Talk:Oxford Brookes University/Archive 1

Archive 1

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 23:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Jon Snow and Lord Patten are not particularly close friends, nor does this have anything to do with the relationship between the universities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.240.86 (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

POV

CA

Why is this article tagged regarding it's neutrality?

Updated to balance a certain anti-brookes flavour, however unintentional it may have been.

In its current state the first few paragraphs almost seems to read like copy written by Brookes., phrases such as "Efforts by Brookes to forge a distinct and recognisable identity are a work in progress" with no source, "testament to the hard work and dedication of its staff" starts to sound biased etc. etc. Probably needs toning down a little. -- Pishmishy 16:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Go ahead and make some changes. --ElKevbo 16:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Best new University? Stats? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.78.111 (talk • contribs) 20:39, February 12, 2007

Agreed. I trimmed the most blatant POV and unsourced academic boosterism and added several requests for citations. --ElKevbo 03:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The list of Brookes' awards and the respective awarding bodies can be found here - http://brookes.ac.uk/about/facts/awards - I believe it is one of the Times university guides that consistently labels it as the best new university. Joy.discovery.invention (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

• TIME FOR A REWRITE* any thoughts ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.83.65.85 (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

How about some history? Nothing apart from the first sentence.Bruern Crossing (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

That's good, can we combine specialist study with automotive engineering which is frankly too big.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.83.65.85 (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

INSERT Fairtrade status is important

The initial sections contain so much varied information that I decided to start to break information down into subsections. Also I edited the initial sentence - Brookes was not created from an amalgamation of Oxford Polytechnic and the Oxford School of Art, they are the same thing, but relate to the evolution of Brookes. i.e Oxford Polytechnic and the Oxford School of Art did not exist at the same time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.73.141.164 (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC) I also added the university colours and some other references —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.73.141.164 (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Tinkered with a couple of paragraphs in the main section for readability purposes.

-Gregor

Is headington really "pleasant" MikeyB! 20:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If it is not 'pleasant', then at least it is an expensive, calm and posh area. I live in Oxford (although not in headington...)--DragonFly31 14:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not calm, it's full of bloody pikeys. </pov> 3dom 00:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a distinct lack of mention of the gipsy lane campus, which is, as an educational facility, much larger than The headington campus which is generally a student union bassed campus.

-Jamie Gibbs (brookes student- representative of life sciences)ĴαΜЃЄ {αЌα Μαп Ѓп ŁΦчε}

the gypsy lane SITE and the headingington hill SITE are both part of the headington campus so any mention of gypsy lane would only be as a subdivision of the headington campus Nicoli nicolivich 18:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC) (brookes architecture student)

They are, however, both on different sides of the road and as such I would say that they are distinctly separate despite them being grouped together by brookes.Darryl L James 18:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"Not to be confused with..."

This does not belong in the lede. See WP:LEAD And, the manner in which the point is being made is not appropriate to the tone of an enyclopedia article.

That OxBrookes is not a part of Oxford University is clearly made in the very first section of the body of the article. If OxBrookes were one of those outfits like Warnborough that purposely misled people into believing that it was part of Oxford University, it might be one thing to place even greater emphasize the difference. But OxBrookes does not do that. Nobody is confused that about whether it is part of Oxford University, and if they are, the body of the article is more than sufficient to correct that confusion. Now, stop the silly edit war. Fladrif (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

An italic text at the top of the article is not part of the lead. It is there to guide visitors who might have arrived via a search engine or otherwise. See United States. When I visited this article for the first time I thought that this university might the the university in Oxford. It must be made clear it is not. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Your example is ill chosen, as it is a direction to a disambiguation page. In light of the changes that have been made to the article since you first made this insert, it is pefectly clear that OxBrookes is not Oxford University. Nevertheless, if you remain confused despite these changes, I have graciously decided to defer to your dogged, if misguided, persistence. Fladrif (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Bear with me, but what I am continually confused about is why Oxford University (students) continually think that Oxford Brookes (students) want to allign themselves with the U of O - I've come from a very prestigous university (Nobel winners, Russell Group etc) I chose to come to to OB because it offers a fantastic course in my area of study- Stop insulting my university with a rediculous tag which inherently says 'we are better than you' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.83.65.85 (talk) 10:06, 30 June 2009

Why does this page keep reverting back to being listed as a college and hall of the University of Oxford? Brookes is an entirely separate institution that merely resides in the same city as Oxford Uni — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.73.50.119 (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2011‎

Origin of name Oxford Brookes University

'It is named as it is because the founder of Oxford University had demanded that the centre must not have the words "Oxford" or "University" in its name.'

Whatever this sentence is trying to say, it's doing it badly and is unsupported by reference, so I have changed it. Romit3 (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The statement is absurd on its face. There may be competing claims to be the "founder of Oxford University", but all of the potential claimants have been dead 700 years, and none could have objected to the name of an institution created in the first instance more than half a millenium after their deaths. A number of the modern universities formed from former polytechnics were located in cities that had extant universities named after their location. In each case, the modern university adopted a name which still used the city name, but which had some other distinctive feature to avoid confusion with the older institution -, Birmingham City, Glagow Caledonian, Liverpool John Moores, London Metropolitan, Manchester Metropolitan, Nottingham Trent, Oxford Brookes, Sheffield Hallam, etc. 216.157.197.218 (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Intros

Brookes' explanation of how it became a univesity is outlined three times in this article- In the opening paragraph, in the history section and in the info box to the right- recommend removal of this information from the first paragraph —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.83.65.85 (talk) 10:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oxford Brookes University is a modern university in Oxford, England established as a university in 1992 under the Further and Higher Education Act from the former Oxford Polytechnic. It was named to honour the school's founding principal, John Brookes.

to

Oxford Brookes University is a university in Oxford, England, It was named in honour of the school's founding principal, John Brookes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.83.65.85 (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Not to be confused with University of Oxford." That certainly brightened my afternoon. 212.2.178.132 (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

POV check tag

Due to the above concerns and the fact that this article is seemingly an advert for Oxford Brookes U, I have requested a POV check. Nowhere in this article is there reference to the lawsuits levied against Oxford Brookes by students who were mislead about the accreditation. Also nowhere is there mention of the controversy surrounding the name of this University and its attempt to mislead an affiliation with University of Oxford. This should all be addressed.--Nottingham Castle (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What controversy? If you can find evidence of students being misled to believe that OBU is affiliated with OU, then go ahead and add it to the article81.154.137.33 (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The article should be scrapped and redone

This article reads like a advert for Oxford Brookes. No where is there mention of the controversies surrounding the accreditation of the school or the law suits levied against it. There should be a mention of all of this including the controversy surrounding its name and the alumni and faculty who frequently shorten it to "Oxford".--Nottingham Castle (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you on about? Are you some kind of bitter Oxford student, or the only Oxford Brookes student to have believed that the university is part of Oxford? What accreditation controversies? It was not required to be an accredited course. There are dozens of courses across dozens of universities that do not provide professional accreditation.81.154.137.33 (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV October 2011

Despite previous NPOV taggings, this page currently reads like a copy and paste from Oxford Brookes marketing blurb. It needs a complete re-write by someone who knows Oxford Brooks and has something interesting to say about it, otherwise it could be trimmed down to about three paragraphs. I knew one thing about Oxford Brookes before I landed on this page, and nothing I have read would lead me to believe what I heard is false. This is not an advertising bureau, so if there is genuinely nothing to say about Oxford Brookes, we might as well remove the page. I was very tempted to tag the page for notability as well, given how hard it is to find anything to say about the place.Jmackaerospace (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the recent edit by 79.75.90.137, leaving the following mesage on their Talk page:

"Hi 79, I've reverted your edit to Oxford Brookes University because you had removed a WP:NPOV clean-up tag (and date tags), added further promotional unsourced/poorly sourced information and added an incorrect 'infobox' (Oxford Brookes is not part of Oxford University). Your edit summary was also misleading, there has been no 'vandalism' to the article - instead, editors have been removing and rewording unsourced/poorly sourced promotional content so the article can be suitable for Wikipedia. If you wish to make major changes to the article, I suggest you discuss them first on the Talk page. Kind regards."

If I was being cynical, I would tend to believe the edit was made by someone with a connection to the university! Sionk (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

2001 RAE

"Long regarded as a poor relation to its venerable neighbour, Oxford Brookes obtained a higher rating (5*) for its history department than Oxford University (5), in the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise."

exacerbated exhale... really? one of the many assesment types, in one of the many departments, over a decade ago, using data from even longer ago. if this is intended to sound pathetic then it does a good job. i think it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.73.32 (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2011‎

Yes, really, and undoubtedly. If you genuinely believe what you wrote there, you either work for Oxford University or have never worked in academia in Britain. The RAE is the yardstick by which British universities judge themselves. It is certainly not 'one of the many assessment types' nor does it use 'data from even longer ago' (1997-2001 data was bang up-to-date as far as that goes). Oxford Brookes beating Oxford University in any way shape or form in it was the biggest of big deals. It remained a talking point even after 2008 by which time the 'natural' order had been restored. It also led to a massive increase in funding for Oxford Brookes' history department and it has something like quadrupled in size over the last decade. It was certainly not 'pathetic' and I fear that comment betrays more about the writer than about the article. I have replaced this, because it is important. I suspect - harsh though it sounds - that that comment/alteration was made by somebody from Oxford, because their embarrassment and fury was quite something to behold - it is still considered bad manners among historians to mention the 2001 RAE at Oxford even today!213.122.214.224 (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your editorializing will only encourage someone (probably linked to the ex-Polytechnic) to delete your contribution. It's always best to stick to what the sources say - for example the Guardian article doesn't report "widespread surprise and amusement in academia". Also, analysing a list to work out who beat who/which ex Poly beat which other ex-Poly is WP:OR and not allowed on Wikipedia. If something is likely to be challenged, it needs to be clearly stated in reliable secondary sources. Sionk (talk) 12:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You're edit's fine (although I could easily find sources for the amusement if you wish). Just one question though: you say otherwise it might be deleted by somebody 'probably linked to the ex-Polytechnic.' Was that a mistake? There's no reason why Oxford Brookes should wish to hide its achievements. Oxford University on the other hand... 213.122.214.224 (talk) 12:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Point taken ;) If you have news sources for the 'widespread amusement' why not add them. Sionk (talk) 12:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Expand further - 2013

History, Recent Developments, Campuses, Faculties, Student Halls and any extra categories need adding. The university wiki page is very bare, outdated and does not reflect the reputation of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William77 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey William77 you've added the logo in svg format at the bottom of the infobox. It looks weird to have the same logo twice in the infobox, I think there should just be one. I propose the one at the top be removed from the infobox. Extua (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed the one at the top and replaced it with a photo I took. Extua (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

new edits

Someone is repeatedly editing the introduction to take out this bit

Formerly known as Oxford City Technical School (1891) and Oxford Polytechnic (1970), it was renamed in 1992 to honour its former principal, John Brookes. The university's Department of Architecture is one of the largest in Britain.

See these edits:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxford_Brookes_University&diff=prev&oldid=551026846
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxford_Brookes_University&diff=prev&oldid=551361606
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxford_Brookes_University&diff=prev&oldid=551954696

Not sure if it's vandalism or if they have a good reason for deleting it, they never give a reason for their edits. Extua (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

NOTABLE ALUMNI

removed - They recived honorary diplomas / degrees

• Joanna Lumley - Actress
• Tony Robinson - Actor and TV Presenter
• Kevin McCloud - TV Presenter

from aluni section, although they have all recieved hon docs fron Brookes, they did not study there.

perhaps make a new section for this information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.123.45 (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we expand further the Notable Alumni as well as adding a list of Notable staff within the university. I also propose a complete overhaul of the Alumni page with the including of Honorary degrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William77 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)