Talk:Uppsala University

Brochure

This article reads like an advertisement brochure for the university. It might be helpful to also highlight the negative aspects of Uppsala University. How can these be best placed in the article? I'm thinking of:

- The university's past collaboration with the Swedish Institute of Race Biology

- The fact that recent independent studies have demonstrated systematic rigging of job advertisements at the university.

- That the university produced a bogus Science paper a few years ago, and chastised the whistleblower who raised the issue.

RMK16 (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Article quality -- featured article prospects?

Does anyone know how extensive the article covers its topic? Are there important parts missing? Is there something on the To-Do list?

Fred-Chess 14:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

FA is still far away. The last two hundred years are still missing from the history. Uppland 14:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Wopp (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The budget is 4.4 million SEK (roughly 440 thousand €)? For 20 000 students?? Must be a joke. The link to the source is also broken.

Math Dept Resignation controversy

I removed this part of the University of Uppsala article for the following reasons:

• no encyclopaedic relevance (wikipedia is not a news site)
• no general relevance to the whole of the University of Uppsala (only two people at the mathematics department)

Moreover:

• the length of this section is inadequate in relation to the size of the whole article (too extensive)
• the actual cause of the dismissal is not mentioned and the side of the rector is not adequately represented (not neutral enough)

Regards, Axt (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the section dealing with the 2007 resignation controversy. The material is well sourced and, in my opinion, reasonably neutrally presented. This was and still is a significant national and international controversy affecting the university and there is no reason to gloss it over. If there are balance issues (e.g. representing the position of a particular side) and the overall length of the section, they can be addressed separately. But there is no reason to remove the entire section. I have restored it accordingly. Nsk92 (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood my intentions, unfortunately. The main reasons were that this "controversy" is of no encyclopaedic relevance and of hardly any relevance to a university that is more then 500 years old. The reasons you mentioned were merely other points that I criticised in addition to the aforementioned ones. You did look for references and it certainly is an "international controversy" to some degree, but in my view the topic is nevertheless a minor internal dispute and of no importance to the general public in an encyclopaedic article about the University of Uppsala or, for that matter, any other university. No offence. Regards, Axt (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I just don't buy the "not encyclopedic" argument. The controversy is relevant to the modern history of the university. It is covered by a substantial number of reliable sources, both Swedish and international (and given the amount of coverage and the fact that the university Rector is a key figure in the controversy means that it is hardly a minor internal dispute). This is exactly the sort of thing that does not deserve a separate article of its own but deserves to be mentioned in the Uppsala University article. Nsk92 (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion: Add one or two sentences to the "history" section with one or two references, that way we'll both be happy. Again, it is a minor internal staff conflict in only one department of very many. A reader of the article that is interested in it, can then follow the links in the references. It is not like there are massive changes in the university as a whole. In my opinion, this incident is way blown out of proportion. Axt (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I would not "be happy" with this. I think the section should be kept, although probably in a reduced form. I am not sympathetic to the "500 year old university" argument. It is inevitable and proper that modern developments are covered more heavily in articles like this one. This particular controversy affects much more than two professors and one department. It affects the university's standing and reputation, both national and international. As an academic myself, I can tell you that I find the circumstances of the case pretty extraordinary. Two tenured professors, both with personal chair appointments, both foreigners, are forced out by the university Rector not because of incompetence, criminal conviction, scientific fraud or sexual harassment (which is what typically can get a tenured professor fired) but because of what appears to have been a hiring dispute. Stuff like that simply does not happen at high level universities, in my experience, and I am hard pressed to remember a comparable case anywhere else. In academia this is a big deal and will be remembered for quite some time. There are also larger implications of this story to the international debate over academic freedom and the tenure system, where national standards in different countries are being internationalized and are becoming more uniform. The academic profession, including the academic job market, is quickly becoming internationalized and the European countries are now beginning to compete for foreign faculty much more heavily (whereas before mostly the U.S. did that). This controversy will have implications for the future of the acdemic market in Sweden in this regard. It is also clear that the story is not over yet and its reprecussions continue. Just last month Stockholm University hosted an international conference, and a part of its stated goal was "to express admiration for the work and mathematical interests of Oleg Viro who will be celebrating his 60th birthday this year. Oleg Viro has made invaluable contributions to Swedish research by complementing the country's long standing strong tradition of analysis with his own renowned expertise in topology and areas of geometry: subjects not previously widely studied in Sweden "[1]. Clearly, this was more than just a symbolic gesture.

As you can see from my talk page, I am on wikibreak for another 2 weeks, until July 1 and don't really have time to deal with this dispute now. But I will reiterate my position that the section should be kept, as a separate section, although probably in reduced form. If there are neutrality etc issues to be addressed (e.g. representing the side of the university administration more fully) I have no problem with doing that. Nsk92 (talk) 07:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, than we are going to have to officially agree to disagree ;-). I still think this is relevant for a newspaper website, but in no way for an encyclopaedia. I'm not even taking sides in the particular conflict, I just don't think it is worth being mentioned with more than one sentence. To put this incident in perspective again: it is an internal staff conflict of one department at one of tens of universities in one of around two hundred countries on earth. This minor conflict, although I see that it is important to some people like other mathematicians, does not influence the overall prestige of Uppsala and does not change the university in a notable way. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this isn't important, it's just not as important as you think it is, particular not in the context of an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not a news website, but aims to illustrate the major facts that concern the whole university over a considerable period of time and with a considerable future impact (in case of a university those are things like general history, departments, prestige, size, etc.). What you are writing about is like a single rice corn in a container load of rice, but you blow it out of proportion and you demand an extra container for that one rice corn instead of putting it where it belongs - with all the other rice corns in its appropriate size. I will therefore remove the section again and will be happy to discuss the move/reduction with you when you are back. Regards Axt (talk) 11:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but that is anacceptable to me. I have reverted your changes back. While I am on wikibreak, I will try to make time for this dispute, to the extent possible. Let me quickly address one point. It is true that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but nor is it a depository only of information that will last for 100 years. WP:NOT#NEWS is not applicable here since in this case there has been extended coverage of the controversy over a period of months, not days. I am happy to apply for mediation or some other form of dispute resolution, but I cannot accept simply removing the entire section of well sourced and reasonably neutrally presented material. Whatever the explanation for such a removal is, in effect it amounts to censoring out a fairly notable controversy related to the university. This is unacceptable. Nsk92 (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You have put a lot of effort into that section, and I understand that it is disappointing if someone questions the result of it. But please do not take this personally, in fact, the Uppsala University deserves many hard-working contributors who substantiate their additions with quotes and references. My point of criticism is not the way you wrote but rather how much you wrote about it, and that it gets an extra heading. I do not want to remove this conflict from the article, I just want it to be more appropriate in relation to the whole article. Also, both the position of the fired professors and the position of the rector should be neutrally mentioned, at the moment the whole text reads more like a partisan statement. It is ok to have an opinion, but it should be left to reader to decide his point of view, after he heard the arguments of both sides. If anyone wants to read all about it, he finds sufficient information in the newspapers you used as references, therefore I believe that one or two sentences in the article are sufficient information. Nevertheless, I agree to leave it where it is for now, until you have more time. See you then. Axt (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

PS: I didn't mean to "censor" or to remove the section forever --- it was just meant to be removed until we agreed on the future place and form of it. On the wikipage it says the following: our coverage (..) should be (..) in proportion to their importance to the overall topic That is exactly what I am trying to say. It is not in proportion to the overall topic. Axt (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That may be, but zero proportion is certainly worse than an overly large proportion of the entire article. As I said, I am open to reducing the length of the section but I do not like the idea of removing the entire section completely while the dispute is outstanding, especially since that section had been a part of the article for over 3 months. As I also said, I am open to some form of dispute resolution, such as mediation, but I am not open to removing the entire section in the meantime. Nsk92 (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand. Sorry if it seemed like I wanted to delete your text, I just wanted to remove it until the future form and length of it is agreed upon. See you soon! Axt (talk) 08:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Due to the media coverage, this definitely deserves to be in the article. I don't think the length is a concern, comparing it to the rest of the article. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It is the "media coverage" of a regional radio station and a local newspaper, you should not forget to mention that. As soon as it makes it to national and/or international media, I'm on your side. Until then, I still think the topic is disproportionately covered. Axt (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

First, let's not dismiss the local coverage completely. There was quite a large amount of it, much more than is cited in the article. I looked up Viro's website[2] and he lists links to quite a few more stories in the local media there.

But, speaking about national and international coverage, let's take a look:

1) There was an article in the national daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter that discussed this case:[3]. I think the title translates something like "Uppsala University should be disbanded", and it appears to be an opinion piece by a Swedish academic.

2) There was an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, called "Swedish University, Alleging Culture Clash, Forces Out 2 Tenured Foreign Professors" that covered this case in detail[4].

3) There was an article about the controversy in a newsletter of the European Mathematical Society, [5]

4) There was a special press-release of the European Mathematical Society: [6].

5) Concern about the case was raised in the April 2007 News Bulletin of the International Association of Mathematical Physics[7].

6) The case is included in the 2007 annual report by the Committee of Concerned Scientists, a well-established international human rights and academic freedom advocacy group[8].

There are lots of scandals and squabbles in academia, people are denied tenure, are forced out for sexual harassment, accused of plagiarism, etc. But very few of these academic scandals are covered even in the local media, and it is quite unusual for them to receive national and international coverage of the kind that happened here. It is also fairly unusual for professional societies (national or international), like the European Mathematical Society, to become publicly involved in academic scandals, as, again, was the case here. Nsk92 (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

We're going round in circles, in case you haven't noticed. I do not doubt that the incident was covered in local media at all. I think I have made my point clear several times now: I believe that it is an important issue, but that it is — in my view — disproportionately covered. The wikipedia article is about the university as a whole, and I think an internal disagreement is certainly worth mentioning in an encyclopaedia, but not in the way it is now. The University of Uppsala enjoys a rich history and great prestige world-wide, and this little incident won't change that. Nevertheless, I really do have more important things to do, and will let you do whatever you want to do with that section of the article. It's all yours from now on ;-). Cheers, Axt (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I would not exactly call it going round in circles: items 1)-6) in my comments above concern national and international coverage, as you requested. However, I have shortened this section of the article by a bit and will take another look at it later. Nsk92 (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

At the entrance of the Uppsala University main building is written "To think freely is great. To think right is greater". It is free to set the foundation of the University to either 1477 or 1593 (or maybe 1600). But what is right? If you choose 1477 it is not the oldest (Lund 1425), if you choose the latter we have to correct the foundation date. As all higher education ceased to exist in Scandinavia after the reformation, we have to decide if we can allow a university to be dormant and still set the foundation to the oldest date. 217.72.49.218 (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Mar 2011 version

I see that this has changed recently; it appears to be very closely related to external content (on Oleg Viro's homepage, [9]), so I'm not sure whether this is compatible with WP:COPY, and may need some formatting touch-ups, but maybe somebody more familiar with the wider relevant issues would be willing to take a look? I'm sure it wouldn't take too much to tidy it up, but given the in-depth discussion above, I'd like to volunteer somebody else :) -Philtweir (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not closely related as much as it is directly copied off of Oleg Viro's page, and should therefore not be used. Furthermore, it is not well written and doesn't explain why it is a scandal. I suggest it is removed emmediately for those reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.244.80.164 (talk) 10:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Latin

According to http://www.uu.se/Univ/blurb_swe.html, "Gratiae veritas naturae" means "The Truth of the Mercy and the Nature". It says different here. Any comments? --212.247.27.97 (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That link is now 404, but a currently working link, http://www.uu.se/node139 , translates the motto "sanning genom Guds nåd och naturen" which means "truth through God's mercy and nature". --bonadea contributions talk 14:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Housing Crisis

This section is written in a rather negative style WP:NPOV and probably too extensive. Perhaps it can be merged with "Student Life" describing students' accommodations? That it can be difficult for freshmen to find housing is not new (this was true also in 1992, I can dig up some UNT reference if needed), but neither is it unique to Uppsala. Also, the links to "housing" and "crisis" should be removed. MagnusPalmblad (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Athletics

Reading this section one would get the idea that students of Uppsala University abhor physical exercise, just because Swedish universities generally don't have collegiate sports teams. My impression is that the student body in Uppsala is very physically active, on average certainly more so than at any British or U.S. university I have visited or studied/worked at (and they are quite a few). There is no mentioning of activities such as football, floorball (innebandy) and other team sports in which a significant percentage of the students take part, including various tournaments. Overall, my impression when reading the entire article is that it is not NPOV. Does anybody else have any thoughts on this?

Merge proposal: Ekonomikum to Uppsala University

Ekonomikum isn't independently notable, but could be a useful section here. Boleyn (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Merged as no objection within eight months. Boleyn (talk) 07:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

especially shouldent women at the university be under ekonomikum (if it should be in the article at all) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.238.122 (talk) 12:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Good catch, 130.238.238.122. It looks like the section about Ekonomikum was added to the History section with a level 2 heading, which resulted in the History section being cut off prematurely. The "Women at the university" section is a subsection of "History". Ekonomikum would fit rather better as a sub-section of "Campus", so I'll move it there. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 12:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Gender mainstreaming at UU

Bonadea, a WP:COI editor who by the user page works at UU, warns me against adding relevant material to the article on my user page, I received the warning while I was correcting per Boadea's statement that gender mainstreaming began in 2017. Bonadea, seeing as you are COI editor on this page, it would be best if you deleted the warning and instead discussed on this page instead of engaging in threatening behavior. A Thousand Words (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This is the disputed edit, which is supported by sources but it is only factually wrong in that gender mainstreaming began in 2017 at UU, not 2020 which is wrote by mistake. The proper action is to correct mistakes per WP:FIXIT. A Thousand Words (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Bonadea you are invited to have the discussion here and to remove the warning from my talk page. A Thousand Words (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Stop pinging me. This was the second edit conflict I got here. It is not a COI problem to revert factual errors, and WP:FIXIT does not apply here since the entire statement was wildly out of proportion for the lede. As I wrote to you, I'm sure the university would love to be seen as a paragon of gender equality, but citing an entirely run-of-the-mill working plan, similar to that found at every single university in this country, is not lede material. I would also appreciate it if you did not misrepresent my comment to you. I did not say that "gender mainstreaming began in 2017", and I am very dubious about whether "gender mainstreaming" is even an applicable term here. Maybe it is, but I certainly have not made any such representation. I will not remove the warning but you are obviously free to do so yourself. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 14:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

To quote my own edit summary the first time I removed the incorrect claim: "Mention of gender mainstreaming efforts might belong in the article, but only if there's independent sources talking about it." --bonadea contributions talk 14:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)