Talk:University of Edinburgh/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Fairtrade status?

The article currently says, in the first paragraph: "In 2003 Edinburgh became the first Scottish university to be awarded Fairtrade status." Neither the fair trade article nor the fairtrade labelling article seems to shed much light on what "fairtrade status" indicates for a university, or what organization would grant such a designation; nor is this elaborated on in the article. Could someone please provide more information on this subject? --LostLeviathan 14:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

It similar to the idea of a Fairtrade Town/city/zone etc. Maybe we need Fairtrade University as a redirect to Fairtrade Town? The status is granted by the Fairtrade Foundation. There's more details of fairtrade unis on Oxfam's website Vclaw 01:23, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Student & Staff numbers

When the infobox was first inserted about 10 days ago, it was put that UoE have 20,000 students with 4,300 of those PG. I changed it to c. 23,000 with 5,000 PG because I keep hearing 22,000 every time there's a student election or during the NUS referendum, so one would think 22,000, or at least higher than 20,000. However, if one add up the Electorate number in the breakdown for the NUS referendum result, one actually get as high as 24,000. Hence my choice of about 23,000 halfway and all that. Recently, I heard / read independently of here 23,000 being mention. Today, I've finally, finally find some figures on a UoE website. One would think Registry website would have it or at least it can be find somewhere off the mainpage. But if you try to search for it, good luck to you. Anyway, the figures I see is from the Communications & Public Affairs. This figures turns out to match those initially entered into the infobox. However, as one can see immed., it's from way back to Jan 20001.

So the question is, does anyone actually have some up to date figures to how many students & teaching staff this university actually have?? -- KTC 10:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

(And typical of me pressing minor accidently when I don't mean it *rolleyes*)

I used to work for Durham Students' Union (as did a couple of other wikipedians, including their current President...); we spent ages trying to find a definitive list of students. (We needed it to implement an online voting system, so we could authenticate which usernames were students and which, well, weren't). Despite the presence of what looked like a detailed online list, there was an impressively fluid number, once you started including or excluding postgraduates, or part-time students, or research students, or postgrads on continuation (ie writing up), or finalists who hadn't completed and were still in the system, or the way one-year foreign students often "persisted" on the computer for a term or two...

I'm sorry that's not much direct help, but it puts the problem in context; most universities end up just picking a number. You may find that the SU has weird membership which may not directly map to that of the university; we had a huge leap (as in, several thousand) around 2000/2001 when part-time students started being counted. As such, I'd be a bit leery about using their figures as preferential to the University ones - also, you seem to have assumed that no postgrads are members of the SU. This'd be moderately unusual... Shimgray 12:55, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Regarding PG, I'm fully aware they're part of the student association here at Edinburgh. Our lovely PG convener on the Student Representative Council will probably rip my head off if I say they're not ;-) The various number floating about all includes PG & UG (FT & PT in both cases). While I'm fully aware of the difficulties with having an exact figure, I was trying to make the point that I'm surpise we don't even seems to be able to relativly easily find some approximate figure.

As to the possiblities of weird mapping between EUSA membership to actual student numbers, those NUS Referendum Electorate already ignores Life/Associate members, as we erm, famously admitted this year don't actually know how many of our life/associate members are still alive. -- KTC 16:32, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I misread there. (You'd be surprised how often they don't include PG, though). And if it's any consolation, we not only didn't know if they're still alive, we didn't even know who they were... Shimgray 16:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

The 2006 prospectus says "More than 22,000 students study here".

I just found this factsheet from Jan 2005 - it says a total of 23,111 students, of which 5,738 are postgrads. Also staff factsheet says total of 7,118 staff, of which 2,756 are Academic (whatever they mean by that?). Vclaw 14:56, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

So saying here, c. 23,000 isn't that far off. Cool! About the staff numbers, some of which are Academic, that I'd persume counts the lecturers, readers, professor etc. Seeing how this number is the 04-05 one instead of the 00-01 one previously refered to, I'll update the infobox slightly to reflect the staff & PG number. -- KTC 16:32, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Yep, academic staff is teaching and research staff. Other categories are technical and secretarial. I suppose the medical staff at Little France would also count in the total but not as academic.195.128.251.199 22:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

For a number of other UK universities I've been using the most recent publicly available HESA statistic for student numbers (and the UG-PG-other breakdown) as and when editing. For Edinburgh the figures are 23,125 total, 75 FE students (there's now an option for "other students" on the infobox), 6,340 PGs and 16710 UGs. I'm inclined to put these figures in - having a common set across universities makes it easier to compare and the HESA return is applying a common method of counting. Timrollpickering 01:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Alumnus: Augustus de Morgan?

Is de Morgan really an alumnus of Edinburgh? I can't find any info to suggest that he is.

Latin orthography

Are we sure it isn't Academia Edimburgensis, with an "m"? Doops | talk 19:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

- It ought to be Edinensis. The latin name for the city is Edina, and the University was historically "Edinensis". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.234.33 (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

JK Rowling

I had been wondering whether she should be in the list or not. She did attend Moray House for a PGCE in 1996, but Moray House was not part of the University of Edinburgh at that point, it was still an independent institution. . Should she be listed or not? Maccoinnich 11:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I've now added a mention of her study at Moray House to the J. K. Rowling article, which should help avoid confusion. I think she should be listed, but with a note saying that Moray House was not part of the University at the time. Vclaw 15:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Sunday Times Scottish University of the Year: Edinburgh or Dundee?

I am a bit confused by The Sunday Times' own information on their Scottish University of the Year 2005: In one place they say it is Dundee, in another it is Edinburgh. Can anyone clarify? Tobi Kellner

Yes I think Dundee was in the academic year 2004/5 and in 2005 Edinburgh became the Scottish University of the year for academic year 2005/6. It's a bit like football league champions going over the calendar year.

Ancient universities of Scotland

Why has the infobox for the ancient universities of Scotland been deleted? Benson85 20:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

According to deletion log -> WP:TFD#Template:UC_taxobox -- KTC 23:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Colleges and Schools

Now I know my reordering of the Schools isn't actually alphabetical. I'm just following the order presented on the university's own website - http://www.ed.ac.uk/misc/academic.html. It's not my fault if whoever did that doesn't know their alphabet. ;-) -- KTC 12:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Prominent students (current)

Isn't this section just asking for trouble with vanity edits? I get the point of adding two members of "royalty", but there's now an "entrepeneur" without even a WP article attached. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

nuke it. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

If it helps, I'm currently studying at the University. Shall I get a few photos? Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. If you're prepared to license your work appropriately, then photos illustrating the architecture, atmosphere, historical features, etc. are all helpful. Even if they don't last in the article, if you upload them to the Wikimedia Commons (not just to Wikipedia) and put them into categories, they'll be likely to prove useful at some point. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Photo's of "Pollock Halls" need to be removed. The pictured building is now a hotel / conference centre. The Pollock halls student accommodation complex now comprises of only the much larger, modern structures to the south of this building. 82.45.61.117 21:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It's possibly misleading, but it's not actually incorrect. Those two pictures I can see are both building within the Pollock Halls of Residence complex, even if no students live in it. -- KTC 12:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

University ratings

(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 22:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

prestigious

someone keeps removing 'most prestigious' from the first paragraph. I reckon it's someone who was rejected by the university and is bitter. please stop being immature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.108.64.169 (talk)

WP:NPA. It is being removed because it is not a neutral statement. If you are going to call it prestigious, the statement needs to be directly attributed to a reliable published source. --OnoremDil 12:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've requested semiprotection so maybe the yah will give us a break. Bendž|Ť 13:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

hi, i've re-added the reference to prestige with a reference to the guardian which describes edinburgh as both having a special place in academia and venerable which pretty much qualifies for the epithet of prestige (dictionary wise) i also added a bit about academic excellence i found in upenn (ive league uni) description of the uni. i'm all new to this so don't flame me if my references arent good enough. cheers. --Lukeyboymcr 17:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted it, as it is still POv even if the POV appears in the paper Lurker (said · done) 18:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse removal, with respect to Lukeyboymcr, who found the reference. If this sort of material (newspaper opinion) is necessary for a detailed, balanced article, it should appear in the form "In 2007, The Guardian said ..." and should not appear in the article intro. — mholland (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

i agree, looking at other prestigious unis this form of epithet seems to have been removed. Lukeyboymcr —Preceding comment was added at 14:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Academic Reputation

The citation for Edinburghs placing in individual subject tables doesnt exist. I.e the times higher education supplement gives the university rankings, but that particular link doesnt give the "13th in the world for arts and humanities" "14th in the world for Biomedicine". Ive struggled to find anywhere that says this. Could someone either verify the source or consider removing the last three entries, as they may be false? 194.176.105.40 04:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The rankings come from the Times Higher Education Supplement itself, which published these subject-related tables in the THES. These rankings are also available to subscribers from the THES website, but cannot be viewed by non-subscribers (you have to log in). I will add the subscriber's link to the article with a note that it cannot be viewed by non-subscribers. ThomasL 10:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

1582 vs 1583

The page 1583 states that the charter establishing Tounis College has been signed in 1583 and backdated, for unknown reasons, to 1582. In the history section of the University, one reads that it has been founded 1582 but teaching only started in 1583. Unfortunately, nobody seems to have an authentic source... Any information about this ? — MFH:Talk 03:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ranking

there's already plenty of ranking citation but also this ref places it at #5 Europe, #50th World as a point of interest.--Billymac00 (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of rankings in the lead

While i agree with the edits for the most part of removing the introduction in the lead (See Wikipedia:UNIGUIDE#Article_structure), The edit summary provided was not a valid reason for removing the rankings from the lead an intro's job is to summarize the article. The issue comes from undue weight of rankings appearing in the introduction. I think their might be undue weight being shown. But that is an opinion. Nether the less i think this warrents a brief discussion if someone were to place it back in the lead, cheers. Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The article History of the University of Edinburgh isn't long at all. There is no reason have a separate article for the history of the University of Edinburgh. Evenfiel (talk) 10:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.74.105.246 (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Merge them. Articles for other universities are more comprehensive. Edinburgh is one of the great establishments in Scotland and indeed Europe. The article deserves to be more thorough —Preceding unsigned comment added by RufusThunder (talk • contribs) 00:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Evenfiel (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Name Change

Should this article's name be changed to 'Edinburgh University'? It seems to be the most common name for it. George Richard Leeming (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. The university itself always uses "University of Edinburgh". Evenfiel (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose change, seems more inline with Napier's current name strategy. Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Iconic?

This is a peacock term and we therefore should not use it. --John (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Peacocking

Renowned is one of the exemplars of puffery given on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Using such vague and unprovable terms is poor writing style, and adds nothing to the article. Instead it would be better to improve the 'Academic reputation' section of the article giving examples cited to reliable sources of the university's renown. An example of how to do this is given at WP:PEACOCK—Jeremy (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 24 November 2011

where is states is the only scottish university to be a member of both Russel and LERU is a bit confusing, Glasgow is also a member of Russel , and edinburgh is the only member of LERU. It kind of implies that Edinburgh is the only Russel Group university in scotland

Edinburghgeo (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 14:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

it kind of implies that edinburgh is the only member of both russel and LERU, it isnt, because Glasgow is also a member of the russel group, thats what i feel need clarifying . it implies it is the only member of the RUSSEL GROUP, what it should say is somethin on the lines of 1 of 2 members of RUSSEL and the only scottish member of LERU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.4.1 (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Tuition costs and inclusion in the lead

The statement below was removed by 46.10.10.235 (talk)} with the edit summary: Not appropriate for introduction; also not true. St. Andrews also charges 36k for 4 year degree. This section is to discuss the validity and significance of the statement. SENATOR2029 talk 12:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It has the highest fees in Europe, so is certainly significant. You could say joint highest or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.151.170 (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I oppose the inclusion of this in the introduction of the article. Here is a reference that St. Andrews also charges 36k per 4-year degree: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-15259988

Additionally, tuition is higher at Richmond University in London - a private University: http://www.richmond.ac.uk/cms/pdfs/Undergraduate%20Tuition%20Fees%20EU%20Tuition%20New%20Students.pdf

Finally, I understand how some people might be angry that the University suddenly becomes much more expensive for English students, but that's no reason to attempt to slander its reputation by posting false statements in the introduction of its wikipedia page. Moreover, I cannot find a single prominent University in the world's top 50 that has ANY mention of tuition fees on its wikipedia page at all. Therefore, I am removing this statement, as it is not only false, but also inappropriate for inclusion. 188.74.105.81 (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You have missed the point, it says jointly, and stresses public, please get your facts rights before making changes. There are other articles which also mention tuition fees in the top 50 also. There is no reason it cant be included. I go to the University, im not saying its right, but its an important fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saariselka1 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Then, why not go and edit Cambridge's wiki article, say that it is "jointly" the 2nd most expensive university in Europe. This is ridiculous. You must be a complete moron to think this is something reasonable to include in the introduction of a encyclopedia article. 188.74.105.81 (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: proposed merge of Edinburgh College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine

This article has a merger proposal dating from Dec 2010. I'm not sure the best way to go about discussing this, but I would suggest that Edinburgh College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine stays separate, but with an expansion similar to University of Edinburgh College of Science and Engineering (and a rename to University of Edinburgh College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine). Also suggest University of Edinburgh College of Humanities and Social Science with a similar expansion, so that all 3 colleges are covered in the same way as S&E (with links in the UoE template). Thoughts? --Amkilpatrick (talk) 08:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Straton Gold Medal

May we have mention in Wikipedia either here or in a stub of the Straton Gold Medal and its winners? AshLin (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Endowment

Can someone please add a reference to verify it has third largest endowment in UK. Im sure it does so have not removed it, but really does need citing from a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaga247 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Source for staff numbers

The source given for the academic and administrative staff figures is a document called "Student Factsheet 310112.doc". It contains no figures about staff numbers. Can someone find the correct citation? 31.52.247.97 (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Criticisms

Is this section necessary about fossil fuel investment. I have significant experience in asset management and I'm not sure if there is a single academic institution that is free of energy/commodity assets. This is like saying the pulp association is concerned the U of E is consuming to much paper for it's library.

I wanted to broach this here, before I suggest removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninja247 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I have removed it. There was no specific criticism given towards Edinburgh university in the cited source. And in fact the source was saying that the university was about to make a decision on whether to divest its investments that belong in that area. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Adam Ferguson and modern sociology

This page claims that Adam Ferguson laid the foundation of modern sociology. That claim is somewhat exaggerated. Auguste Comte, Émile Durkheim, Karl Marx, and Max Weber are considered by many to be the founding fathers of modern sociology. Although Ferguson did contribute to early development of the subject, he is not considered as one of the major architects of sociology. Zenqueue (talk) 05:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I found some sources that claims that Ferguson is regarded as one of the founding fathers of sociology. Here is one:. Harry E. Barnes in Sociology Before Comte: A Summary of Doctrines and an Introduction to the Literature also claimed that "If anyone before Saint-Simon and Comte has a right to be designated as the "father of sociology" it is not Adam Smith, but Ferguson." (p. 234) Zenqueue (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

It might be appropriate to state that Adam Ferguson contributed to the initial development of sociology. Zenqueue (talk) 06:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on University of Edinburgh. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110902012740/http://www.ed.ac.uk:80/news/merger-discussions to http://www.ed.ac.uk/news/merger-discussions
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120323000124/http://www.studentnewspaper.org/news/452-appleton-tower-comes-under-occupation to http://www.studentnewspaper.org/news/452-appleton-tower-comes-under-occupation
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080203104037/http://www.cpa.ed.ac.uk:80/edit/2.03/021_omniana.html to http://www.cpa.ed.ac.uk/edit/2.03/021_omniana.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on University of Edinburgh. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110902012740/http://www.ed.ac.uk:80/news/merger-discussions to http://www.ed.ac.uk/news/merger-discussions
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050816194723/http://www.cpa.ed.ac.uk:80/edit/2.03/021_omniana.html to http://www.cpa.ed.ac.uk/edit/2.03/021_omniana.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on University of Edinburgh. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220164836/http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~bump/OriginUniversities.html to http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~bump/OriginUniversities.html

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The ceremonial roundel / university logo

Hi, I am the Wikimedian at University of Edinburgh. Please could someone help me with moving this File:University_of_Edinburgh_logo.svg image file as it is not the correct corporate logo and is instead the ceremonial roundel. I have been advised by the university's brand guardians at the Communications & Marketing department that this is the ceremonial roundel and only to be used for ceremonial situations. I include the university's brand guidelines by way of evidence: http://www.ed.ac.uk/files/atoms/files/university-of-edinburgh-logo-guide.pdf
This File:University_of_Edinburgh_logo.png file is much more appropriate to use as the university logo. Could you assist with correcting this? Stinglehammer (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I have turned the image files into links for readability, and because both claim to be non-free (though I doubt that's accurate).

That said, I don't think removing the ceremonial roundel is appropriate. Compare for example University of Oxford, University of Cambridge, University of St Andrews and University of Glasgow. All articles provide the coat of arms at the top, usually accompanied by the modern logo at the bottom of the page. So does this article, and I don't think we should remove the coat of arms that likely represented the university for the better part of four centuries because some corporate branding specialists a few years ago decided it's too old-fashioned. Huon (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Huon: I take your point about removing the ceremonial roundel without replacing it with something suitably appropriate. I will speak to the office here and see if a good quality logo can be uploaded to Wikipedia. That said, the ceremonial roundel would still need to be labelled as the ceremonial roundel to avoid confusion because, although it includes the coat of arms, it is not the university's logo. The logo still contains the coat of arms but is only blue, white & red. The full colour ceremonial roundel is being downloaded and mis-used as the university logo because it is labelled as such. If we can at least label/file move the ceremonial roundel correctly then I'll see if we can get the correct logo uploaded in its place. Cheers. Stinglehammer (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I originally thought we should replace the roundel with the modern logo and would then have to delete the unused non-free file, making a renaming unnecessary. On second thought I changed my opinion and moved the file to File:University of Edinburgh roundel.svg. I rather doubt it's non-free and have started a discussion on the copyright status of various university logos and coats of arms, including these two, at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#British university logos. Huon (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Huon:Thanks. Much appreciated. I think the issue was that the roundel was being downloaded and used inappropriately as the university's logo when it is supposed to be reserved for graduations, official papers, University court papers only. Could we get the text description of the roundel also changed to say that it is the ceremonial roundel as the word 'logo' peppers the entire page. I'll speak to the university and see if we can get the real logo released and uploaded. Thanks again.Stinglehammer (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I think this comes down historical roundel vs current branding roundel. The red, blue, white corporate logos are certainly what you see around the university now. I'm not sure where Wikipedia draws the line here. With the text logo I think we should either change this to the corporate colours or black and white, as those are more common than the blue version, ie. university homepage Aloneinthewild (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

And now the logo is gone black and white on the University's homepage. Why, i.e. according to which principle, would Wikipedia go against the branding guidelines that the institution requests to follow? Similarly, the article should really be titled 'The University of Edinburgh'; that's because it facilitates disambiguation with other Edinburgh-based universities like Edinburgh Napier University. Aristote33 (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Universities central at Women in Red on IWD during March 2017

Info and invitation. Women in Red has a drive during March to create and improve articles on women alumni of universities. International Women's Day is on March 8th and we invite others to mirror the event in the UK in Cambridge. Please sign up or ask for help at Women in Red. Hope you can make it. We have tools that will allow you to find missing women alumni from Edinburgh university. We are interested in editors who want to work in any language. Victuallers (talk) 08:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Glazed out, first minute in

Alumni of the university include some of the major figures of modern history, including physicist James Clerk Maxwell, naturalist Charles Darwin, philosopher David Hume, mathematician Thomas Bayes, surgeon Joseph Lister, signatories of the American declaration of independence James Wilson, John Witherspoon and Benjamin Rush, inventor Alexander Graham Bell, first president of Tanzania Julius Nyerere, and a host of famous authors such as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Robert Louis Stevenson, J.M. Barrie and Sir Walter Scott.

I bet 90% of readers glaze out at Maxwell, with an exponential decay from there. For my money, this sentence, combined with the following sentence, is a giant wall of snow-blinding puff unsuited to the lead.

inventor Alexander Graham Bell, first president of Tanzania Julius Nyerere,

That's ugly. It works for Mr Bell because the modifier is only one word.

As a combined noun-modifier: "first-president-of-Tanzania Julius Nyerere".

As an appositive: "first president of Tanzania, Julius Nyerere,".

Or one might try a more formal style all around:

... surgeon Joseph Lister; signatories of the American declaration of independence: James Wilson, John Witherspoon[,] and Benjamin Rush; inventor Alexander Graham Bell; ...

But that would add a lot of chicken scratch, and then it would be even more obvious the whole mess is too top heavy for the lead. That said, every famous university seems to devote half the lead to burnished penis size, so what do I know? — MaxEnt 05:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on University of Edinburgh. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.leru.org/index.php/public/home/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130419011008/http://local.stv.tv/edinburgh/271974-students-plan-to-disrupt-royal-visit-in-protest-over-tuition-fees/ to http://local.stv.tv/edinburgh/271974-students-plan-to-disrupt-royal-visit-in-protest-over-tuition-fees/

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) 23:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Support Groups in “Organisation” section m

Along with the theee colleges it would make sense to equally mention the three support groups: Corporate Services Group, Information Services, and University Secreteries Group; along with the roles they play in the University. Aaron McHale (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Subhash Mukhopadhyay (physician).

I've put him in because although little known in the West, he was the second person ever to create a test tube baby and got a doctorate from Edinburgh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Booklung (talk • contribs) 12:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggesting an edit 7 March 2018

Could I suggest adding information about the Zhejiang University-University of Edinburgh Institute? The institute is a significant and distinct innovation for both Zhejiang and Edinburgh Universities so I hope its worth a mention. NB. I have a conflict of interest. Jakebroadhurst (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Will look for somewhere appropriate to add that Aloneinthewild (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Translations of mottos, please

Translations of mottos, please: Oilthigh Dhùn Èideann (Scottish Gaelic), and Universitas Academica Edinburgensis (Latin). I am not sure where the translations go.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

They are translations of the university name, not the motto. I'm not sure the university uses a motto, it would be interesting to research further. Aloneinthewild (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

No, the University does not have a motto

I keep seeing "Nec temere, nec timide" pop up as a motto. I've gone down a months-long rabbit hole trying to find out where this comes from, given that it's not used on any university page, it's not in the brand guidelines (https://www.ed.ac.uk/communications-marketing/resources/university-brand), and I can only ever find it on third-party websites that pretty clearly use the Wiki as a source. It'd be cool if there was a motto, but apparently, there isn't.

I have even written to Deepthi de Silva-Williams, the University's Head of Brand, who also says she's unaware of any motto despite her 20+ years of work for the university. So please refrain from adding this as a motto unless you somehow find an authoritative source at the University itself. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 11:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree, the earliest reference I can find is to this IP edit from 2011, which sparked a minor edit war. As you say, it keeps returning every so often as it ends up on Wikipedia mirrors. It often gets added to List of university and college mottos as well, which makes the situation worse. I've just added a comment to the infobox to try and dissuade people from adding it back, fingers crossed... Amkilpatrick (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a really good idea! Let's hope it sticks this time. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 08:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

How necessary are the post-nominals in the lede?

The lede of the article reads:

The University of Edinburgh (abbreviated as Edin. in post-nominals)

How necessary is the post-nominals part? It seems irrelevant, especially this early in the lede. I've checked Wikipedia articles for some other universities and it does not seem they have their post-nominals in the lede. This seems like information better suited for an infobox or a section. —Vigursii • talk 16:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, doesn't need to be in the first sentence and could probably just go into the infobox. The problem is that the university infobox doesn't have a standard field for it. Maybe we could just add it via one of the free labels? — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 21:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and made this change. I used the "free_label2" label in the infobox. What do you think? Vigursii • talk 06:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Staff numbers

There seems to be some disagreement about which staff numbers to provide here (the university's or those by HESA), and which employees to count under "academic staff" and "administrative staff". Edit summaries are not a forum for discussion, so can we talk about this here until there's consensus? I'm pinging User:Dr.AndrewBamford who seems to be doing this for a lot of university pages at the moment. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 17:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I would instinctively go for the university's own numbers, but it sure is bizarre that they disagree in the first place. — Vigursii • 📨 19:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

So would I, because using numbers directly from a source should be better than those by a third party like HESA. But apparently there's been a bit of an edit war on lots of university articles about which numbers to use. We should also discuss who to include in which of the two categories of "academic" and "administrative". On the latter the numbers really shouldn't vary by as much as 4,000 people, which they did in the last edit. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 20:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Notable people

The list of notable people keeps growing again after we did some pruning last year. Please remember that there is an exhaustive List of University of Edinburgh people and List of University of Edinburgh medical people, so having an in-article list of no fewer than 89 notable people is just overkill. As a university employee I'm obviously all for emphasizing the instititon's importance, but we're nearing 100 names here and it's looking a little desperate. Can we find a way to tune that section? — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 09:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I removed some names, is this section ok for now? 16:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I think that looks much tidier now, thanks! — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 21:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Student accommodation

Accommodation is a very important part of student life in the university, but we still lack that information except for Pollock Halls. It would be very nice if anyone familiar with the university accommodation could add a new section about it. I think this would be helpful for new students. 21:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. So the section would cover Pollock Halls and which other sites? We probably can't list every building on , so how do we choose? Or just some general comments about how the university owns X number of buildings around Edinburgh? — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 12:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Scottish Enlightenment

So I saw this in the GA list. The history part of this article seems a bit brief. eg it says During the 18th century, the university was at the centre of the Scottish Enlightenment but only has a couple of sentences about this. Surely there's a lot more stuff about UoE covered in books/sources, particularly on its history and not just its contemporary status. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure, some things could definitely use more detail, that part might well be one of them. But at around 2,400 words for the whole history section, do you really think it's short overall? That's almost as long as the same section for the University of Oxford (2,600 words, also a GA), even though that one is 500 years older. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 08:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:University of Edinburgh/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 08:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Starts GA Review. The review will follow the same sections of the Article. Thank you -- Whiteguru (talk) 08:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

 

---

Observations

   HTML document size: 710 kB
   Prose size (including all HTML code): 102 kB
   References (including all HTML code): 269 kB
   Wiki text: 147 kB
   Prose size (text only): 48 kB (7555 words) "readable prose size"
   References (text only): 31 kB

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

• The Lead is a well-structured introduction to the University.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

• References for Early History are appropriate. Ending at the disputation of James VI is apt.
• Reference 89 is a dead link?
• a link to non-denominational is necessary?
• Consider WP:OVERLINK and the following instances: Only once is needful
• Teviot Row House is linked six times.
• Old Town is linked 4 times.
• The Pleasance is linked 4 times
• 40 George Square has several links
• Appleton Tower has several links
• Old Town has several links
• St Cecilia's Hall has several links
• Little France has several links
• Linking to Divinity as an academic discipline in the phrase 'School of Divinity'?
• Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies only needs one link, in the appropriate place. It has 9 links. Consider
• Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh has several links.
• University Court is linked six times.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_(academia) is linked four times
• Chancellor is linked seven times
• English speaking world?

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

• There is balance in the presentation of the University.
• Inclusion of rankings and student satisfaction surveys gives a necessary balance between perceived prestige and student experience of the University and tuition.

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

• NPOV is preserved

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

• This is a very old page, created 25 July 2002
• Page has 3,917 edits by 1,403 contributors
• AnomieBOT has been on the page 15 times (cleanup) followed by ClueBot NG (vandalism reverts)
• Majority of annual edits occurred in 2021 (675 edits)
• 90 day page views = 84,533 = 929 daily page reads.
• Some reverting of good faith edits. Other reverts deal with IP addresses saying this is the oldest University Scotland, most prestigious, blah, blah. Page has a number of watchers who visit recent edits.
• Page is considered stable, edit warring is not present.

1. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

• Page has 69 images.
• University of Edinburgh logos are copyright; fair use is claimed.
• All images examined for CC-by-SA and other copyright uses and exemptions.
• Images are appropriately tagged.

1. Overall:

• This is a very old page, created 25 July 2002
• Given that this university was established in 1582 beyond the remit of papal bulls, the history section is well detailed. Conflict between the University and the Town council is well handled. There are a lot of images of alumni, notables, Heads of State, and honorary alumni, and while the page is long, these are appropriate.
• The page is kept up to date - 222 watchers, and 32 active watchers on recent edits. Some of the college pages merit attention but are not the focus of this page.
• Attention to overlinking is recommended. Thereafter, there is no impediment to GA status, and full expectation that the standards of this page will be maintained. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for the review and feedback, Whiteguru, it's much appreciated! We've put in a lot of work over the summer, and it's nice to see that it seems to have (mostly) done the trick. I've fixed the dead link and reduced the instances of overlinking throughout the page - you were completely right, that had gotten away from us a bit. Please do let us know if there's anything else you'd like us to tacke. Again, thanks a lot for your help in getting this to GA. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 13:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Corrections noted. Thank you for this cleanup. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

 

Passed

 

Looking to replace the current photos of the Old Medical school, New College, and Teviot Row House with modern photos

To avoid confusion for first-timers reading this page (that these places no longer exist), would it be better to replace them with more modern versions of them instead? I've consulted with a few individuals who felt this way before they came to the university, but let me know your input. FrederickIIisg (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Current Version

• 
• 
• 

Replacements in consideration

• 
• 
• 

@FrederickIIisg: Surprised no-one has replied to this before now. Thanks for finding these images. I think there is historical interest to keeping the old images, as they attest to the antiquity of the university. It's possible a 'Then and Now' section could be added, or that the two could be placed side by side, however this is already a huge article with sub-articles sectioned off into separate articles. Lest there be confusion as to whether these buildings are still standing as you infer, perhaps the captions could reflect this. Let's give that some thought. Chrisdevelop (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm unsure why we didn't pick this up back in 2022. I think the problem - if it is one - is that the article is both long and fairly picture-heavy, so I'm always inclined to not add extra pictures or sections to it. I trimmed the 'Notable people' section a few years back since it was getting a bit silly, but like any good thicket, it's just grown back.

That said, I like both the historic and modern pictures, but don't think a juxtaposition would do much since any listed building will look the same anyway (the three above illustrate that pretty well). @Chrisdevelop, I'm happy to support any ideas you have here. Reworking the captions a bit might be a solution? — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 08:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Arcaist: The captions link to articles about the buildings that contain up-to-date images, so I'd be happy to leave the historical images where they currently are in the main UoE article. The fact that newer images can be reached with a single click is probably sufficient to avoid any confusion as to whether these historic buildings are still standing, and if so, what sort of condition they're in. The images added by Frederickllisg might be considered as replacements for some that are currently on the sub-articles, if they're of better quality. I agree about the burgeoning notables, that should really only have highly recognisable names on the main article. There is a sub-article List of University of Edinburgh people that contains a lot more links to notables past and present, and some of the less well-known notables currently on the main UoE article could move there. While I think about it, I am struggling to find corroboration for Carl Orff as having been either an alumnus or staff member. His name comes up on the Music Society article and it's in the List article, so still researching this. Any inside knowledge? Chrisdevelop (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Chrisdevelop: Agree on basically all counts re: the pictures. If you notice anything low quality, go right ahead.

The notables have always been a concern of mine, especially since there is another subpage, and I dislike the tendency on university pages to present line after line of alumni - it smells a bit of puffery. We've tried to combat this by separating inventions from just names, but it's still very long.

If you want, we could start a topic here on the talk page and see if we can agree on 1-3 names per 'category' (writers, biologists, etc.) that are worth mentioning? — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 15:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Arcaist: Yes a good idea. A set of criteria could be developed for a notable to warrant inclusion on the main page that are more robust for UoE than are general criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia itself. For a start, international recognition is I think a sine qua non, i.e. a name that someone in every town in every land would know, e.g. Charles Darwin as distinct from Charles Galton Darwin. How that is decided is the nub, and it's likely to be Eurocentric. It would be good to get input from others. Chrisdevelop (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Moving 'Colleges and Schools' to academic profile?

Hi all,

I'm new to Wikipedia but I thought I would ask: would it make sense to move colleges and schools to the academic profile portion of the page? I would think rewriting a small blurb regarding the schools would function well for the governance portion while moving the juicy parts to the academic section? Bobbyshmurday (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bobby, welcome to Wikipedia! Sorry it's taken so long for someone to answer your suggestion. I have taken a look at the two areas you mention, and 'Academic Profile' has to do with the University's performance and international reputation, and the measures taken to sustain and enhance that - hence the categorisation 'profile'. The Colleges and Schools are administrative layers integral to the University's organisational structure, and so I believe they're best left under present heading of 'Organisation and Administration'. Does that make sense? Chrisdevelop (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Boosterism

@Arcaist There has been at issue with the placement of rankings in the lede of a university article, which I of course flagged as a WP:BOOSTER issue. What was previously there was certainly a WP:SYNTH of the sources which reached a conclusion not supported by the sources.

Adding individual website rankings in a university's lede has always been a very poor outlook IMO, especially that on the university — a university such as the University of Edinburgh certainly doesn't require the appraisal of a ranking to be one of its defining features. This is why most inclusions of such information in the lede (including the original sentence in the lede here) usually fall far short of WP:HIGHEREDREP, specifically WP:UNDUE. The revised sentence you have in the article still falls short of WP:UNDUE — ARWU and THE specifically do not have the body weight to support such a prominent place in the lede, QS maybe just barely.

When I did a brief read-through of the article, I did spot some WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE problems (I'll post them later). I appreciate your attentiveness in communicating your WP:COI, but some things have slipped through the cracks. GuardianH (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@GuardianH I don't think things are quite as clear-cut. Placing ranking information in the lead is not "of course" a boosterism issue — students and the interested public use them routinely to form opinions and make choices, they serve as the basis of public policy, and they guide decisions by the universities themselves. It's an elementary characteristic of a university, whatever we feel about the utility of ranking universities in the first place. For the record, I'm not a fan of comparative rankings, and am quite aware of their shortcomings. But whether you — or I — believe Edinburgh "doesn't require" ranking information is immaterial, given how widespread their use is.

The last RfC (which you linked) consequently did not reach the conclusion that ranking information has to be removed, but I'm happy to be corrected.

Regarding the body weight of the rankings, that seems to be a matter of opinion. The RfC concluded that "There was insufficient discussion to find a consensus on whether inclusion of text on specific individual rankings are appropriate in a lead section." I don't see what the specific standard for inclusion would be, save for the fact that those three are the most-cited comparative rankings. Given that you insisted that a short 'synthesis' sentence has to be removed, the only alternative is to state the non-synthesized rankings. If that is still too much for you, then I don't understand what the solution would be: synthesis is unwelcome, and stating the data is also unwelcome - but removing all ranking information goes against the RfC consensus.

On a sidenote, I disagree with your interpretation of WP:SYNTH — using three different rankings of 22, 30, and 38 to say "top 50" is a summary, not an improper synthesis. It isn't reaching a conclusion that's not supported by the sources, since all three sources place the university in the top 50. But maybe I'm reading WP:SYNTHNOT wrong. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 21:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Why change the Short Description?

@Revirvlkodlaku: The short description was changed from "Public university in Edinburgh, Scotland" to "Public university in Scotland". Chrisdevelop (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Chrisdevelop, the reason I did that is because the title already mentions Edinburgh, so it's not necessary to reiterate it in the short description, IMO. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Arcaist: As the main editor for this article, would you like to chime in here? Do you agree with this reasoning? Chrisdevelop (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for looping me in @Chrisdevelop. My main consideration is consistency, and it does indeed look like most, if not all, other UK universities that are already named after their city (e.g. Aberdeen, Aberystwyth, Glasgow, Oxford, etc.) omit that in the short description. So I'd be happy with the change. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 09:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Chrisdevelop (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Nobel laureates

The phrase used here is "Nobel Prize laureates" not "Nobel Prize prizes". My understanding is that the word "laureates" refers to the people who have been awarded a prize, not the prizes themselves. Hinton has won 2 of the 20 prizes. So there are still only 19 laureates. What are other editors' understanding? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by he "won 2 of the 20 prizes"? You're making it sound like he won two Nobels, and thus the number of people should be lower than the number of prizes.

As the table shows, 20 different people were awarded a prize (we're obviously not double counting Edwards here), so what am I missing here? — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 15:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I had assumed, for some reason, that Hinton's Turing Award was deemed equivalent to a Nobel Prize, and that he was already counted for the former. But if there are 20 different names in the Nobel table, there now seems to be no problem with Hinton. But the text should say "As of October 2024, 20 Nobel Prize laureates, with 21 awards..", because Edwards has two? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Rowling is not a graduate

Some editor or editors are insisting on presenting J K Rowling as a graduate of Edinburgh because she went to Moray House when it was part of Napier. It's an anachronism and not correct, plain & simple, I don't understand why I'm having to explain the removal of such straightfoward nonsense on the talkpage. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Deacon of Pndapetzim, I'm not the person who insisted, but we might as well talk about it.

Moray House was its own thing until it signed a Statement of Intent with Herriot-Watt in 1989 to get validation for its degrees. MH students were considered H-W students and received H-W degrees. However, MH was still legally its own institution, and as such initiated leaving H-W in 1995, which was completed in 1998 with the merger into UoE. Note that it had not been merged into H-W, otherwise it could not have left since parts of a university cannot simply decide to split themselves off from their mother institution unilaterally.

So, your perspective is that since Rowling got her MH Certificate in 1996, that would have been a H-W degree since MH was still under agreement with them. The people arguing for listing Rowling I think say that UoE is the successor organization to MH (since MH ceased to exist as its own entity with the merger but not with the agreement with H-W), and since today's MH is a part of UoE.

Back when I introduced the note you deleted, I followed the second interpretation (and because I thought it would prevent other editors asking about her). But I can see your point - if I got it correctly - that she doesn't have a UoE degree, but rather a degree from an institution which is now part of UoE.

By the way, if you want a civil discussion, calling things "bogus" and "nonsense" is unlikely to get you the desired result. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 20:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Arcaist great contribution, a bunch of obvious things that have already been said and some misguided and patronising advice about language. Listen, I'm not here to waste time getting into any fights with random bams, life is too short, if you want bogus nonsense anachronisms on the page the resulting bogus content is your fault, WIkipedia is full of stuff like that these days the world's not going to end, I'm just another idiot among us all and I've done my part. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Deacon of Pndapetzim Cool reply, is this how you generally interact with people here? Zero interaction with the substance, but phrasing it in the most abrasive way? Is this what the standards are for admins these days? — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 14:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Ouch. No irony marks around "great" makes it even more acerbic? Not wanting to get into the warm and cuddly debate here, but just to say if the J. K. Rowling article doesn't claim she is (or was) a graduate of the University of Edinburgh, I'm not sure this article should? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123 I'm completely fine with omitting her like I said, but was trying to lay out the arguments - you know, like you would on a talk page through civil dialogue? Wasn't anticipating an admin to come in here throwing insults around when they can't even get their facts straight (like repeatedly confusing Napier with Herriot-Watt), but then attempt to act like they don't care. How in the world is that consistent with WP:ADMINCOND? — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 09:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

"I didn't get where I am today by engaging in civil dialogue on a talk page!" (apologies if you don't know about CJ in that series...) Martinevans123 (talk) 09:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I see some sense is emerging, that's a bit of a relief tbh. Chill @Arcaist put your duelling pistols back in their cases, the word 'bogus' shouldn't be triggering you so badly. Bad content shouldn't be wrapped up in linguistic cotton wool, there is a difference between being uncivil and what you see above, being 'abrasive' as you call it, if it helps Scottish (& also Irish people) are often more direct but it's not incivility and it's not necessarily unfriendly, & there are plenty of admins more 'abrasive' than myself, esp. when they have misguided patronising 'advice' thrown at them unasked for.

Re the article, if you include an anachronistic (and so yes 'bogus') point like the one in question, you are potentially bringing this article and Wikipedia into disrepute. Since I see you have made an effort to associate your own real world identity with the curation of this article, I would suggest I've been doing you a favour, some minor legalistic lawyerie niceties aren't going to stop some barrel-scraping Daily Mail or Scotsman "journalist" using the point as an 'example' of how 'ridiculous' Wikipedia has become, and if anything the 'abrasive' tone you have such problems with actually helped focus your attention on it.

I appreciate Rowling has a lot of fans & Edinburgh would have loved her to have been a graduate, even if we do the mental gymnastics and take those legal niceties in that one interpretative direction, any reasonably educated person esp. academics, ought to be automatically conscious that even in the best case scenario she would be a different category of 'Edinburgh graduate' to people who actually graduated from the university and that at the very least she (and any others of the same category) should be listed separately with qualifiers so that the reader can actually make their own mind up and not be treated like a fool. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Okaaay. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 19:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Moray House School of Education and Sport#Notable alumni lists 13 other notable graduates. I suspect they also don't appear here. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Move page to The University of Edinburgh?

The name has The in front of it too, as mentioned in the opening sentence, logo, roundel, and even on the QS ranking list.

I don't know if the is omitted when using the common name, because I can't find any online source for it. Please let me know. Pur 0 0 (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Pur 0 0, Wikipedia has policy on this. See WP:THEUNI. — LittleDwangs (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

thanks Pur 0 0 (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Was about to reply the same thing as @LittleDwangs in terms of policy around articles. You can also see that no other UK university has it as part of the article title, including those with it in the logo, like LSE:

List of universities in the United Kingdom — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 12:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Gaza protest

Does this really deserve the space and picture it has been given on the main article? The protest lasted from May-June, making it far more ephemeral than many previous student occupations (e.g., those of the recent UCU strikes!) which are (rightly) not given the same space. It seems, to me, to simply fall under the banner of student activism (i.e., should be left to footnotes in articles). The Anti-Apartheid Society of the 1980s, for example, does not even earn itself a mention on the Wikipedia page, despite it being far more effective, significant, and long-lasting. A University as old as Edinburgh cannot live under the tyranny of the present! Psychopompologist (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I added this section while the protest was in progress. Given that it was widely reported in the MSM at the time and there were sister protests in campuses across the country, and internationally, while hostilities in Gaza are continuing and protests are being conflated with antisemitism, the section covers matters current and notable enough for it to remain as is. Moreover, the UoE protest brought to everyone’s notice related concerns of responsible investment, causing uni admin to revisit the university’s entire investment policy with students as consultants. Moreover, remarkably, the students were not evicted from the quad, and more than 600 staff signed an open letter supporting the students’ actions. The hunger strike by 8 students took the protest beyond the common or garden variety. If you look through Wikipedia starting with the articles linked to, it is obvious that this remains a hot button issue. As world events change, and the Gaza situation is resolved, your footnote suggestion could be considered when the time comes. I’ll look into the Anti-Apartheid Society you mention too, as it may warrant a sentence, just as this Gaza protest probably will become in a few months/years time. I already added a section on UCU Industrial action here a while ago. Chrisdevelop (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Chris,

I appreciated your response but I write again, now some time has passed, once more to suggest the removal/minimisation of this section. Moreover, one should stress that your (subjective) view concerning the protests, and conflations with antisemitism, were not, in the first place, sound arguments for retention. Similarly, these protests certainly did not bring the issues you mentioned to 'everyone's' notice, as you claimed, for many colleagues and students in my own department were entirely unaware of the protest itself, nevermind the issues purportedly raised!

Further, it was not especially remarkable the students were not evicted, for this is University policy. Students have not been evicted from their occupations of DHT, Appleton Tower, or the Gordon Aikman Lecture Theatre. Finally, I have not seen any corroboration that a hunger strike actually occurred.

Gaza has been a 'hot button' issue for a long time, and while I appreciate your optimism that the situation might be 'resolved' it is ultimately not the point of this article, dedicated to the University more generally, to linger on an ephemeral and ultimately abandoned protest. Comparably, the articles dedicated to the wave of 2024 protests, would better suit your content:

Israel–Hamas war protests in the United Kingdom

2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses

All the best,

Psychopompologist Psychopompologist (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for following this up. I suggest Arcaist (talk · contribs) as primary curator of this article look into this and give their view, since they already did a good job of pruning the section after my far more verbose initial post.

To your points:

1. The citations in the section link to masthead news sources, including The Scotsman, The Herald, The National, the Financial Times, the Edinburgh Evening News as well as the students' union, along with a statement from the Principal so it surprises me you didn't notice the entire quad being dominated by the student occupancy for the best part of a month, as shown in the accompanying photograph.
2. The hunger strike is independently documented in the citations, and news of it alarmed the Principal to the extent he expressed concern for the students' well-being in his pubic statements on the matter. The adduced secondary sources are sufficient to satisfy WP:OR and WP:SOURCE.
3. While I agree resolution of Gaza is not "the point of the article", neither the content nor the length of the section purports that it is.
4. Enclosed by the UoE's primary public-facing ancient building, occupancy of the Old College Quad as a protest site is significantly more disruptive and potentially damaging to the university's image than a protest in DHT, Appleton Tower, or the Gordon Aikman Lecture Theatre.
5. Re your suggested articles, I already added a reference to the UoE Gaza protest to Israel–Hamas war protests in the United Kingdom#Protests at universities at the same time I created the section here, and I see there is already fleeting reference to it at 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses#United_Kingdom. That could be fleshed out with more on the UoE protest.

As per my earlier response, I agree with you that historical notable UoE student protests should be added to this section on student activism, and that the time has come for a reappraisal. @Arcaist: your thoughts? Chrisdevelop (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, @Arcaist is best placed to decide, but I feel compelled to respond.

1. I find it surprising that you would be surprised by this. You are, surely, aware that Old College houses only a single School. That is, if you do not study Law, or work in the Law School, you have no reason (beyond being an administrator) to be in Old College. Those of us at other faculties have no ostensible reason to visit South Bridge at any point in the academic year (beyond, say, remembrance ceremonies or a visit to the Talbot Rice). Of course, I noticed, as I took an interest in the protests, but many others did not. If you work and study at King's, for example, the entirety of Central Campus is nothing more than an ephemeral blur!
2. There is no 'independent' documentation, only the reporting of the students' own claims.
3. You used the word resolution, not me. I quote: 'As world events change, and the Gaza situation is resolved'. In other words, your defence for retention was predicated on the view that a resolution might bring public attention away from the issue, which simply won't occur.
4. Besides the fact that Old College is not 'ancient', it is also not the University's 'primary' public facing building (which is now, surely, the EFI -- open to the public). It you are of the view that Old College is emblematic of the University, perhaps I would concede it is Edinburgh's most recognisable University building (but only perhaps, for even the Wikipedia page first shows visitors McEwan Hall, and Edinburgh, unlike Glasgow, St Andrews, or, say, Oxford and Cambridge, has no University architecture to match their synecdoches of the GGSB, Sally's, the Rad Cam, or King's). However, the site was not chosen for such significance, but rather because there is grass on which to pitch tents! You couldn't hold such a protest at New College, or in the Elsie Inglis Quad, for there is no grass, and there would be no value in disruption in George Sq. Gardens, which does have some grass. If students desired to actually 'disrupt' the University, they should pitch tents in the conference centre at Pollock.
5. There is no section, or indeed even a mention, in the main article concerning the renaming of David Hume Tower despite significant national coverage (e.g., BBC News in 2020, The Scotsman in 2020, The National in 2020, more discussion in The Times in 2022, and the Scottish Daily Express in 2022, along with The Herald in 2023). This is unsurprising, of course, since it is contained albeit in a much too truncated form, in the article for 40 George Square. In other words, there is already precedent for the removal of such issues from the main page (even issues covered more broadly, and over a longer period of time, than the protests, such as the renaming of DHT). All the best, Dominic

Psychopompologist (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

This dialogue is descending into literalistic semantic point-scoring, and risks veering off-topic. I have responses to your responses, but rather than duelling to the Last Word, let's wait for Arcaist to weigh in, if I may mix sports metaphors. Chrisdevelop (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Chrisdevelop @Psychopompologist I'd be keen that we find a consensus, not just having me be the arbiter (but I appreciate the ping!). I understand having a relatively long section for "just" one protest looks a bit like recency bias, although I agree with Chris that the protest was very visible and received national attention, and we shouldn't try to minimize it at the first opportunity.

Dominic, was your suggestion to shorten the section or take it out entirely? I don't think the latter is merited just yet, but making it more concise (maybe by focusing on the outcomes rather than the demands) seems doable. Thoughts?

And Chris, I fully agree that the Student Activism section could use an overhaul, as it's too heavy on post-2000 instances. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 19:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Arcaist: Thanks for climbing in. Perhaps @Dominic, who has evident knowledge in the area, could look at initiating the task of fleshing out pre-2000 student activism - starting with 'Anti-Apartheid Society of the 1980s' Dominic mentioned in the OP. I started looking for information on this a while ago, and found an abundance, starting with the university archives, the National Library of Scotland, and The Student.

I don't share Dominic's pessimism that synecdochic Gaza will ever be 'resolved', but the live war and its potential escalation as an actor in an internecine global conflict between 'The West' and Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and potentially other BRICS nations as co-combatants suggests it won't be any time soon. Chrisdevelop (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It was my view that the section should be entirely removed, which I do believe is merited, but making it more concise would, currently, make sense. Psychopompologist (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Chrisdevelop @Psychopompologist Gave shortening the section a go, losing about ~60% of the words. Chris, let me know if you feel I've removed anything crucial. Dominic, I think this is one of those things we'll revisit in time, and the section might well get shorter still. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 14:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Arcaist:@Psychopompologist: Looks fine to me, thanks. I'll take a look at some of the child articles to see whether the prunings would sit well there.

Dominic, since you have raised this as a valid issue more than once - are you up for contributing pre-2000 research to the Student Activism section? Chrisdevelop (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

In time, I could, but I am currently researching for a different sub article (the HCA, and the former departments of Greek and Humanity) so it would have to follow that. Psychopompologist (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds interesting! Looking forward to seeing what you come up with for this UoE section. Chrisdevelop (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

See now Professor of Classics (Edinburgh). Psychopompologist (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Nice work! Chrisdevelop (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! See now also The Regenting System (Edinburgh). Alas, I'm having to defend the first article from deletion, but hopefully it remains. Psychopompologist (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Given that the AfD discussion appears to be primarily with just GuardianH and not the nominating editor, Emy Russell who hasn't weighed in after nominating, perhaps this could be escalated for wider discussion via other forums accessible from WP:XFD. I've just voted 'Keep'. Wishing you success! Chrisdevelop (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Article review

I took a look at this article, and noticed lots of uncited statements and paragraphs. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I mean sure, but the article does have over 400 references, so are there any sections that you feel are missing adequate sourcing? — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 08:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• @Arcaist: Sorry, I didn't see this question until now. Would it be helpful to add citation needed tags to the article? There is typically supposed to be a citation at the end of every paragraph. Z1720 (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  No worries @Z1720 — yes, please add maintenance tags, that makes our job easier. Mind you, from what I remember back when we brought this to GA, in many cases there might be a confirming citation very close to the end of the paragraph, even if it's not at the very end. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 08:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• @Arcaist: I have added citation needed tags to places where I think a citation is missing. Z1720 (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Z1720 Thanks, that was very helpful. I've added citations for all of these and removed the respective CN tags.

  One question: Was there a reason for adding CN to the "Nobel and Nobel equivalent prizes" paragraphs, although the first one already has one or more citations for each person listed, and the second paragraph just describes the structure of the table? I've removed them for now, but please put them back if I've misunderstood. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 15:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

It was for the table: I didn't see that they were listed in that first paragraph. However, the paragraph does not list if they are alumnus or staff, and since the table doesn't have citations that information is currently unverified. Citations should be added to verify the status. Z1720 (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

How to integrate the findings of the "Race Review"

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 , but also elsewhere .

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:

1. age
2. disability
3. gender reassignment
4. marriage and civil partnership
5. pregnancy and maternity
6. race
7. religion or belief
8. sex
9. 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2025

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)

Merge proposal

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2025

Change Section on Debate under Student Life and add that Gordon Brown was prominent in the Diagnostic Society when a Studnet. WalterScott12345 (talk) 22:38, 5 December 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. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 00:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)