Talk:University of Edinburgh

Thomas Jefferson quote

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

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)

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)