Talk:2024 University of Oxford Chancellor election

Criticism of selection process

While I agree it makes sense to include the criticism that has been voiced against the updated election system, but there is way to much detail here, it reads more like a short newspaper article on the topic rather than what is notable for Wikipedia. I think the criticism should be summarised in a couple of sentences, rather than adding these detailed quotes and opinions of (not that notable) individuals. 92.40.212.155 (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

List of candidates

I created an alphabetical table of candidates which has been removed for giving 'undue weight to fringe candidates'. Identifying candidates as 'fringe' goes against the principle of neutrality. It is helpful to readers to have a straightforward list of candidates. Addedentry (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit. I suggest that it is best to wait until the University of Oxford confirms a full list of official candidates as a number of the potential candidates may not reach the required threshold; see for example: https://cherwell.org/2023/03/02/onyeka-nwelue/ Bram880 (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

See further: https://order-order.com/people/ryan-ahmad/ Bram880 (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no longer a threshold for nominations: 'Qualified candidates are invited to apply online without nomination by 50 members of Convocation, as was previously required' (https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/organisation/university-officers/chancellor/chancellor-election). The only grounds for exclusion are if a candidate were to refuse to resign as an employee of the University or similar: see 3(7) and 3(8) in https://governance.admin.ox.ac.uk/legislation/council-regulations-8-of-2002. Addedentry (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. There is a general power under 3.5(b) which makes the Committee responsible for "establishing the information to be provided by candidates". If candidates do not provide the required information in conjunction with the application criteria they may be excluded, viz.:

1. outstanding achievements in their field and the ability to command respect beyond it;

2. a deep appreciation for the University’s research and academic mission, its global community, and its ambition to remain a world class research and teaching university;

3. the ability and willingness to enhance the reputation of the University locally, nationally and abroad.

What I think is best to avoid is a long list of candidates some of whom may be excluded but getting publicity before the official list is published, contrary to WP:FRINGE (lacks notability), WP:UNDUE (gives undue weight to minor candidate); and possibly WP:NOTPROMOTION WP:SPIP WP:COISELF if added by the candidate themselves.

At this stage the criteria for inclusion could be: needs to referenced in the national/international press, rather than local press/social media. Bram880 (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The list should not have been edited as it indicates bias to those remaining, a number of which are actively self-promoting themselves. 109.255.55.70 (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Every candidate must be listed for this to be an accurate, unbiased wiki article.

It completely undermines Wikipedia if candidates are purposely blacked out. Skraniel (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Result

When could we have the election result? --Poieoox (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Now that we have it (minus the figures which will possibly never come out) could I suggest the remaining five are prominent towards the top of the article and the eliminated candidates (regardless of notability) be listed together further down?

Kalamikid (talk) 12:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

undefined "percentages" footnote

@Jonas Magnus Lystad: in this edit, you added {{efn|name="percentages"}}, without a definition. I just wanted to flag this for your attention! = paul2520 💬 19:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)