Talk:Durham University/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Name and Logo

The University today announced its new brand - see [1]. Should this page be renamed "Durham University" in line with the new brand? And should the arms on the page be replaced with the new logo? TSP 14:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems (according to a member of the University's administrative staff) that the official name is still 'University of Durham' despite the rebranding, and that the crest is still current:

'But the University name remains unchanged; we are still officially the "University of Durham", so no degree certificates need to be changed, and the University's crest remains the one registered with the College of Arms.'

So I think the page should stay named as it is. There might be a case for adding the new logo to the page in some way, but not I think for replacing the coat of arms entirely. --Ngb 11:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. The current drawing of the arms on the front page, though, is a slightly idiosyncratic version based on the old brand image; so we might want to replace it with a more traditional drawing of the arms. [2], anyone? TSP 16:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No! That's a horrible Victorian over-elaborate mess, the current drawing on the page is a much better, and clearer, representation of the shield.

Regarding the article name: to be consistant this article should be at 'Durham University', not the 'University of Durham'. All other universities' articles are under the name they call themselves (their common name, if you will), not their official name. For example:

• It's officially Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, but it's named Imperial College London
• It's officially the University of Keele, but it's named Keele University
• It's officially the University of Lancaster, but it's named Lancaster University
• It's officially the London School of Economics and Political Science, but it's named the London School of Economics
• It's officially the Queen's University of Belfast, but it's named Queen's University, Belfast

So, for the sake of conistancy, this article should move to 'Durham University'. I know that a lot of people object to the new name, but Wikipedia shouldn't get involved with these POV issues. - Green Tentacle 15:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

hmm, while I agree with the above in principle, my main points against it would be:

• From the above consensus, more people prefer u o d
• What if the university has a change of heart in a few months time and reverts to u of d? By keeping the article under the official title, it saves it from being moved about from any furture changes
• University of Durham is still commonly used
• More pages in Wikipedia link to u of d than durham uni
• Durham University redirects here anyway

That said, its really not that important so if you want to go and change it again, do!!! Robdurbar 20:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, it doesn't bother me much either, but all things considered, I propose moving this page to 'Durham University' for the sake of consistancy with other universities. If there's no objections in the next few days then I'll go ahead (the page will need to be listed on Wikipedia:Requested moves because Durham University has a longer-than-one-line edit history). In order to attract people's attention the impending move, I'm going to change the article to say 'Durham University' throughout and make sure the edit history points people towards this talk. That way, anyone with an interest in this page should be able to have their say. - Green Tentacle 21:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, it's been a week and no-one has objected, so I've listed this page on Wikipedia:Requested moves for moving from University of Durham to Durham University (it needs the assistance of an admin to move it as Durham University currently has a longer-than-one-line edit history). - Green Tentacle 18:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: the recent addition about Van Mildert JCR boycotting the new logo... what is that about? How can a logo be boycotted? Also, is there any evidence of this policy actually being followed? Or is it just hot air (in which case should it just be removed?)?Robdurbar 18:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

This is an official policy of Van Mildert JCR, which can be found in the JCR Policy Document (available through the VM JCR website). Van Mildert JCR, wherever possible, uses the old University logo and similarly uses 'University of Durham' rather than 'Durham University' (for example, on letterheads). This is an active piece of policy and is of encyclopedic relevance to this article because it demonstrates the opposition of some students to the rebranding exercise. RPC 19:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

This page was one of several moved out of process by § (talk · contribs). Rather than allowing the WP:RM request to go through and have this moved properly, he moved the prior contents of Durham University to the needlessly detailed phrase Durham University (England), thus freeing up space to move University of Durham onto Durham University. That's one problem, and it is not hard to clean up his mess. The second problem is that I don't agree with calling this Durham University. The issue of college/university rebranding has come up several times in the past and tended to lend itself to using the most commonly known unambiguous name, regardless of what the school wants to be called (which is why we have University of Texas at Austin rather than "University of Texas"). The most recent case I know of, and one which attracted unpleasantly complicated debate is University of Maryland, College Park, which recently asked to be known only as the "University of Maryland" and actively discourages any use of the old UMCP name. However prolonged debate at Talk:University of Maryland, College Park rejected that name change. I am inclined to think that these precedents should apply here and the name University of Durham be retained as long as it is the most common name from the perspective of how people recognize the university. Dragons flight 05:44, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, most people have been referring to it as Durham University for ages anyway; the one argument that I think supports the U of D side is that this remains its official name. I think the article fits in well under both titles, just leave it as it is Robdurbar 11:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

btw, I notice that the thing at the top says that 'it has been proposed that durham university be moved to durham univeristy'; does this mean it has been moved and the tag should go? Not fimilar with how the procedure works Robdurbar 15:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Title of current Chancellor

Although Bill Bryson's doctorate is only honorary, by the University he is referred to a Dr. Bryson, so I would suggest that this be used on the University of Durham Wikipedia page. Rob.rjt 19:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

" in many countries, including the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, it is not customary for an honorary doctorate to receive the formal title of "doctor", regardless of the background circumstances for the award." According to the Wikipedia entry on honorary degrees. I know the uni call him 'Dr.', but it sounds a bit stupid, doesn't it? Robdurbar 20:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

An honorary doctorate is still a doctorate, and any holder of an honorary doctorate is entitled to use the title 'doctor' if they so desire. However, most of the references on the Durham pages (e.g. in the 'about' section) seem to refer to 'Bill Bryson', not 'Dr Bill Bryson' or 'Dr Bryson', so I think the Wikipedia page is okay as it is. - unsigned comment by User:131.251.45.15

'entitled to use the title ..'- no, they aren't. Badgerpatrol 15:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if he's "entitled" to use the term but it was notable at Graduation last year that the VC referred to him as "Dr Bryson" quite consistently. Silly it may be (most certainly it's extremely silly if they call him "Dr.", that being American English not British English which does not apply the .), but it does appear to be the university's practice. --JennyRad 20:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

As ever, it is not Wikipedia's place to judge whether someone is "entitled" to a title - the Naming Conflict page says 'Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage'. The only question is whether the term is the commonly-used one. However, given that the University seems to call its Chancellor simply 'Bill Bryson' at least as often as it calls him 'Dr Bryson' (e.g. [3]) I'm not sure whether there is an issue at all. TSP 13:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand TSP- the point is not a subjective appraisal of Bryson's personal merits, it is whether any honarary doctor is entitled to be addressed as 'Dr.'. My strong understanding is that they are not, although having glanced around Wiki in the last couple of days it seems there is some ambiguity. It is not a question of 'moral rights', it's a question of legal rights. All I can personally say is that I have never heard of an individual being awarded an HDoc and subsequently styling themselves 'Dr.', unless they also possessed an earned academic degree. On the other hand, if the university address him as such then that's good enough for me- it's certainly not an issue about which I have a strong opinion. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 15:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

To quote more fully from the Naming Conflict page:

"Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include:

• Does the subject have a moral right to use the name?
• Does the subject have a legal right to use the name?
• Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights?
• Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?"

As I say, Wikipedia's policies do not require us to decide on this issue; common use is to be our only guide.

For what it's worth, it's my understanding that holders of an "honorary degree" have every right to use the title. An honorary degree isn't like an honorary peerage (something which is not a true peerage, but something a bit like it awarded purely nominally to someone not entitled to a peerage). An "honorary degree" is perhaps less confusingly referred to as a "degree awarded honoris causa" - that is, a degree awarded as an honour. There is no difference in the degree; only in the way it is awarded.

In many ways, the awarding of a doctorate honoris causa is more similar to the historic way in which doctorates have been earned than is the modern study route. Before the introduction of the PhD in the 19th century, doctorates were usually awarded (generally by the university the person originally graduated from) based on their achievements in the world - generally publications and the like - rather than on any work done specifically for the degree. In some ways, the practice of awarding a degree based on someone's general achievements is closer to this than the modern practice of requiring a purely academic thesis to be written specifically for the purpose of gaining a doctorate. (While it's true that it is hard to view achievements like winning a Rugby world cup as equivalent academic acheivement to the academic study of a doctorate, for the usual crop of poets and authors it seems entirely appropriate.)

It is true, though, that most holders of degrees awarded honoris causa choose not to use the title; and, as this seems to usually be the case with Mr Bryson as well, it may be best to follow it. I wouldn't see any problem with him doing so if he wanted to, however. TSP 16:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I can't find any clear-cut evidence, but from what I can see, you are correct (at least for the UK)- HonDocs are entitled to use the honorific prefix if they wish to. In practice however, I can't think of an example of this ever happening (the sole excpetion being 'Dr.' Ian Paisley, who has I believe taken some stick in the media in the past). I certainly think it would be considered most improper for an honarary graduate to use the title, but disapproval is of course not the same as disentitlement. As you say, it's a moot point anyway in this case, because nobody (except perhaps the university, in an administrative context) refers to BB as 'Dr. Bryson'. Abstract arguments are always the best ones anyway! Cheers, Badgerpatrol 16:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The Reverend Doctor Ian Paisley is a bit of a special case; given that both his ordination and his degree come from people whose right to grant that title are disputed. His degree is indeed an honorary one; but I'd think that the more serious issue is that it comes from Bob Jones University, which is not accredited by any country or body to grant degrees. As far as honorary degrees from reputable universities go, the way I'd see it is that a university accredited to give people degrees, has decided that this person is worthy of a degree; therefore, I'd view them as having a valid degree. That's purely a matter of opinion, though. As you say, abstract arguments are the best :-) TSP 17:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That certainly is a matter of opinion, given how and to whom such degrees are handed out! Anyone, not a discussion for this page! Cheers, Badgerpatrol 17:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Archived

Since the debate appears to be over, I've archived the discussion about Durham's 'ranking' in the UK's oldest universities, and also a couple of other older bits. I've left the logotype and title of chancellor as some talk is still being made about these Robdurbar 11:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Notable Alumni

There have been a lot of additions to this section recently; in the end, its a section that will only get longer, and its beginning to damage the article. There are a few possible remedies:

• Tighten our guidelines as to who is 'notable'; the dozens of obscure MPs, the company CEOs or religious figures could go, for example
• Farm people out to the relvant college pages, keeping maybe a few select ones here
• Nine other UK universties, plus Balliol College Oxford, have a 'List of x University People' (List of University of Bristol people, List of University of Oxford people). We could create one of these for Durham university, and place the alumni in this page. It would also take other info such as the past chancellors and any current notable academics associated with the uni

I favour this latter option; I will create a List of Durham University people page if others think its a good idea?Robdurbar 15:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The 'List' seems a good idea to me. I don't think there's anyone on the list who's not notable enough to justify having their own Wikipedia entry, so trimming the entry probably wouldn't be a good solution, and the relevant colleges aren't always known. Robminchin 18:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

16th College

The new college is officially to be known as "Butler College". Just thourght I'd let you know as we recieved an e-mail telling us.

The e-mail "Located on the Howlands Farm site, next to Ustinov College, Butler College is being purpose-built to provide a level of facilities consistent with the University’s efforts to maintain its status as a world-class university.

Butler College will be the only self-catering undergraduate college on the Durham campus. For those students who enjoy college life but who find the requirement to take college meals restricting, the College offers the best of both worlds: the benefits of living-in with the flexibility of living-out. In terms of facilities Butler College offers:

• Spacious new en-suite rooms • Fully-equipped self-catering facilities • Purpose-built bar and JCR • State-of-the-art IT facilities • Gym"

AlexD 11:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Though I agree with this, its also true that this has only been annouced through various internal emails that some departments/colleges have sent; its not been officially announced by the university to the public. Does this count as a verifiable source, if its not accesible by the general public and has not been officaly announced by the university? I think if we were toeing policy line I would say not. Robdurbar 11:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, on the basis of the following text from Wikipedia:No original research, I'm gonna apologise and reinstate the new name:

"Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources."

Im gonna presume that the e-mail is a 'primary source' of information Robdurbar 11:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

You missed a bit. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on verifiable sources. A private email isn't really a trusted source, and there doesn't seem to have been a university-wide mail... could you at least cite when this email was sent and by whom? TSP 15:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The name Butler may refer to Joseph Butler, who was once Bishop of Durham.

This speculation has managed to mutate into certainty on the Butler College page. Again, does anyone have a source for this? I'd actually have thought that Josephine Butler would be more likely. TSP 22:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• The university has finally announced it... [4] - but for some reason it isn't actually easy to find on their site. Josephine, incidentally, was a relative of Charles Grey, of that college... Shimgray | talk | 14:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Aha! It's actually Josephine Butler College - "...will admit the first men and women students to Josephine Butler College in 2006"; "Josephine Butler College is a new and exciting venture for Durham University..."; "Josephine Butler is self-catering..." Shimgray | talk | 15:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Bailey/Peninsula

Anyone who has an interest in contributing to Durham related articles may like to look at the discussion going on at Talk:The Bailey Robdurbar 10:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ustinov College

Surely this is a Hill college now.

There are contradictory statements on this page and the college's page:

This page: Ustinov College (1965) [snip] it also has a site at Parson's Field site at the end of Old Elvet, so is neither a Bailey College nor truly a Hill College.

Ustinov College page: The college used to have accommodation at the Parson's Field site at the end of Old Elvet, however this site was handed over to St Cuthbert's Society at the start of the 2005-2006 academic year.

I understood that Ustinov were actually moving students at the start of 2006-07? Also, don't they own a building near Claypath? Robdurbar 20:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Parsons Field is currently a building site, and I believe contains no students of any college. Ustinov's offices and main accommodation are indeed now on the hill. Ustinov also own buildings across Durham, but so do several colleges - Cuth's has for a long time had buildings as far away as Gilesgate, yet has still managed to be classed as a Bailey College. I think Ustinov is probably a Hill College now. TSP 03:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Obs House even further from Cuth's than Gilesgate? At any event, for a long time I've just thought of Ustinov as "other", along with the QC colleges and Hild-Bede. But I'm sure that with time it will be considered a Hill college, in spite of the accommodation up near Dryburn (I'm sorry, University Hospital). And the fact that it's so far up the hill it's not even on a hill any more! --JennyRad 11:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not that far from Mildert or Trevelyan. Despite the car park. MrTrev 15:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm that Cuths has possession of Parsons Field now, as I'm living there! They've had it since the 06/07 academic year. This includes Parsons Field Court, Fonteyn Court and Refounders House (formally Fisher House when Ustinov had it). There is building work going on for the new 'Brooks House' site, however students are still living in the other nearby buildings during the construction. I believe that Cuths does not own as many other properties now as it once did, mainly due to the handover of PF. From 2006 they can offer accomodation the vast, vast majority of 1st year students.

Stockton Campus

What would the status be of an individual who was enrolled at the Stockton site over the changeover period during which it was wholly absorbed by Durham, up to the present day? I understand that entrance requirements are (and were) different between what one might call the university 'proper' (the old bit) and the Stockton campus (the new bit). Is there (or has there ever been) any distinction made between the two groups in terms of degree certificates, graduation ceremonies etc? Specifically, would graduates attending the Stockton site be entitled to claim a University of Durham degree (without qualification) and append 'Dunelm' to their academic title, and if so, what cohort would this apply to? Badgerpatrol 03:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This Link might be of some help: http://www.durham21.co.uk/archive/archive.asp?ID=283. AlexD 17:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that- so it seems to imply to me that there is absolutely no difference between a Stockton degree certificate and a Durham one? Is that the case? Badgerpatrol 19:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Since 1996, yes - Queen's Campus, Stockton is very simply a campus of the University of Durham, issuing the same degrees (now at the same graduation ceremonies) as what Stocktonites call 'City Campus' in Durham. Some courses are taught between the two campuses, though it's quite a long bus ride. I'm not sure about entrance requirements - obviously different courses are taught at the two campuses. The pre-med course is taught at Stockton, which I'd expect to have higher requirements than a lot of Durham courses. I think it is still true, though, that entry requirements are on average lower at Stockton. TSP 20:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of rankings

Several authors have found the article to be highly supervised, with any poor rankings that the university recieves mentioned on here being removed in a matter of hours. We ask that this information be left, as there is no falsity in it. Indeed, it is more of a falsity to remove it.

I removed both the positive and negative rankings; my summary said that the uni had been ranked anywhere between 3rd and about 30th in the UK; 7th in the English speaking world by one survey and only 24th in the UK by the Guardian. Rather than go into the various rankings and listing them all, why dont we give the qualitites that they usually praise Durham for - research, 'learning environemnt', student happines and low drop out rates - and those that they criticise - lack of ethnic diversity, lack of nobel prize (and equivalent in other subjects) winners, low entry level for some courses and occaisionally poor infrastructure - rahter than listing over 20 different polls?? Robdurbar 21:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hallo Rob- It was me that reverted your (fairly severe) edit- thanks for not re-reverting. Can you explain exactly what you object to regarding the passage as it currently stands? Although it isn't perfect, it seems to posit a fairly balanced case with positive and negative reviews, and offers specifically verified information regarding the various polls. Unless there are space constraints, I'm not sure why this has to be shortened; certainly the University's current league table status is encyclopaedic and possibly more likely to be referred to by interested parties than the other parts of the article. Whilst I don't mean to be overly critical, your alternative edit contained quite a few typos, was a bit misleading in parts (e.g. seeming to contrast the GUG 'Uni of the Year' (which has very little to do with league table position) with the Guardian's ranking). Anyway, I don't personally object to trimming a bit off of that section, although, unless the article is getting too big (not pressing right now; the article is ~29 kb) it may be that extreme cuts aren't necessary. It would seem to me that maintaining the status quo (where the variety of rankings are briefly discussed and mentioned explicitly by name) is OK. Thanks again for discussing before reverting, Badgerpatrol 23:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that it wasn't the best written coontrbituion ever, I think I did it late at night. My problems with the current version is:

• 1. I don't think what amounts to little more than a list of opinions is a very stylish or informative way of writing the article. As I state above, it would work better mentioning Durham's lowest and highest rankings, any in which it has come top and then, rather than listing who says its 6th, who says its 17th, who says in 10th or whatever, lisiting the qualitites that they agree on and the criticisms that they agree on too - it tells you more about the university.

• 2. I think the current version is written in a (very slight) anti-Durham bias. The version prior to that had probably been highly biased towards Durham, but I do feel the pendulum has swung slightly in the other direction.

I think that this would create a more informative and better-reading article. Robdurbar 07:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree that the section has any detectable anti-Durham bias to be honest- can you give specific examples? It gives a fair assessment; not all rankings lists are favourable to Durham, although most broadly are. I think this is reflected in the passage. If anything, this section is rare amongst university profiles on Wikipedia in that, to my reading at least, it actually manages to circumvent POV. It could be tweaked a bit, but I personally don't see why a major revision is needed, sicne there are no pressing space constraints. The passage reads OK to me at the moment (although it could be tweaked a little in this regard), and contains a good amount of verified, pertinent info. It would be good however to get the input of other interested parties. (This is the diff in question.) Badgerpatrol 14:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right about the bias. However, I think its more the point that it should be about the uni, not a list of opinions - the wide range in rankings should indicate how pointless they all are, good or bad. Robdurbar 22:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not so sure that the range is that great, and I certainly don't agree that the tables are useless. By my reading, taking the extreme metrics for the multi-variable league tables, Durham is ranked in the range between (roughly) the 75th and 90th percentile. That's not a huge margin- I would suggest that in fact it's pretty consistent, all things considered. Other tables based on single metrics (e.g science citations) may be abberrant, obviously- every institution has strengths and weaknesses. Some of the methods (perhaps most especially the Shanghai study) have some limitations, which I think are discussed, and rightly so. All in all, the passage seems to be a verified, NPOV assessment of an important topic, but I'll go along with whatever the consensus is here. Badgerpatrol 23:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just thought I'd add to this debate of how to define Durham's confusing academic standing. A came across a quite neat definition in this article [5] where an independent trust says Durham is one of 13 unis to have the highest average ranking in newspaper league tables. Its about 3/4s of the way down. Perhaps an easier way to demonstrate Durham's long standing reputation, yet debatable recent league table appearances?

Merge from Durham University Athletics and Cross-Country

Article on Durham University Athletics and Cross-Country appears to be non-notable on its own and fails the Google test. Rather than putting up for AfD, which I think would result in its deletion, I propose it be merged with Durham University.--mtz206 11:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• yep, support barely need more than a setence added to this page, though. --Robdurbar 11:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 12:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Robdurbar DWaterson 16:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Might it be better to add it to the DSU page where a section could be given to Team Durham or the DUAU as well? AlexD 20:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Good point, the DUAU is the sports equivalent of the DSU - support AlexD instead! --Robdurbar 09:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Didn't even realise there was a page on the DSU. Bah! AlexD's suggestion seems better, so support that instead. cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 10:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Should really be merged to Durham University Athletic Union - which will need writing first. DUAU isn't part of DSU, so it shouldn't be on the DSU page. TSP 11:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be a unanimous opinion that the article isn't notable enough to stand on its own, However Tim is right that the DSU article isn't the right place to put it as they're two entirely separate organisations. So I'm going to go ahead and move it to Durham University Athletic Union, where I'll add some content actually about DUAU itself. --Nick Boalch 11:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I was just doing the same thing! I've written what I think is a tolerable stub on DUAU; hopefully it will be expandable into something worthwhile. TSP 11:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I managed to overwrite your stub with my copyedit of the article! I've merged in the material yours had that mine didn't. --Nick Boalch 11:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Re-work of the Article

I was just reading through the article and other university articles and I noticed that the sections here are rather large, making it hard to read sometimes. So just thourght the folloing might make the article a bit better.

• The history sections is an example of a section being too big. Where the 'Durham Today' part could be a section by itself split into ratings (containing all the present info plus sutton trust, university metrics rankings etc) and a future development part where the masterplan and strategic plan are summarised [making the layout similar to most other university pages and easier to read](http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/estates/masterplan/)
• Change in the layout of the college section, prehaps similar to that of oxford and cambridge's college section, with college colours instead of scarf? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colleges_of_the_University_of_Cambridge)
• Campus section - explaining the various locations and properties of the university. (incl. bailey, elvet hill, botanic gardens and museums, grade listed buildings etc)
• List of academic departments and degrees that the university awards.

Just wanted to gather your views on the matter, as it's pointless changing things if people are content with the article as it is. AlexD 20:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Added the new college layout (hope TSP doesn't mind that i've borrowed his scarfs) and a new section on the faculties. AlexD 15:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Scarves

Hi all,

I'm trying to get together the specifications of all the college scarves. If you have a Durham college scarf, I'd appreciate it if you'd go over to User:TSP/Scarves and either

• Work out the markup and add your own, or if you find the wikitable/template markup a bit daunting (I did)
• Add a comment to the bottom with details of your scarf.

For each scarf, need a list of the stripes in order, with:

• Colour of each stripe - an HTML hex triad would be nice, if it's not something obvious like 'black'
• Ratio of widths - this is important, though exact precision isn't needed.

So for St Cuthbert's Society you might say "2:1:3:1:2; dark green (#1A3024), white, dark green, white, dark green" |}

Or if you'd rather do the markup yourself, that would be: {{scarf start}} {{cells|2|#1A3024}}{{cell|white}}{{cells|3|#1A3024}}{{cell|white}}{{cells|2|#1A3024}} |}

I'll try to get hold of a catalogue or similar to get the whole lot from - or if anyone's got one, that would be cool - but until and unless a full source can be found, your input would be greatly appreciated. TSP 00:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Grey's of Neville Street, Durham tend to supply college scarves so they could tell you.

I'll try and remember to look up my Grey scarf, but it's definitely charcoal grey rather than black.

I have just added the Trevs scarf. The colour is still a little dubious (I am working from memory and my scarf is in a draw in Durham). Would it not be an idea to try and include the University scarf in some way? And to add to the above, Grey's should be able to give the exact measurements they send off to the manufacturers (in Cambridge). I have yet to work out where the designs of the scarves actually originate, however. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.45.10.225 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 20 September 2006.

Age of the university

The begining of the article indicates that Durham is the third oldest university in England. Whilst this is true, it was founded about 550 years after Cambridge, with Durham being the first in a spate of univerisites being established in the 19th century. It misleadingly suggests that it is almost as old as Oxford and Cambridge. Adding "over 500 years later" and/or including the Scottish univiversities (making Durham 7th in the UK) is much more helpful as the timespans are closer together - there is not the yawning gap that exists between Oxbridge and Durham. After adding these they were removed in about 30 mins. Again (as a writer noted above), I see no reason why they should be removed. It seems that the purpose is to mislead in order to promote Durham as somehow close to Oxbridge, when the facts clearly speak for themselves. Let the facts speak, and don't mislead, please. Can others agree that the matter over "third oldest" can be cleared up in the way I suggested? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.63.69 (talk • contribs)

Hmm, I'm not sure why anyone who reads this should presume that the third oldest needs to be anywhere near the second oldest. In the end, its age is made clear in the second line, giving the date of 1832 as its founding. Wouldn't add the Scottish unis - they are part of a different education system, and it adds confusion. Rather than adding things in brackets etc., how about:

' It was founded as the University of Durham (which remains its official and legal name) by Act of Parliament in 1832 and granted a Royal Charter in 1837. It was the first new university to open in England for over 500 years, and is England's third oldest after Oxford and Cambridge.' --Robdurbar 08:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This sounds better. [first poster]

Is it just me or has the first poster just not read the date of the Royal Charter?? This clearly removes any illusion that Durham was founded soon after Cambridge or Oxford. AlexD 16:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Nige 20:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I know this debate has been settled, but citing the date of the Royal Charter does not remove the illusion that Durham was founded soon after Cambridge or Oxford, as this assumes people know when Oxford and Cambridge were founded. Logica 03:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Third oldest university debate article

I have now created Third oldest university in England debate to try to explain all the debate about whether it's Durham, KCL, UofL or UCL. This was mainly because attempts to explain it on the individual articles were getting out of sync (e.g. both the Durham and King's articles were asserting the claim as fact in the main article, whilst a footnote on King's mentioned the point of the Charter and was added to by an anonymous user asserting that the London School of Economics proves an institution doesn't need a charter to be a good university!). I think it would work best if the detail and explanation for this is kept on one page. Please come and help enhance the article. Timrollpickering 16:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Having read the archived talk on the third oldest debate, there is no reason to assert the claim that Durham is the third oldest in the matter of fact way that this article does. Even if there is a qualification afterwards, the statement before is still nonetheless matter of fact. It is the subject of much dispute. For example, both Durham and UCL's official websites claim to be third oldest in England. I have thus reworded this as "claimed". Note the UCL article does not claim this statement as matter of fact like this article does. Logica 14:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This has come up again, with one user repeatedly stating Durham's primacy as matter of fact. The Wiki article makes clear that this is a disputed statement, and there are plenty of examples online of prior claims by University College London and the University of London (based on Royal Charter or date of foundation). The Times Higher Education reports both claims, for example. I am guessing that the user here studied at Durham. I have no personal connection to either university, and family connections to both. NPOV requires that both claims are mentioned. ThomasL (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This statement has been changed by several users and it was correctly suggested that it should be a reference to the independent source. I found the most recent source (Sunday Times University Guide 2011) which clearly specifies that Durham is "the 3rd university behind Oxbridge". There is no mentioning of such info in respect to other universities (at least in this guide). Furthermore, Durham's website does say anything "the 3rd oldest university" so there is incorrectly to say that Durham "claims" it. I believe that "claim" and "debate" should be removed until we find a proper independent reference (preferably recent) which clearly says that another university is the 3rd or there is a discussion in this area.188.223.80.243 (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you not notice the reference I added from the Independent newspaper, which is exactly the same sort of source? [6] Date: 12 August 2010. And Times Higher Education has reported the dispute, and claims by Durham and London several times. ThomasL (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

And from a print source. "Nowhere did people hold fast to traditions more determinedly than in GREAT BRITAIN. The university scene in 1800 reveals a single university in Ireland (Trinity College, Dublin), four in Scotland (Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow, St Andrews), two in England (Oxford and Cambridge), and none in Wales. The University of London followed in 1828-36. Without there being any particular national plan these were joined by a few provincial foundations: Durham (1832) [and a list of other universities]". That's from "A History of the University in Europe: Volume Three" Cambridge University Press 2004. ThomasL (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I support the view of 188.223.80.243. There is no reason for discussion. This topic was raised already 5 years ago (see above) and people agreed that Durham is 3rd Uni. Even if you look at the article which debates the age, it shows that King's College and UCL claimed themselves 3rd and 4th old on their web pages. There is no information on Durham's website that it claims to be the 3rd.

Now look at 3 stories:

Story of UCL: "University College London (UCL) was established in 1826 as "London University", but was unsuccessful in obtaining a Royal Charter ... Until 1836 the institution had no legal recognition as an educational institution and was unable to confer degrees. In 1836 it was awarded a Royal Charter"

Story of KCL: "King's College London was established in 1829 ... however, the term "university" does not appear in the charter, it started teaching professional qualifications or (from 1834) for the Associate of King's College; the college did not award degrees of its own. Following the establishment of the University of London in 1836, King's became a college of the university."

Story of Durham: "The University of Durham was established by Act of Parliament in 1832 specifically with the title 'University' and started teaching professional degrees the same year"

From the above it's clear that both UCL and KCL were some kind of educational institutions (partly unrecognised) which had nothing to do with university. They became so since 1836 (4 years after Durham was awarded this status). If we're talking about universities - it's Durham, if we're talking about other unrecognised educational institutions - probably they are first colleges of University of London. I suggest stopping this discussion, esp. because major guides already accepted that Durham is 3rd 87.194.84.46 (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Acutally Durham makes that claim at [7]. What reasons do you have for preferring the Sunday Times guide to the Independent (which cites both Durham's and UCL's claims), and either of those to an authoritative history of Universities in Europe? Wikipedia is supposed to be based on fair reporting of sources. As for the conclusion of the debate last time, only two people posted and they both agreed that there was a dispute. ThomasL (talk) 09:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It was a very good version saying that 'Durham is one of the oldest universities in Britain' or smth like that. I think it sounds fine without any claim to be no 3. I have no idea why people started changing again. Please someone find this phrase and put it again. Alexbouditsky (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Why does "Oxford and Cambridge" come up so many times?

"Oxford" and "Cambridge" come up 9 times each in this article. Compare with the articles on these other universities:

• University of London: 0 (see colleges below, also)
• Imperial: 0
• Sheffield: 0
• York: 0
• King's College, London: 1
• Edinburgh: 2
• Manchester: 2
• Bristol: 3
• LSE: 4 (When excluding the section of "Economic contribution and history: LSE vs. Cambridge")
• UCL: 4
• Durham: 9

Whilst Durham has a collegiate structure in common, and claims to be the third oldest university in England, surely it does not warrant so many references. Oxford cites Cambridge only 13 times (although "Oxbridge" is mentioned 5 times, also). Other institutions that share things in common with Oxford and Cambridge don't have so many references as Durham. We don't want it to suggest that there is some greater commonality between Durham and Oxbridge than elsewhere. The article on Cambridge, incidently, doesn't mention Durham at all, whilst Oxford mentions Durham once. For all of the other establishments mentioned above, the relationship of references between the estbalishment's article and Cambridge's/Oxford's article is more equal. Logica 03:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That strikes me as a slighlty bizzare way to conduct the survey. The important thing is how the references are being used:

• • The vast majority of those mentions are in the rankings section, providing a marker as the distance of Durham from Oxbridge. There are five mentions in this bit, and I think they could be removed (I think its a very poor section anyway).
  • Two are in relation to sport: the Doxbridge Tournament, which is fair enough, and the status as a first class cricketing centre (which also mentions Loughbrough). I don't think there's anything wrong with that
  • In the intro, as a referent for the third oldest claim. I mean that could be reworded but I don't see any need to
  • And the rest are in relation to the collegiate system. In that, I think Durham shares a number of similarities with Oxbridge. Furthermoe, I think the easisest way to explain the collegiate system is through comparison to the well known and understood system in Oxbridge.

To be frank, I don't see why an article by Cambridge or Oxford university would mention Durham (in the same way that I would imagine an aritcle on, say, Geoff Hoon would mention Tony Blair more than the TB article mentions GH. --Robdurbar 10:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There were a few odd references to Oxbridge before (maybe reflecting a little bit of wishful thinking on someone's part) but the superfluous ones have now been removed. I'm not sure that Durham's collegiate system really shares that many similarities with Oxbridge, but I suppose there is a superficial resemblance, and it is proper that this is mentioned. Badgerpatrol 11:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry this struck you as rather odd. It is obvious that the way the words are used in the articles are important, but other articles such as UCL's which arguable require just as many, if not more, references than Durham, have in reality half as many references. UCL could use references for:

• claim to third oldest
• historical secular alternative to Oxbridge
• comparing academic reputation (which is higher than Durham's so more likely to use Oxbridge as a reference)
• member of the Golden Triangle
• member of Russel group

...and the UCL article only uses 4 references. I agree that the main offender is the academic reputation section. Imperial and York, which have achieved higher rankings than Durham, feel no need to mention Oxford or Cambridge at all. I don't see why highlighting this was odd. Logica 14:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I've removed the references from the academic bit, I agree it was superfelous. As for noting why it was 'odd'; I meant more a bit that it was a little superficial, because it wasn't looking at what the references were doing in the article, which is the important aspect. I think the other referneces are justified; as for it not being in the UCL article - well that's a question for the editors there. I mean certainly, for your top 20 or so universities in the UK that lie beneath Oxbridge (I don't really think there's a hierarchy within them, unless you're only looking at certain aspects), referring to Oxford/Cambridge provides a referent for non-UK viewers. But gain, that's for the editors there. --Robdurbar 15:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I did consider the context in which they were used - I just didn't write them all down. This is obvious. The point was that the arguments for references are just as numerous in other articles as this. I wasn't going to write out all of the possible contexts for each university. I'm glad we could sort this out. Logica 15:21, 19 November 2006 (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 21:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

College of St Hild and St Bede scarves

I was messaged offline by someone who I think was poor anonymous User:86.17.51.143, who seems to have tried three times to add Hild Bede's second scarf, and was reverted - not utterly surprisingly, as it wasn't entirely clear what he was doing. Just to make it clear, Hild Bede DOES have two scarves, of equal status: it kept both the Hild scarf (worn by women) and the Bede scarf (worn by men) when the two merged. The green and purple scarf is indeed the Hild scarf, not the Mary's scarf (which is almost identical to the university scarf, but a slightly different purple). TSP 03:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

List of colleges

The template listing all the colleges has messed up a bit, it had all the noinclude text and the semi-protected tag displayed. As its substed I don't know what the template name is to fix it - any help? I've temporarily replaced it with a generic list. --Robdurbar 18:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Current Articles for Deletion

Durham Student Theatre, Palatinate, Purple Radio, Durham21, and Durham University Athletic Union have been nominated for deletion on the grounds of non-notability. I'm listing it here to notify users who may have specialist interest in the subjects. Cheers, DWaterson 01:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The article Durham University Dancesport Team has been sugested for a merge with the Durham Student life section of the main article. However I believe that it justifies its position as having a seperate article for a number of reasons. The first is due to the sucess of the society and in it being recognised as one of the most sucessful team of its kind I believe that must signify some notoriety. The second is a more practical reason is that the number of references it will contain in the future (in in particular links to results) would make a merge less sucessful. A final reason is that there is too much detail to be part of another article. However I open up the debate and ask what do other people think? (OB07 (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

Masturbation in the showers

Is it true that wanking in the showers is banned because it clogs the drains of Durham University dorms? I read somewhere that it was a hoax, but I am not sure if it is or not. my IP is obviously Rutgers U., across the bonny sea, and I have no real way of knowing. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a hoax. Someone faked up this letter and took a photo and put it on the Internet, but no, it was not a genuine letter from the Director of Estates and Buildings. Cheers, DWaterson (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Guardian 2008" :
  • {{cite web |url=http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Education/documents/2008/05/08/rankingsrevised.xls |title=University ranking by institution |work=[[The Guardian]]}}
  • {{cite web |url=http://browse.guardian.co.uk/education?SearchBySubject=&FirstRow=&SortOrderDirection=&SortOrderColumn=&Subject=University+ranking&Institution=Durham |title=University ranking by institution |work=[[The Guardian]]}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 06:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

'... leading alternative to Oxford and Cambridge'

I've reverted a recent edit which describes the university as such, in an article quotation. Though the claim is referenced, I don't think such a statement is appropriate for the opening paragraph. The constant comparison to Oxbridge does Durham University no service - I doubt the Cambridge University article would begin with describing Cambridge as the leading alternative to Oxford. 91.105.85.248 (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge of The Centre for Iranian Studies at the University of Durham

• Propose that the above article be merged here. It does not seem to be a significant enough centre for its own article. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Agree, Markiewp (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Admissions, makes no sense

The average UCAS point score for each student was 453.4 points (2007/08) which places Durham University 5th in the country (after Cambridge, Oxford, London School of Economics, Imperial College and Warwick) in terms of entry requirements.

• That statement doesn't make sense, there are five in that list, which would make Durham 6th, so is it meant to be 6th or is one of those incorrect, if any, i would guess Warwick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.50.159 (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oxbridge Envy?

Am I the only one to think this article smacks of Oxbridge envy? The words "Oxford" and "Cambridge" often appear more times in this article than do articles on Oxbridge Colleges. I don't want to start removing things as I don't want to get into drawn-out war. 88.107.68.13 (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Excessive Boosterism

Relating to the comment just above, there is quite a bit of boosterism going on in this article which needs to be removed. Any takers? --82.31.164.172 (talk) 10:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed all unnecessary mentioning of Oxford and Cambridge in the article. Now it's mentioned 4 times: 1) in the lead as a part of citation from the Times University Guide (cannot remove because it's written in the Times); 2) history of university; 3) description of colleges and their difference from Oxbridge, Wales and London bodies; 4) Doxbridge tournament (annual sports competition between Oxford, Cambridge and Durham). I think it's reasonable now and further removals could decrease the quality of the article. 188.223.81.158 (talk) 10:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Department of Earth Sciences

How can one find the Department of Earth Sciences, Durham Univ. on Wikipedia. It is notable enough: Arthur Holmes, John Frederick Dewey, Gillian Foulger... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

"type: Public"

At Talk:University of Oxford we are discussing whether the American notions of "public university" and "private university" should be brought into articles on British universities. As no one seems to have a clear idea of what makes a British university "public", I do not think it is helpful at all. I have tagged the expression in this article to invite a discussion here. Moonraker2 (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

With recent British legislation placing the responsibility for most funding of undergraduate tuition in the hands of students, rather than the government, there is perhaps a debate to be had on the definitions of 'public' and 'private' and to what extent British universities are either.

Speaking for myself I'd still have no hesitation in classing UK universities (save for Buckingham) as public. Firstly because of the level of public money going to universities from the government research councils, second because the government exercises a great degree of legislative control over universities and also because even under the new regime some degrees, particularly natural sciences, will continue to receive significant government funding, as will master's degrees. I also know that the government (specifically HEFCE) will continue to pay 'college fees' for the universities which require these. One could perhaps also mention the large system of loans and grants operated for these universities for the government which I would think is considerably smaller that the system in the US, where my understanding is that universities themselves take a much larger role in grants and bursaries as they tend to have much larger endowments.

I'm sure someone with more knowledge of university-government links could provide even more evidence for their 'public' status; my knowledge certainly isn't extensive.Tklink (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

These are obviously public universities: they are established by acts of parliament, managed by the privy council. Funding is overwhelmingly by the the state (capital costs, land, student finance, research funding.) --77.170.198.164 (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Difference between Logo and Coat of arms

I've reverted the change User:Processofseperation has made relating to the Coat of Arms in the infobox. As above, there is a difference between the coat of arms of the University, and the logo of the University which is based on the coat of arms.

As a comparison, look at University of Bristol; that has the coat of arms at the top and the logo (that happens to be based on the coat of arms) at the bottom of the infobox.

The section Recent developments makes the difference clear - Durham University has a logo introduced in 2005, but the official coat of arms is unchanged. Look at the discussion above (Name and Logo) from 2005 to see more discussion and sources on the between the difference between the logo and coat of arms at the time they were introduced.

As such, I've reverted back to using the coat of arms at the top and the logo at the bottom, as is common with British university infoboxes.--23230 ^talk 11:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ethical reputation

This section has been added both due to its relevance to the overall profile of the University (which the article sets out to provide), and as a partial remedy to the many accusations of excessive 'boosterism' above. It has been carefully researched and is factually correct, so one anonymous deletion has already been undone. If anyone else wishes to discuss it or suggest improvements, please do so here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypocaustic (talk • contribs) 14:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I completely do not understand why we need to create such a negative "ethical reputation" based just on one case. As an example, LSE had much worse problems with donations from Libya, however, it does not have a separate ethical section on its wikipedia page. I would suggest putting a more balanced and shorter version in the history and recent developments section.Alexbouditsky (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the one case creates a totally negative reputation either, Alex - but it does, as the contribution stated, call the university's ethical reputation into question. It was included in order to make the article more comprehensively encyclopaedic - which is Wikipedia's purpose, after all; this is not a promotional or marketing site. I'm satisfied that the contribution is as 'balanced' as it reasonably can be. Your point that other universities have had similar issues is a fair one: feel free to add those sections to those websites if you have time and the relevant sources to hand. I concur with your suggestion to move this to the 'recent developments' section though - as a single case it does indeed perhaps not require a heading of its own.Hypocaustic (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Now it looks much better placed, thanks Alexbouditsky (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)