Talk:University of Bristol/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

POV dispute, November 2002[edit]

Moved POV and irrelevant material, needs rewriting/correcting

It was the first UK University to admit women on the same basis as men. The university is one of the largest employers in the area.

The university offers a diverse range of courses, but is most well known for it's Medicine, Law and Engineering faculties. In 2001 Bristol University had the highest intake ratio of any British university with 11 applications to every place, the final intake of 2001 had an average A-Level score of 28.6 points.

The university has been regarded as being elitist, taking most of its students from private schools. The university is trying to shake off this image, but despite having one of the higest application-to-place ratio is failing to make any significant progress.

In recent years the relationship between university and students has become strained with the vice-chancelor Eric Thomas advocating that the university should move away from undergraduate teaching and towards becoming a pure research university.


Among university properties are included the student residency at Goldney Hall which is a popular location for filming with the Chronicles of Narnia, the House of Eliott and Berkeley Square being filmed there.

I think this deletion was a bit harsh. The 3rd and 4th paragraphs need a bit of work, specifying who believes these things, and what opposing views are held. The first two don't seem to be a problem unless they can be shown to be factually incorrect, and I'm willing to trust Imran in the mean time. The last paragraph is trivial but relevant. I'm tempted to put most of this back... --rbrwr

I agree - all this info is interesting and relevant and most of it is simply fact, so there's no POV to worry about. I've put it all back, with the exception of the bit about relations twixt uni and students becoming strained, which probably does need some citation or evidence. I suppose I could have left out the second sentence of para 3, but it fits in with what I know of the place, so I let it be. Of course, if the stated facts are wrong, they need to be corrected, but without any evidence that they are indeed incorrect, I too am prepared to believe Imran. --Camembert
Thanks, Cam.
Some info on state-school participation is at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1719381.stm where you will see that "most from private schools" is incorrect - it's 57% state 43% independent. This is still one of the largest proportion of independent school pupils among UK Universities. I will change this (in the article, that is).
A list of larget employers in the former Avon area is at http://www.jsptu-avon.gov.uk/publications/documents/keystats2.pdf - UoB is tenth, with five of the nine above it being based largely outside the City of Bristol.
The University's website is down, apparently for the whole weekend.
--rbrwr 20:56 Nov 15, 2002 (UTC)

Prestige[edit]

I thought that prestige claim was a bit strong, and pulled it. I KNOW it is a great Uni but so are lots fo others and we might need to itnroduce that smae comment ot another 20 who can all make the same claim - I don;t see how it helped the article. Others may differ. It would have been better in a way not coming from a Br Uni IP address! :) 82.35.17.203 18:21, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I recognised the IP address. Probably a student in Badock Hall to be precise. Several people there are experimenting with Wikipedia. See also this edit. CGS 11:27, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC).
The IP address indicates it's from Bristol's biochemistry department. Seems to have been a sudden increase in contributors from bristol uni, when I checked about a year ago there were only three of us (me, a CS Phd and a first year medic). --Imran 16:54, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Shows how much *you* know. (And make of my ip what you will :P ) 132.185.240.120
Well there's also me. I'm trying to persuade a few of my friends to try editing, as loads of them use it for work. CGS 19:53, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC).
I haven't met you have I ?, do you know many 3rd/4th year CS students ? --Imran 02:26, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Wills family[edit]

This article claims that the Henry Overton Wills died in 1911, but the BBC [1] claim he founded a tabacco company in 1786, so I'm guessing one of those is wrong. The museum was left to the city by William Henry Wills in 1904, was this the Wills with the memorial tower? --Steinsky 02:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Never mind, it was Henry Overton Wills III [2]. --Steinsky 02:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A level points[edit]

removed: "the final intake of 2001 had an average A-Level score of 28.6 points out of a possible 30". This sentance seems fairly irrelavent, plus it is inacurate: 30 is (or was, I belive they have now multiplied the scores by 10 in the new scoreing system) only the maximum scroe if you only took 3 A-Levels (I, for example, got 32...)Iain 10:55, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it is relevant to give some hard data to show that Bristol is taking top students; however you are right that "out of 30" is inaccurate. It mihgt be better to compare it to the average across all A level students for that year, or against the average for other prestigious universities: Oxford, Cambridge, UCL, etc. I'll look into this if I have time. By the way, the new scoring system (the UCAS Tariff) starts at 120 for a grade A in a full A level, and takes in many more qualifications, so it's not simply a multiplication by 10. --rbrwr± 12:09, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Average points per candidate for 17/18 year olds in schools and colleges in 2000/01 was 17.7 (for A/AS levels only) and 17.3 (including AGNVQs/AVCEs)[3]. Average was 25.6 for UCL entrants that year (if I read this correctly:[4]). 29.5 at Oxford based on figures in [5], though that really does seem to be on the basis of the best 3, so a maximum of 30 pts. --rbrwr±

Hmmm... I see your point about relevance. Not sure if the data your showing here can be usefully integrated in to this article though... the 17.7 score was per a-level candidate, not University applicant, and useing the Oxford figures might sugest that Oxford is considered somesort of benchmark to aspire to (a sugestion that I, as a Bristol graduate, would disagree with!)Iain 15:27, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, those are rough notes, really - just a motley collection of whatever statistics I could find in my lunch hour. They're all measuring the A level points of variously defined groups of people, probably in slightly different ways. I wouldn't want to draw any conclusions from them. I will have another look, though. --rbrwr± 18:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
More rough notes: By UCAS's definiton (see "Grade"), old-style A level points max out at 30. The UCAS annual datasets break applicants down into 5 point wide bands (26-30, 21-25, etc.), which is not very useful. I bet UCAS has what I really want, which is a "league table" of universities by points-per-entrant, but not in public. --rbrwr± 19:52, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New Page[edit]

I've subtantially expanded this page to give it some heart and soul. There is considerable detail here but it is all relevant and I think I have avoided POV. I have tried to cite references for nearly everything, but some things are only availble via subscription services or restricted Uni webpages. Such things are nevertheless public domain since I have only reported e.g. the outcome of the fight between the Privy Council and Court, rather than the details of the minutes of the meetings in question.

There are new pages detailing the Uni's degrees and academic dress, too - see the links. I've also moved the alumni onto their own page (they're special people, after all) and it was getting too long to stay here. Additionally, I've created a new category for UoB alumni, and added that to all the people so far on the list.

There is also a new category for the University itself. Apart from these new pages, I've added the existing images to the category.

The Governance section is length and could stand alone - can we have a discussion about that?

Splash 04:04, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Nice work. It lacked a leadoff paragraph, so I've given it one. Using h3 for that quote from the charter was a bit OTT, so I've toned it down. I've also put the lists of residences into wiki table sysntax. --rbrwr± 08:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Numerous minor edits a minute ago were:

  • Infobox tweaked: Uni of Bristol founded in 1909 (no such thing before Charter), not 1876, so reversed positions of dates. Baronesses are properly styled 'The'.
  • Tweaked the leadoff and added mention of teaching.
  • Added mention of teaching to match up with research.
  • Mentioned 2004 admissions, since leaving it at 2001 seemed out of date.
  • Provided some internal linkage, particularly in Governance section.
  • Various wikifications.
  • A few minor rephrasings here and there.
- Splash 19:07, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

University ratings[edit]

(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 22:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


How about adding the Shanghai Jia Tong University Rankings (http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/ranking2006.htm) - ranked 15th in Europe, and 62nd in world in 200662.245.126.231 15:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

I have tried to do an infobox for Bristol. Any improvements/alterations welcome 172.209.74.146 15:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Governance section[edit]

The section on the goverance was really getting quite large so I have moved it to an article of its own. i should add this to the infobox at some point. Boron12 17:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

Hello all. I reverted a series of edits just now, because a search of the article against the Uni's webpage revealed that several parts of it had been copied far too closely to the original. This is copyright infringement and anyway results in a rather "wow gosh bling" article (which has too much extraneous detail). I'm sure there was also some good stuff in those edits, but picking it all out of the diffs is really hard, so can I invite the 172... editor to go add the reference fixes of the edit summary back in? There've been a few additions of news reportage lately too, which are misplaced in an encyclopedia. Splash - tk 21:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Student numbers[edit]

According to the HESA stats the total number of students is 15,717 of which 3,660 are postgraduates, see http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_datatables&Itemid=121&task=show_category&catdex=3 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.186.206.232 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

There's evidently different reporting conventions for these. The Excel spreadsheet here backs up the numbers in the article. Otoh, the data from the University here says 17136 of which 4963 postgrad. But note the reporting convention at the bottom - certain people are excluded who presumably are included in HESA's figures (though I'm surprised they amount to some 6500 students). Then again, the numbers provided for the media here say 17244 of which 5449 postgrad. However, the reporting date is 2006-07-31 which might be different to the others, and it's unclear whether the exclusions match that from the Student Statistics page or not. Then, there's the table you mention, here from HESA, which is for the previous academic year 2004/5, so could be out of date wrt to even the intermediate numbers. For this to be the case, however, HESA must have changed its reporting conventions substantially, since I'm quite sure the University has not added 6500 students in a single year! Splash - tk 19:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Splash, are you sure you're looking at the right HESA table? I updated all the student numbers across the UK earlier this year, and the difference wasn't very great anywhere. The numbers I have are:
  • 2004/05: 23,360 (15,470 UG, 7,890 PG)
  • 2005/06: 23,630 (15,845 UG, 7,785 PG)
My experience is that universities often under-report their numbers on the web, either by excluding part-time students, postgrads or by giving a full-time equivalent number. The HESA stats represent the official statistics, are used by various Government departments and are pretty exact (except for Data Protection rounding-off). The metrics and sources HESA uses are uniform across the board, so using the latest data from the HESA spreadsheet is almost always more useful in comparing institutions than using the figures given by each university's website. — mholland (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, FTE'll be the thing, up to any other exclusions. Sorry, I used a bad link, I meant the table here is what the original poster mentions, which sure enough says FTE at the top. Splash - tk 20:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Churchill Hall[edit]

Oh for gods sake. who has deleted the article on churchill hall. wikipedia has gone to the dogs 137.222.229.74 (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article: PASS[edit]

Specific problems:

  • Put the quote from Edward VII in some sort of quotebox so that it's clear that it isn't part of the prose.
  • "Early years" has some very short paragraphs near the end; they should be wrapped up.
  • Mainly done. I don't think the remaining items really need to be wrapped up, as that would just be adding padding for the sake of it, really. Splash - tk 13:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • References should be placed after the nearest punctuation mark -- commas and periods -- rather than directly after a word's last letter.
    • Working on this as I go. But I think it's not absolutely mandatory. Splash - tk 13:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Student accommodation" - Lists are discouraged. I would recommend ditching the table and describing that information in prose.
  • "Chancellors and Vice-Chancellors" - again, no lists. Delete and merge this information into "History," although information on the office itself (history, term, etc.) should go under "Governance."
  • I would note that there is not a "no lists" rule. There is merely a preference for prose. However, I have moved the lists to Governance of the University of Bristol. I think that the "History" section and lead already mentions those few C's and VC's who are worthy of prose of their own in this article - being the founding C, the current VC and Winston Churchill while he was C. I have strengthened and updated the "Governance" section somewhat following your suggestion. Splash - tk 23:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On balance, I have actually added all the Chancellors into the relevant parts of the history, since they are all sufficiently notable to have earned themselves bluelinks, and there ought to be a linkage from this article to them. Splash - tk 00:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Faculties" and "Degrees" should be merged into a single "Academics" section.
  • Merged into a 'Faculties and degrees' section :). "Academics" in British English refers to the people, not the structure. Splash - tk 13:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Academic dress" and "Logo and arms" both cover symbolism, so they should be grouped together as well.
  • "Alumni" is fine but there should also be some discussion of faculty, if there are any notable ones.
  • A bunch of the citations are URLs rather than formatted citations. Ideally, use {{cite news}} or {{cite web}}.
  • Between us, this is now done. Interestingly, this reduced the reference count by 20, from 107 at the start of the process to 87 now. This is mainly owing to there being duplicate references and some that I dealt with being compressible or, in a few cases, rejectable along with their minor factoid. Splash - tk 20:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General thoughts not binding for GA:

  • Image sizes should be unforced
  • This upsets some people, so I'll leave it to individuals to do if they wish. Splash - tk 13:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend taking a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities#Structure for a template of the ideal organization of university articles. Let me know when you've addressed these problems. Dylan (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would just note that those suggestions are the subject of an ongoing RfC and not yet as firm as those from many other WikiProjects. Splash - tk 13:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to have the time to dig out some interesting faculty and write about them as it is now the holiday season and my Internet access will collapse to zero in a few hours time. I can edit again from about this time next week - 28 December. If others can help, I suppose an interesting place to start would be the Uni's recent news page (being careful of selective bigging-up of an individual's involvement in a project) and the listing of distinctions, if any of them are still alive... Splash - tk 01:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you've looked at Category:Academics of the University of Bristol which may help?— Rod talk 19:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in fact I've more-or-less relied on it for what I just wrote. However, I do think it needs something of a prune - there are several junior academics of questionable notability in there. Splash - tk 22:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is looking good. I originally came to this page to just check in, but most (and the most pressing) of my concerns have been addressed (formatted citations and article structure), and I think this article meets the GA criteria even though not everything I mentioned has been addressed. I apologize for blurring the line between general recommendations for improvement and required actions in order to satisfy policy -- I don't intend to authoritatively demand that things be done a certain way, only to offer my idea of what the current consensus is and give general improvement suggestions. Nice work! You should be proud of yourselves. Dylan (talk) 06:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That's a pleasant Christmas present! I did some writing about faculty, and wrapped the 'alumni' into a "People" section to go with them. Splash - tk 22:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halls[edit]

Can I find any concensus for an article titled Halls of Residences at Bristol University or something similar. Half the halls wouldn't survive votes for deletion based upon their notability Francium12 (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, University of Bristol halls of residence or Halls of residence at the University of Bristol is probably a good idea. The same thing was suggested some time ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University Hall (Bristol) but not done. Let's put together a list of those that should and should not stand alone, assuming that any present redlinks should not:
Should have own article
Should not have own article

The should-nots can be turned into sectional redirects to the new article. Splash - tk 14:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'd sat that Clifton Hill House is notable in architectural terms, goldney because of the grotto and follies and wills is notable. I would feel rather bad redirecting the rather nice Manor Hall article so try and use a lot of that information in the new article. The others are just normal halls 172.202.216.161 (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A useful historical source[edit]

Noticed this and thought it might contain some useful historical material. I'm wondering how primary a source this is, though. Presumably a Senior Lecturer at the University is authoritative enough by himself, tho. Would also be cool to include that letter photo, too, as I think it's non-copyrightable as a slavish reproduction of a 2D object that is itself out of copyright. (In the US, anyway). Splash - tk 16:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Pictures[edit]

I thought the article was in need of more pictures if it were to ever progress to a FA-status. So there you go.

If anyone has any other good pictures of any of the Stoke Bishop halls that would be good. I cant trek all the way up Whiteladies Rd!

Places like the A.S.S. library are also proving difficult to photo with loads of cars getting in the way of the entrance.

Francium12 (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Some departments really are more photogenic than others! We should have a day of photo collection around all the Bristol articles or something. Though I'd need a digital camera first! Splash - tk 13:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

League tables[edit]

How far shall we go back with the league tables? Going back all the way to 1999 will not only be imposible in terms of fidning the data but its all very out of date. Does the last 5 years sound good? Francium12 (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that 1999 is too far back for the reasons you give. Five years goes back to 2005 - so we have the choice of chopping it off then (which I'm happy with) or fixing the start of it to always be then, and letting it grow. If we take the latter route, we can probably fill in the gaps (where the tables have actually existed) and don't have to discard information on an annual basis. Of course, year-on-year comparisons with these tables are not much statistical use, but anyway. Splash - tk 14:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've searched far and wide and links to pre 2005 invariably suffer from link rot or there webpages are simply used to host the new tables. A few left to reference and they seem to be missing from all the other British University articles so I get the impression they wont be found either. But on the whole its quite an impressive job really. Now we ust need to make sure that section of the article isnt used for any academic boosterism. Francium12 (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admmision 2009[edit]

I am an international student and want study in bristol Electronic and Electrical Engineering Course my e:mail is eucharn@2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.88.142.227 (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry? Francium12 (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History, 1960s[edit]

This account seems to me to be at variance with the feelings of students INVOLVED in the sits-in.

To see another point of view may I offer this, first drafted as a comment in the Guardian. (Wheatcroft had written an article arguing the 60s were never uhsettled times. They were, but in a limited way)


For me, 1968 was a journey to revolutionary politics and back. But the return journey, there and back, had a single political theme. Early on Shirley Williams came to Bristol. I tackled her on the tripartite system in Higher Education. Why were Polytechnic students treated less favourably than University students? Why make Polytechnics out of colleges full of students of university calibre? She offered her views on ability and educational traditions. Perhaps now she still thinks John Major wrong to have created the new Universities out of those very Polytechnics.. Perhaps they don't have the tradition, still. Yes, well, that was exactly what we were up against. 80 percent of medical students at Bristol had parents who were doctors and Vera Brittan's daughter saw little wrong with that. Even radical politics apparently needed good breeding. In fact families like the Foots offered politics from Hugh's conservatism to Paul's revolution. It seemed that life at Bristol University in its every guise, was about an elite holding on to its privileges and transmitting them down the generations. And no Labour Party was going to change that. Next, E. Powell came, and I asked him why, given his faith in the free market system he didn't support the free movement of labour. He claimed he couldn't hear me. So I walked to the front of the hall and yelled it at him (politely). He claimed he still couldn't hear me so I asked the question again. Incredibly he still claimed I was inaudible. The Chair of the Bristol Tory students whispered it to him. He still claimed he couldn't hear. The new students there almost every one thought the real problem was that he couldn't answer. The man was clearly a fool. There seemed little opportunity in student life there for radical thinking. Indeed the University dominated the Student's Union financially. We fought for student independence. It turned out that the feeling that Bristol was not critical enough of its own traditions had spread like wildfire through the student body. Reaction took many forms. Some New Left Review theorists (with impeccable Oxbridge credentials (!)) set up a Free University during the early summer. The University had just opened a million and a quarter pound students Union in Queens Road. It had a swimming pool, opulent restaurants, a theatre, work rooms, coffee bars, meeting halls and a couple of pleasant bars. It was open to (strictly) University students only. The components of what was becoming Bristol Poly afforded a broom cupboard at best on each campus for their students. It made me angry, that lavish expenditure on the 'haves'. It made a lot of us angry that other young people in the town whether apprentices or college students had little or nothing. The theme of the Free University was that courses in the University should become critical of the position the elite occupied in society in general. We wanted to use the new Union to extend the Free University there and then. The University refused us permission so we sat in and carried on anyway. By Christmas the student right to open their facilities to all young people in the town had become a burning issue. The history of the University (ably written and researched by Val Geenwood) with its dependence on tobacco money (the main building and hall of residence carried the name) and the Wills family's emphasis on the role of 'their' University in extending middle class power in Bristol and the history, of slavery and tobacco, of the very city it found itself in, even the decadent architecture of the place, all added to the sense of injustice at the very heart of the University. If we were a part of elite privilege we would use that advantage to pull down that citadel, about our own ears if necessary. In December we sat in at Senate House, the University Administration block, demanding we open University facilities to all. The Vice Chancellor said on television that he was in loco parentis in respect of his students. It was his job to make sure that University students didn't meet the wrong sort of young people. One night at Senate House the police were suddenly at the door, flashing torches, demanding we opened up. A bomb was reported planted in the building. Since in the summer I had uncovered a plot in London to mow down the leaders of the October 27th anti - Vietnam War march in London I believed it possible that the fascists had planted a device.(A cache of 200 weapons was discovered in London. The potential terrorists got 6 months suspended sentence). The two night watchmen holding the fort overnight for the sit in, Dave M. and I, stood on the wind swept atrium as a Bristol winter gale tore the blankets we had wrapped round us, from our shoulders. 'Lets p*ss off before we get any colder' I said. 'Wait,' Dave said, 'You never know'. 10 minutes later the police were shepherding us back into the building encouraging us with warm Bristolian accents. 'No electricity eh? Well. they there Tilley Lamps are a fire hazard. We'll get the University to switch things back on tomorrow first thing. Better eat all that posh grub in the Senior Common dining room freezer. It can't be re-frozen now. Good luck!' Among the colleges the Vice Chancellor had named as having the sorts of students his University students should be kept away from was.....the local police college. Well, we won, nearly. The Students Union is open to other students in the town but not to young people who have left school and are finding their way. If the elite and its strategies for self - continuation across the generations were the reasons for revolution they were also the reasons for the return journey. An editor of the New Statesman once said that if a revolution was possible it would not be necessary. The trouble with our revolution was that it was stocked out with people who had no intention of having one. They were the ones who both made the revolution plausible AND impossible. One particularly irritating legacy of our defeats from those times is the way people still bang on about ability as if it were a freak of personality when we KNEW then that its incidence was a function of social privilege - whether in 'political families' or in medical dynasties. Or in ourselves. The evidence that a new order, largely disconnected from the old patterns of privilege, was offering new abilities, was to be found consummately in the music of the times - from Stevie Marriott to Marvyn Gaye, in the art work from Peter Blake to the superb political posters that Mark produced at the Bristol Sit - In.


The issues seem to me to be exactly the same today as they were in 1968. Any fool can be Governor of the Bank of England, a Vice Chancellor or a CEO and many have. Everyone has THAT MUCH ability. The problem is how to ensure that the right people are doing the worst sorts of manual work. (That's right! We should be deciding directly who should be doing the worst jobs - after full debate, instead of spending so much time and energy allocating the easy-street jobs) And doing that sort of work is surely the turn of the inter-generationally idle - the bourgeoisie. If we get that work equality right, every other sort will follow. And equality was the unifying theme of my there and back again journey.

A last 'small beer' comment. Wheatcroft points out that 'Congratulations' was top of the hit parade in 1968. Well, yes, but if

'Come on all you big strong men, Uncle Sam needs a helping hand He's got himself in a helluva of a jam And you're wanted in Afghan-is-stan** And its 2, 3, 4 What are we fighting for? Don't ask me 'cos I don't give a damn Next stop is Afghan -is-stan** 

6, 7, 8

Open up those pearly gates Be the first one on your block To have your boy back home in a box


had been top of the hit parade the revolution would have gone through nem con. (It was by Country Joe) .

    • Sorry, I mean 'Iraq land'. What AM I talking about? Of course it was 'Vietnam'. Sorry.

.

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.50.193 (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

A peer review has taken place on the article allowing it to be ripped apart or allowing constructive criticism depending on your viewpoint. The above link allows you to view the comments. 92.11.14.235 (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Student numbers...[edit]

The figures in the article are plain wrong...

See hyah....http://www.bristol.ac.uk/ssio/studentdata/statistics/new_matrix/totalstunos_year.html

Good day.80.41.234.109 (talk) 09:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers cited are those that university submits to HE Stats Agency (HESA). They will include those students who are specifically noted as not being included on the university's page which you link to because they are "dormant" (mostly taking a year out), research students who are writing up or students on the university's continuing education programmes. Pauln1964 (talk) 09:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merchant Venturers' technical school[edit]

I think that the first paragraph should include a reference to the Merchant Venturers’ Technical College (founded as a school 1595 and which became the university Engineering faculty [6]. Only an English university would fail to mention such a legacy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.132.137 (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ubristol-logo.svg[edit]

Image:Ubristol-logo.svg is nominated for deletion. --92.237.92.135 (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hood colour[edit]

Under "Academic Dress", the page currently specifies:

Unusually for British universities, the hoods are required to be 'University red' (see the logo at the top of the page) rather than black.

I wasn't aware that it was unusual for universities to have coloured hoods - I've graduated from three, of which only one was black. I see a wide range of colours when at events where hoods are worn: large, national gatherings of robed church choristers and as a member of staff at graduations. In fact, the only ones that spring to mind as black are Oxford, Cambridge and London. —Nineworlds (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the distinction is that Bristol's BA hoods are completely coloured red (picture here). Most British universities' (although I don't have a source) BA hoods are coloured black, and edged or lined with another colour. The other university in Bristol, UWE, uses black hoods, lined with red (picture here). — mholland (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2003 University of Bristol admissions controversy[edit]

I have put the article 2003 University of Bristol admissions controversy in for a GA nomination. Talk page discussion is welcome on how it can be improved.  Francium12  22:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And please do not remove 2003 University of Bristol admissions controversy from the lead of this article! Someone has managed to remove that!  Francium12  11:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

League tables[edit]

I think it's rather disingenuous that the Guardian league table placing has been removed from the table in this article - probably to disguise the fact that we dropped to 32nd in their estimation this year. The claim that Bristol is in the top ten according to most published league tables is simply no longer true (unless you're counting the placings from previous years as well - again, rather disingenuous if so!).

This is supposed to be a factual encyclopedia article. It is not supposed to be an advertisement or a place to publish massaged figures in order to make a few members of the student body feel better about studying here...137.222.235.7 (talk) 08:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'd be happy for you to reinsert them. Francium12 (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue strongly the other way: the Guardian ranking is misleading as the 'teaching score' is no measure of reputation at all (accordingly second and third tier institutions, such as the University of Aston, are ranked higher). The Guardian ranking should be excluded and the reference to top 20 changed back to top 10. It is not disingenious it is good sense and in keeping with responsible handling of information, and the Guardian's information/data is 'soft' and unrelated to Bristol's perception as a centre of learning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.234.88 (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it for Wikipedia to decide whether teaching or research is a true measure of an institution? Francium12 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, according to the rankings for last year only one league table out of four placed Bristol in the top ten! The introduction to this article is factually inaccurate in its current state. 137.222.114.243 (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the statement "ranked in the top 10 in most league tables" is completely inaccurate, so has been changed to "top 20", though even that is a push. I have no doubt in my mind that as far as word-on-the-street prestige is concerned, Bristol is a top 10, probably top 5 university. But it is not generally that highly regarded as far as the 4-5 major league tables go. --Tomsega (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


To be honest, the Times, QS rankings of worldwide shouldn't be included in either if the criteria is accuracy. Both Times and QS rankings are dodgy when the methodology is looked into- UK institutions artificially ranked higher than they should be. That UCL is ranked 4th in QS (above MIT, Stanford, all the Ivy league except Harvard) in the world is nonsensical, especially by a table which ranks UCL below 20 in every subject area. Even Oxbridge is no longer what they used to be in terms of research- fewer nobels on faculty, fewer star faculty, fewer citations, less funding, but they are still ranked 1st and 3rd in QS. So in that respect many of these 'league tables' sound doctored and misleading. Most of these tables have an unfair bias towards English language institutes anyway. European academies that produce many field medalists and nobels, major schools of philosophy, literature, etc., which are often merely packaged in Anglophone universites aren't represented for variety of reasons in these tables. The choice of metric, the definition of an institution/university,the subject descriptions etc- have inherent bias towards the kind of academic activities in anglophone institutions. Plus in case of peer reviewed rankings, the choice of peers for the review tend to be from anglophone/anglophilic institutions. Further these rankings hardly tell about the quality of students and the education they receive, at best case they are just an indication of how well the anglophone universities clique of academics rank themselves in terms of research (i.e. using objective criteria such as citations and awards), at worse a pure subjective quantification of inherent biases (using peer review). A better league table would be based on how well graduating students perform in the workplace, or on a standardised test- this won't be perfect but at least it will be fair and the ranking won't have pretence for being something other than how well students do on a test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.223.22 (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The University is widely regarded as one of the best in the United Kingdom and and enjoys a strong global reputation, consistently being ranked as one of the top 10 in Europe.[12]" - Surely Bristol is a good university, but isn't this a bit much? The only citation for "widely regarded...", "strong global reputation" and "*consistently* being ranked..." (by whom?) is a single reference to the much questioned QS rankings.

The descriptions of University of Edinburgh and University of Manchester indulge in less peacock wording (and their references to the QS rankings, while perhaps equally regrettable, are at least more specific). Note that both institutions seem to do a bit better than Bristol in the QS rankings; perhaps they also have a bit more in the way of actual facts to prop up the image they wish to project.

QS is clearly slanted towards Anglophone institutions - their measurements make sense only for universities structured in certain particular ways; that's a different matter, however. Feketekave (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:University of Bristol Victoria Rooms, Department of Music.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:University of Bristol Victoria Rooms, Department of Music.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 25 September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Introductory Statements[edit]

I have toned down the introductory passage, as was mentioned in the talk page sometime ago. I have tried to keep this section as close to an encyclopedic entry as possible but it may still be a little too strong in terms of institutional bias. Let me know if you think so. The citation for the numbers of applicants per place and the average entry standard was also dead/blocked.

I will update the world rankings table when i get the chance

Ed Harding (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my view it's an improvement, although for me the lead still contains too many broad promotional claims and too little facts. Personally I would like to see research income included, as well as more specific info on world rankings. It is also inaccurate to state that Bristol is generally in the top 30 of world rankings when it is well outside that in at least one of the three major rankings. Better to actually state which ranking it is, or give the placing for all three.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what is up with "associated with eleven Nobel prize winners" (in the lede, and later in the article) - what does "associated with" really mean? Feketekave (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - I can answer my own question. This claim comes from an institutional page at Bristol University (no surprises there). The latest Nobel prize winners 'associated' with Bristol are: a French writer who was an exchange student for one academic year; Harold Pinter, whose only connection to Bristol was getting an honorary doctorate from there; Sir Nevill Mott, who was a professor at Bristol for a long stretch before moving to Cambridge [this is the first one so far that most people would count as being substantially associated]; a chemist who was once a post-doc at Bristol... The only Bristol graduate who won a Nobel Prize turns out to be Paul Dirac, a local boy who, according to his Wikipedia entry, did not go to Cambridge right away because of a lack of money, did not study physics at Bristol, and went on to study physics at Cambridge as soon as he had enough funds. With all due respect, the "associated with eleven winners" talk now comes across as potentially NPOV and a little unreal. Feketekave (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I completely understand your comments on the rankings. I was wary of toning the article down further than the general trend for university pages but having come back to it after a few days it still reads quite strong. And on principle they should all be neutral.

I'll look into sorting that out. I am also updating the rankings further down the article. IcyEd (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have finally made changes to the rankings display although they're not major. I have also removed a single ranking by "newsweek" which was alone and without an active citation (and I couldn't find the original).--IcyEd (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Wiki Meetup[edit]

You are invited to the Bristol Wiki Meetup which will take place at The Commercial Rooms, 43-45 Corn Street, Bristol BS1 1HT on Sunday 28 July 2013 from 1.00 pm. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Bristol topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on University of Bristol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms[edit]

I've just moved this from the article:

Could you possibly update the coat of arms? The one on the page is the alumni coat of arms. The actual coat of arms is slightly different from the one shown on the right. I am a student at the uni and I can't change it.

Links:

https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.maths.bris.ac.uk%2F~wavethresh%2Fhelp%2Fua.gif&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.maths.bris.ac.uk%2F~wavethresh%2Fhelp%2Fua.htm&docid=idc2cOxk0yWB5M&tbnid=F0wrtn1ho4jjEM%3A&w=300&h=300&bih=655&biw=1366&ved=0ahUKEwimnZLahN7NAhUhLsAKHQFbDEgQMwgfKAEwAQ&iact=mrc&uact=8 (Black and White version)

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=university+of+bristol+coat+of+arms&rlz=1CAHPZY_enIN605IN605&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQ1KfZhN7NAhWrCcAKHR72CtEQ_AUICCgB&biw=1366&bih=655#imgdii=z9Hl2ejnRz6E0M%3A%3Bz9Hl2ejnRz6E0M%3A%3BExeXaNn6jMvQTM%3A&imgrc=z9Hl2ejnRz6E0M%3A (Colour version)

http://www.insigniauk.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/4/6/4615_embossed_shield_light_background_-_university_of_bristol.jpg

81.104.102.168 (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on University of Bristol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The West Country Challenge[edit]

Would you like to win up to £250 in Amazon vouchers for participating in The West Country Challenge?

The The West Country Challenge will take place from 8 to 28 August 2016. The idea is to create and improve articles about Bristol, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Dorset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire, like this one.

The format will be based on Wales's successful Awaken the Dragon which saw over 1000 article improvements and creations and 65 GAs/FAs. As with the Dragon contest, the focus is more on improving core articles and breathing new life into those older stale articles and stubs which might otherwise not get edited in years. All contributions, including new articles, are welcome though.

Work on any of the items at:

or other articles relating to the area.

There will be sub contests focusing on particular areas:

To sign up or get more information visit the contest pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge.— Rod talk 16:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in University of Bristol[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of University of Bristol's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "THE World University Rankings 2015-16":

  • From Imperial College London: "World University Rankings 2015-16". Times Higher Education. Retrieved 1 October 2015.
  • From Duke University: "THE Rankings". Times Higher Education. 2015. Retrieved September 9, 2016.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on University of Bristol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on University of Bristol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on University of Bristol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Bristol/Archive_1&oldid=1145046824"