this might be termed a "bursary", as in the recently-introduced Oxford Opportunity Bursaries, and will often not be combined with a "Scholarship" as defined above).
At present this article repeatedly uses the term "scholar" in a way that would not be heard in Oxford - within the university the term would be used purely in the sense defined above. The term scholar is mostly used here to mean any member of the university, which is incorrect in any case. I think we really need an explanation of what a Scholarship is in Oxford, and to avoid using the term in any other way such as may cause confusion. –Casper Gutman 16:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that "usually after their mods or prelims at the end of the first year, on academic merit" is relatively new. Scholarships and Exhibitionships used be awarded as part of the entrance examinations. This useage is important for the reader because of the long history of Oxford and its many mentions in fiction. Also note that in some Colleges exhibitioners wear (?wore) Scholars gowns and in others Commoners gowns. --Bduke 23:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're quite right about exhibitioners wearing scholars' gowns at some colleges. I just noticed a post in the discussion of Term Names above suggesting we need some sort of glossary of Oxford terminology to deal with these things. I'd say words used in a different way at Oxford need explanation even more than those unique to Oxford, as they have much more potential to cause confusion otherwise. "Scholar" falls into this category. A word like "battels" on the other hand is unfamiliar to most and they would hopefully realise they needed to look up the meaning if they encountered it. –Casper Gutman 07:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I can recall arguing with someone about the term "scholars" in the past -- probably on an archived talk page.  It does need explanation, though it's so complicated I'm not sure I can contribute (I was a commoner!) Deb 18:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, just noticed there's actually a paragraph that goes some way to explaining this, but it's hidden away under "Admission". I've tried to remove any overly vague uses of the "S" word before that explanation kicks in, but don't have time to do much more just now. –Casper Gutman 10:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Scholars" at Oxford 

message: Would anyone mind if we tried to keep the University of Oxford#Oxford in literature and other media section down to works which feature Oxford prominently, so we would remove e.g. Tomorrow Never Dies and several others. Stefán Ingi 23:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed Gaudy Night. It certainly passes the test of featuring Oxford prominently but it is just one book in a series and that series is not particularly about Oxford (although the two main characters are Oxford graduates) so it seemed less important than the other crime fiction mentioned, which are whole series set at Oxford. Is there some other reason for why it is exceptionally important? Stefán Ingi 23:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Dorothy L. Sayers is one of the great classical crime writers. Much as I like the books by Veronica Stallwood and Colin Dexter, I do not think they are in her league. Her influence on crime writing has been immense. Also Gaudy Night is often considered one of her best. The central part takes place at a Gaudy - the College feast - and is thus more university based than much of the Stallwood and Dexter novels. Only one of the Stallwood novels, if I recall correctly, is firmly based in a College although the Colleges make an appearence in several books. The Morse books are even less university based. I am firmly of the view that it should be retained. --Bduke 01:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxford in literature and other media 

message: I'm confused by conflicting stories:
Did Oxford come second, as here: http://browse.guardian.co.uk/education?SearchBySubject=false&FirstRow=0&SortOrderDirection=&SortOrderColumn=GuardianTeachingScore&Subject=Institution-wide&Tariff=6
Or first, as here:http://education.guardian.co.uk/universityguide2006/story/0,,1765251,00.html
?
--195.92.67.75 16:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Guardian 2006 league table

message: Someone added a link to Oxford University A.F.C. in the "See also" section. I removed it once as I didn't think there was much of a case for having it there when none of the other sports clubs were listed, but this was reverted. Clearly the rugby team and rowing club, to name but two, are at least as noteworthy these days as the footballers, however important OUAFC was in the early days of the organised game in England. If we're going to have one team then there are many more that should be included. Perhaps there should be a "Sport" section on the page, or a separate Oxford University Sports Clubs article we could link to instead?
What do others think? I'm aware there's been some attempt recently to reduce the rather overwhelming numbers of links from this page.--Casper Gutman 08:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports teams 

message: I think this article needs to touch upon the current construction of the South Parks animal research lab, and the controversy/protests surrounding it. It would be extremely difficult/impossible for ME to write such an article and stick to NPOV, but this would be a good oppertunity for someone who feels less passionately about this subject to contribute.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.155.81.239 (talk • contribs).
I totally agree, that is a current issue in oxford at the moment, and should be reflected in the article, I'd write somthing, but i am not well enough informed and also would struglesticking to npovGeorgeryall 21:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: South Parks controversy

message: An anon editor has changed the date of establishment (but not the category). Could someone better versed in the history of the university address this? --Bduke 20:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of establishment

message: There is an anomoly in the Colleges and Permanent Private Halls.  Ripon College Cuddesdon appears in neither list, although its students matriculate and graduate with Oxford degrees.  Ripon College is anomolous, fitting precisely into neither category, but it should properly be included in one, if only because its foundation pre-dates other colleges mentioned.
Cranmer  
:The article at Ripon College Cuddesdon indicates that it offers courses "validated" by Oxford Univ, but is not a constituent college of Oxford Univ. May be worth a "See also" mention. --mervyn 13:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Omission of Ripon College

message: This page does not and should not include an exhaustive list of Oxford student societies and/or sports clubs. There are category pages (:Category:Oxford student societies, :Category:Oxford student sports clubs) that aim to do this, so the proper way of noting the existence of a society is to add the appropriate category to the society's page.
There is debate to be had about whether a particular society should be noted on the main University page, but IMHO a better solution would be to remove those that are here than to add more: the excessive lists on the main University of Oxford page were one reason it was rejected as a featured article some time ago.
--Casper Gutman 11:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that, and I think it is more or less the conclusion we came too last time we mentioned the links. Pruneautalk 14:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belles, Sirens and other clubs/societies 

message: The article appears to overlook the Oxford University Chest. --Alf melmac 22:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chest 

message: (I'm posting this to all articles on UK universities as so far discussion hasn't really taken off on Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities.)
There needs to be a broader convention about which university rankings to include in articles. Currently it seems most pages are listing primarily those that show the institution at its best (or worst in a few cases). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#University ratings. Timrollpickering 23:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: University ratings

message: I make it eight out of the last 11 PMs who were Oxford men and woman, and the other three did not go to university at all.
210.246.12.143 09:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxford Prime Ministers . . .