Talk:University of Oxford

GA Reassessment

University of Oxford

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delist - Article lacks significant citations. @Onegreatjoke, the way people reflect that discussions are not a vote on Wikipedia, is to say something like "I !vote delist". —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

This 2007-listed, level 4 vital article lacks significant numbers of citations. I have tagged over 30 locations, but more may still be there. Without significant improvement, the article should be delisted as failing GA criterion 2. As this is a vital article, with a huge number of reliable sources written about it, I do not think that it will be too much work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Delist Doesn't seem like anyone is going out of their way too fix the article from the ground up so I vote to delist. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Endowment

EmyRussell, thank you for updating the article, however I disagree with this edit, which changes the University (consolidated) endowment from £1,701.7M to £1,259.1M. I believe that the expendable endowment of £442.6M is also part of the endowment. TSventon (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

TSventon, apologies, I incorrectly mistook the expendable reserves figure for the restricted reserves figure. I agree that for Oxford, the endowment figure is made up of both the permanent and expendable components. EmyRussell (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

After revieweing Charity reserves: building resilience from the Charity Commission for England and Wales I agree with this interpretation. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—2409:4088:BEBC:FF61:0:0:C34A:8302 (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you expand on this? It makes no sense to me. Bduke (talk) 06:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

You haven't said what you think is wrong with the coordinates in the article, and they appear to be correct. If you still think that there is an error, you'll need to supply a clear explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Add Affiliation to Golden Triangle in Lede?

As Oxford is a member of the Golden triangle (universities), what about adding this in the lede? The golden triangle is the equivalent of the US Ivy League and all 8 Ivy League unis have it mentioned in their article ledes in the very first sentence. Thus, it would be only logical for the 6 golden triangle unis in the UK to have the golden triangle affiliation mentioned in their article ledes too. 2A02:1210:2C5A:AE00:91F:8980:F29D:133A (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not the equivalent of the US Ivy League. There is no defined membership and no formal structure. It's a handy shorthand for referring to universities in London, Oxford and Cambridge, but can mean anywhere between four institutions and all the institutions in those cities. It is certainly not a defining characteristic of Oxford in the same way membership is for the Ivy League (it's arguably more important for the London universities as they get to be associated with Oxford and Cambridge) and while it could be mentioned it shouldn't be in the first sentence but in a later paragraph along with actual formal accusations (which aren't currently mentioned either outside of the infobox). Robminchin (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would say that Oxbridge is an English equivalent of the Ivy league. At present

• Imperial doesn't mention the Golden triangle
• Oxford and Cambridge mention it, but not in the lede
• UCL, KCL and LSE mention it in the lede. TSventon (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Seeing @Robminchin's vehemence against the discussion on the golden triangle here, I think it's sour grapes from @Robminchin because he went to Durham University which, while quite prestigious, is not part of the golden triangle. Probably best to ignore his input on this subject due to his possible COI in this case. @TSventon I agree with you that Oxbridge has some of the characteristics of being equivalent to the Ivy League. However, the caveat I would have here would be the question whether merely 2 unis would make a "group" of elite universities. That's why I would say the golden triangle would probably be more of a fit. To @Robminchin's points: obviously, the golden triangle is not a sports league like the Ivy Leauge, with formal membership. The point is the golden triangle is equivalent to the Ivy League when seen as a group of elite universities. And while different sources mention different views on who belongs to that elite group in the case of the golden triangle, the common consensus is that 6 universities make up that group which are clearly defined in the "Members" section within the golden triangle wiki article. 2A02:1210:2C5A:AE00:C55E:82AE:A731:C495 (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

That's an WP:ADHOMINEM – the idea that someone has a COI because they *don't* have an association with the subject of the article is complete nonsense. Please stick to the content under discussion in future.

I agree with TSventon that Oxbridge is closer to the English equivalent of the Ivy League (or Harvard–Yale–Princeton at any rate). Putting the golden triangle in the first sentence in the same way as the Ivy League would absolutely be WP:UNDUE – it simply isn't that important a characteristic of Oxford. It's notable that of the six 'typical' members, both of the institutions who are not always considered to be members ention it in the lead, while only one of the four that are consistently considered part of the triangle does so. There are more important actual memberships of groups that Oxford has chosen to participate in that are not mentioned in the lead – if these were too be added to the lead then it would be reasonable to mention that Oxford is considered to be a member of the golden triangle alongside them. Robminchin (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Robminchin, I have examined a bit your profile and your editing pattern on the golden triangle and issues related to it. In the golden triangle article, you have fought tooth and nail to keep the specific members of the golden triangle in the lede obscure although the 6 members are clearly defined and visible throughout the entire article, in each and every single section, even with grids and charts. You have opposed any suggestions there to clarify the lede or to shift the potential controversy of specific members into a separate "controversy" section there. You went to Durham and you got a PhD from Cardiff. These are respectable universities and respectable personal achievements from you. There is no need for you to feel envy, jealousy or sour grapes regarding the 6 golden triangle universities. I am wondering whether or not to interpret your venting and ranting on any sort of clarification of the golden triangle as trolling and whether I should further address you and your points or not as per WP:DFTT or WP:TROLLFOOD. Nevertheless, I am going to dedicate again my precious time to you and your points: you haven't offered an objective reason with objective criteria on why not to include the golden triangle affiliation in the first sentence of the lede of the 6 member universities - as is the case with the with the 8 Ivy League universities in the US. You state, quote: "it simply isn't that important of a characteristic of Oxford". I understand that these may be your personal feelings and your subjective findings. Unfortunately, this is not an objective reason. You yourself stated shortly thereafter that the golden triangle affiliation is already in the lede of some of the 6 member universities. You also consistently insisted that in your opinion, the UK golden triangle may not be seen as an equivalent of the US Ivy League. Please note that within the "See also" section in the golden triangle article, the Ivy League article is the first equivalent cited. Lastly: of course someone may have a COI because they don't have a direct association but a contrary relationship with a subject; various examples of such constellations come to mind: a criminal writing on law enforcement articles, a tory editing on labour topics (or vice versa obviously), an employee of a company who edits on the competitor (e.g. Coca-Cola employee editing Wiki article of Pepsi) etc. 2A02:1210:2C5A:AE00:C42E:67D0:AF09:2C76 (talk) 08:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

It is for you as the proposer to provide the justification for inclusion; that you feel the need to resort to ad hominem attacks instead of rational discussion indicates that you are unable to do so. Robminchin (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Robminchin: Justifications have been given by me plentifully. Your problem if you fail to see the wood for the trees because you are blinded by your sour grapes in this matter. If there aren't any further objections within 24 hours, I will take the liberty of including the golden triangle in the first sentence of the lede of the 6 member universities as is the case with the Wiki articles of the 8 Ivy League universities in the US. 2A02:1210:2C5A:AE00:B116:1275:FD8A:AAB9 (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

No other editor supports this edit and three editors oppose it for distinct (albeit related) reasons. I suggest you read WP:DEADHORSE and act accordingly. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jonathan A Jones: I only count 2 editors who oppose the edit vs 1 who is in favor of it (me) and an abstention from one other editor. Robminchin's "vote" doesn't count because of his COI due to his sour grapes as explained before. Thus, it's a draw. However, even if it weren't a draw, what eventually counts is not what a majority likes as Wikipedia is not a democracy, see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. What eventually counts are facts and "laws" or, in the world of Wikipedia, policies. As explained before, all 8 US Ivy League universities have it stated in the very first sentence in the lede of their articles that they are Ivy League universities. Conversely, it would be WP:UNDUE not to state in the first sentence of the lede of the UK golden triangle universities' articles that they are golden triangle universities. Thus, in order to ensure WP:DUE, I will carry out this edit to the golden triangle universities' articles after 24 hours, unless you can cite a policy (not an essay) in the meantime which would prohibit this edit. 2A02:1210:2C5A:AE00:B116:1275:FD8A:AAB9 (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

As stated above, this would be WP:UNDUE and would also be clearly against the Wikipedia:Consensus here. If you think I have a CoI, you may take it to WP:COIBOARD. Otherwise, please stop your accusations. Robminchin (talk) 02:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Robminchin, please stop your trolling: obviously, you bringing forward WP:UNDUE after I brought it forward before you just in my comment above yours, shows that you must be confused. In addition:

There are also multiple other Wikipedia policies and guidelines which speak for the inclusion of the "Golden Triangle" in the first sentence of the corresponding 6 UK universities' articles on Wikipedia such as:

1. Lead Section Guidelines: According to Wikipedia's guidelines on writing lead sections, the first sentence should provide a clear and concise summary of the article's most important aspects. "Golden Triangle" is a widely recognized term for these universities, so it should be included.

2. Notability: The term "Golden Triangle" is relevant to the identity and significance of these universities. If they are commonly referred to as such in reliable sources (which they are), it supports their notability within that context.

3. Consistency: It's important to emphasize and highlight consistency across Wikipedia articles. If all Ivy League articles state that they are Ivy League institutions, similar treatment for the Golden Triangle universities would ensure uniformity in how significant affiliations are presented.

4. Clarity and Context: Including "Golden Triangle" enhances clarity for readers who may not be familiar with the term. It provides essential context about the universities' reputations and academic collaboration.

5. Reliable Sources: As seen in the article of the "Golden Triangle" itself, reliable sources use the term "Golden Triangle" in relation to these universities. This shows the term is recognized and used in academic discussions.

2A02:1210:2C5A:AE00:E595:FBDA:945B:D28 (talk) 07:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned WP:UNDUE explicitly in my second response to you. To refer to your points:

1. You have not demonstrated that being considered part of the golden triangle is one of the most important aspects of the university, so this is begging the question. The mention in the body of the article is not even a whole sentence, making it clear that this would be WP:UNDUE, not reflecting its importance to the topic as required by WP:LEAD.

2. No sources have been supplied to back up this assertion. Mentioned of the golden triangle are almost always about the universities when treated as a group; Oxford is not commonly referred to as a golden triangle university.

3. This relies on the unproven assertion that the golden triangle and the Ivy League are equivalent in this manner. As had been pointed out, the golden triangle does not exist except as a media shorthand and Oxford does not have any affiliation to the golden triangle. It does not share the history of recognition that the Ivy League has. Indeed, if you search for the British equivalent of the Ivy League most results point to the Russell Group (e.g., this from Oxford University itself) with a small number pointing to Oxbridge. There would also be no need to blindly follow what is done for American universities, even if the two organisations Wwere equivalent.

4. The point of the lead for the University of Oxford article is not to introduce readers to the term "golden triangle". Obviously if readers are not familiar with the term it cannot say anything about the university's reputation, certainly not more than is already said by the mention of the more familiar (and more prestigious) term Oxbridge, and as it doesn't exist as a grouping recognised by the university it has no relevance to the university's collaborations.

5. If everything said in a reliable source about the University of Oxford were to go in the first sentence, it would be a very long sentence. That something is mentioned in a reliable source is a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion in an article at all, let alone in the lead, see WP:NOTEVERYTHING.

This is a WP:DEADHORSE, as Jonathan A Jones said above, backed by nothing but unsupported assertions and ad hominem attacks. It's time to drop it. Robminchin (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

There's no such "thing" as the Golden triangle: there is nothing to be a member of or affiliated with. So no. And the IP accusations above are simply ridiculous. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jonathan A Jones: on your point that there is "no such "thing" as the golden triangle": while I agree with you that the golden triangle is somewhat of a nebulous and abstract concept, there is, irrefutably, a Wikipedia article about it - and quite an extensive one actually. So, there is "such a thing", the golden triangle does exist. 2A02:1210:2C5A:AE00:C42E:67D0:AF09:2C76 (talk) 08:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• There's no way the Golden Triangle is anything like as well known as the Ivy League. It's quite a new term which few people outside higher education have heard of, in the UK never mind the rest of the world. Enough on this! Johnbod (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Addition of info on Divisions under "Organisation"

Suggestion that the following text from the Divisions of the University of Oxford wikipedia page is added to the "Organisation" section lede and a link to that page also included: The various academic faculties, departments, and institutes of the University of Oxford are organised into four divisions, each with its own Head and elected board. They are the Humanities Division; the Social Sciences Division; the Mathematical, Physical and Life Sciences Division; and the Medical Sciences Division. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_University_of_Oxford

I am affiliated with communications at the University, so don't want to directly make changes per CREWE but this would add clarity to the organisational structure. WhimsicalCactus (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Notable alumni

@Polygnotus: you have tagged the section with {{summarize}} and {{Excessive examples}}, can you explain your reasoning? Oxford is a former good article and King's College London, a current good article, has a similar sized section. TSventon (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@TSventon: Of course. In order to be considered WP:GOOD an article needs to meet these 6 criteria. A section like Notable alumni is basically useless to 99% of readers. Because its a sea of blue links you can't even click a specific link on mobile. Leaving behind a paragraph or two when splitting is fine; but this is clearly excessive and should be drastically cut down. While the uni may or may not have had a large influence on the individual, the individual often had little to no influence on a uni that has existed for 928 years. Polygnotus (talk) 09:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Having more recently been the promotor for UCL's GA, changing the alumni section to a more summary style (as mentioned on the GA criteria) was one of the things requested by the referee. Length of alumni sections has also been flagged as an issue to be addressed on other older GA university articles, such as Durham. The KCL section should probably be cut down as well. Robminchin (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. I am fine with keeping people who have made a deep lasting impact on the uni. Polygnotus (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing these tags. Given the length of the article, the examples don't seem excessive. Chetsford (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

They can be removed when the conditions to do so have been met (the problem has been fixed). Help:Maintenance template removal. Polygnotus (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we'll remove them once a consensus has emerged to do so. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

See WP:MAINTENANCEDISAGREEMENT point 1 and 2. Polygnotus (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

See WP:DETAG. The tags will be removed once a consensus has emerged to do so. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Then the problem will need to be fixed as well. Polygnotus (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Correct. That's how it works. Consensus will determine if a problem exists in the first place and, if it does, how it should be addressed. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that the alumni section here is probably over-long. As there is a separate article that has been split off, what should be included here is a summary of List of University of Oxford people. For example, everything after "At least 30 other international leaders have been educated at Oxford" could be removed – the article doesn't need to say who "this number includes". There are also incorrect statements ("Of all the post-war prime ministers, only Gordon Brown was educated at a university other than Oxford" – Starmer was educated at Leeds as well as Oxford) and outdated statements ("Over 100 Oxford alumni were elected to the House of Commons in 2010"). Robminchin (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:SPLIT gives instructions: If material is split from an article, consider whether a summary section should be created, and whether a {{Main}} template should be placed at the top of the section to link to the new page. In general, if the split is due to size, then a summary section is required; if the split is due to content (or scope), then a summary section is unlikely to be required. On the talk page of the new and old articles, include the template {{Copied}}. and Add a summary, usually of a couple of paragraphs and one image, of the newly created subtopic (unless complete removal is appropriate). in this case, because it is a CONSPLIT, leaving nothing behind would be appropriate but I am also not opposed to a summary of a couple of paragraphs max. Polygnotus (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a size split, not a content split (these aren't "two or more distinct topics with share the same or similar titles"), so a summary is necessary. The advice at WP:UNIGUIDE to "limit[] the explicit list to very well-known persons (heads of state, historical figures, etc.) and adding a narrative summary of statistics on such things as Nobel Prizes, other prestigious awards, and so on" is also relevant here as to what should be included to summarise the list. This being the Oxford article, the line on inclusion in the summary will, of necessity, be quite high – including all of the heads of state and government, for instance, would already be over 60 people. Robminchin (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Meh, I partially disagree that this is a size split, but that is moot. In those couple of paragraphs we don't have space to namedrop 60+ people so we need to use "x heads of state, x nobel laureates" et cetera which is the advice of UNIGUIDE. Polygnotus (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)