| Revision as of 04:03, 10 March 2012 edit163.1.146.16 (talk) →Pusey: sorting sigs← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:39, 10 April 2024 edit undoBattyBot (talk | contribs)Bots1,933,386 edits →top: Fixed WikiProject template(s) to remove page from Category:WikiProject templates with unknown parameters or a sub-category, plus general fixesTag: AWB |
| (33 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
|action1=PR |
|
|action1=PR |
|
|action1date=11:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|action1date=11:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC) |
| Line 10: |
Line 11: |
|
|action2result=promoted |
|
|action2result=promoted |
|
|action2oldid=100640944 |
|
|action2oldid=100640944 |
|
|currentstatus=FA |
|
|currentstatus=FFA |
|
|maindate=February 24, 2007 |
|
|maindate=February 24, 2007 |
|
|
|action3 = FAR |
|
|
|action3date = 2021-06-12 |
|
|
|action3link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Oriel College, Oxford/archive1 |
|
|
|action3result = demoted |
|
|
|action3oldid = 1027834370 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Universities|class=FA}} |
|
{{WikiProject Higher education}} |
|
{{WikiProject University of Oxford|class=FA|importance=top|colleges=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Architecture}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject University of Oxford|importance=top|colleges=yes}} |
|
{{WPMA|class=FA|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Middle Ages|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
| algo = old(90d) |
|
|
| archive = Talk:Oriel College, Oxford/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
| counter = 1 |
|
|
| maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
| minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Talk Spoken Misplaced Pages|Oriel_College.ogg}} |
|
|
{{archivebox|]}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== The article as viewed by one who does not know what an Oxford college '''is''' == |
|
|
|
|
|
I am amazed that an article of this quality managed to become a featured article. The most shocking of all things is that the article on a college lacks any mention of academics. How can an article on academic institute claim comprehensiveness without dealing with academics? There is a mega-sized section on ''Buildings and environs'', which ideally should be a third of the current size. The name of the section itself is lousy. The ''Coat of arms'' section is pure cruft, and does not help in encyclopedic understanding of the college. The ''Grace'' section is also a disgrace, which is totally useless for an encyclopedic article. The ''People associated with the College'' section is stubby. The ''Silver Plate'' section deserves a maximum of one paragraph in history, and doesn't even deserve to be a sub-section. The ''Film and fiction'' title is also very lousy. Just because the article is completely referenced doesn't mean it is comprehensive, and just because reference for something is available doesn't mean those can be included. Seeing the FAC of the article, I see that there were many outstanding objections when the article was passed. Till now I haven't even gone into the quality of prose, to which there were most objections. Are there any editors willing to look into these issues? — ] (]) 11:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Just a quick note: I don't actually see any outstanding objections from the FAC discussion. They were all dealt with on a point-by-point basis – long before the discussion closed and the article was promoted. Are you also commenting on problems with the FAC process? (which everyone is free to contribute to) Or the neutrality of the decision made? Sorry, it is unclear. Also, I'm sure the issues you raise will be looked into, and, this being a Wiki and all, be ] if appropriate. ] ] 11:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::I quote two people from the FAC discussion. : "You're right; I was a little harsh in that comment, but stand by my view that the prose isn't good enough." : "Fixing Tony's *examples* isn't enough to correct the prose.". I think this qualifies as outstanding issue. I am not sure why you linked ]. I haven't heard of this college before. Do you expect me to write on its academics. — ] (]) 11:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::The article has had three copy edits by users previously uninvolved, all individual items were dealt with, the objections about prose are by a user who advocates Michael Halliday’s systemic functional grammar, as embodied in MAK Halliday, Introduction to functional grammar, 2nd ed, Arnold, London, 1995; traditional grammar sucks. Academics are mentioned as they crop up in history and in the section, which may appear stubby because it is a summary of another page. Can you tell me anything fact about Oriel College that is verifiable and missing from the article?--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 11:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:<edit conflict>I was linking SOFIXIT as a pointer that editors in general will (if they see fit) change things (as they see fit). As nobody has done that yet, maybe there ''are'' no real problems – including the prose, which Tony and Sandy did not revisit when the article was complete (it underwent a copyedit afterwards as well). I am in no way trying to prevent you from having an opinion on this article, but you have come on a bit strong and then virtually demanded that other people work on it to make it better. You have also made comments about the FAC process which surely would be better placed at a talk page in that area? ] ] 11:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I haven't yet reviewed the quality of the prose, so there is no point in discussing it any further. I can ask a counter-question: Can you list sentences relating to academics that appear on the article. As mentioned before, I haven't heard of the college before, so citing examples is beyond me. But I think it is natural for any college to have departments, centres, and teaching programs. I don't see even a single mention of these. Do you expect me to believe there the article is comprehensive without even mentioning academics. — ] (]) 11:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I have left a note at ] so that editors not personally involved with this article express their views on the issues raised. — ] (]) 11:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::My comments were based on the fact that you were attacking the quality of the article. If you are now saying you haven't even looked into it, after saying there were outstanding issues at the FAC discussion, I'm sorry, it doesn't make clear sense. Your attempts to now limit your reactions to comprehensive content now appear to me as backtracking. ] ] 11:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I have never back-tracked any statement. Read my first comment carefully. I categorically said that I haven't gone through the quality of the prose, and I repeatedly said the same thing. Why don't you deal with the issues raised by me. Also, I am not saying that FAC is broken. The very nature of the process means that slip-ups can happen. However, I was expressing my surprise that such a big slip-up chanced to happen. My surprise ''isn't'' my objection. Yes, I am attacking the quality of the article (for the reasons mentioned above), but I have not attacked the quality of the "prose". There is a difference. Please don't confuse the two. — ] (]) 12:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Then please don't attribute problems of comprehensive content to me either. I have commented on your saying there are outstanding problems from the FAC, when there are (in the absence of comments to the contrary) none. You could only say they were outstanding if you had read through and checked the problems both Tony and Sandy perceived still existed. Also, at this point, I will say that I was a copy editor who took part in improving this article voluntarily, but have had virtually no content input into it, so if you are now dismissing my views because you see me as somehow "involved" in the article, I'm sorry that is another misconception you need to address. As can be seen below, Alf is the one who can address the content issue – I was just dealing with the tone and inconsistent approach of the complaint. ] ] 12:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Oriel is just one of over thirty (maybe forty by now) colleges that form the collegiate aspect of Oxford University, the university itself has departments, not indiviudal colleges, likewise with the teaching programmes - the same as for specialist (and some would therefore say not proper Oxford University) colleges, but as that is not clear, I'll look to see how that can be mentioned. The academics are on ], the summary names both the indivual and the fellowship attached to college in the section, any further depth causes verification problems, and broken into former and current, provosts and honorary fellows. Those that can be are - ] and ] are mentioned in the lead. Provosts ] who has not been considered notable enough for an article and he was a provost, and ] are mentioned in the Modern section, as are ] and ], and without being insulting they far outshadow any current academic.--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 12:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::By academics I meant education, not academic-related people. — ] (]) 12:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Then the answer is even simpler - see ] - the education you might receive at Oriel is the same as at ChristChurch, Balliol, Corpus Christi etc. Maybe there is a confusion in your mind as to what an Oxford College is, it is not the same as a college outside of England - as far as I can gather a college outside the big universities of Europe is more like a university in itself. Also I note that you have messaged the University Project, I've seen no active participation by them on this article excepting for adding their tag at the top of this page - this is a college not a univeristy - I believe a better place would be ].--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 12:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks Wiki alf, for the constructive reply above. For the facts you mentioned above, the coverage would possibly have to be on different lines, but I still feel that something should be mentioned. I am not sure how can a college not have departments. I mean, aren't the students studying in the college assigned departments specific to their academic discipline. Granted the academic policies are not drafted by the college, but definitely the college would have dedicated faculties of various academic disciplines. Also, for both under-graduate and post-graduate students in the college, I think a discussion on the broad streams to which they belong are necessary for comprehensiveness. From the current article, it isn't even clear if Oriel College is arts, science or engineering college. — ] (]) 12:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::At Oxford Univeristy there are more than three physics departments, a music faculty which stretches across library, practical and museums, mathmatical buildings, in fact there is a whole science area of building where students at this and other colleges go to do various aspects of the work see ] - they are not a subset of any individual college, they are Oxford University property, ChristChurch and Balliol, renowned for "producing" prime minsters, has no politics department - there is the Centre for Political Ideologies, Politics and Intrernational Relations and Sociology Library and general buildings at Manor Road, a student of Politics at Oriel would use those buildings as much as anyone from ChristChurch or Balliol for example.--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 12:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::In short the same courses can be done at any Oxford college, barring specialism, which as I mentioned above, are sometimes not considered part of the University, so Oriel cannot be defined as an Arts, Science or Engineering college, you could in fact take a number of degrees within those disciplines at Oriel, as you can at most of the tradtional Oxford colleges. There are some exceptions - ] used only to focus on medicine and now does that and "related disciplines". for example.--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 12:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I think I am now getting what kind of colleges are there in Oxford. So let me be more precise about what I believe needs to be clarified: What defines Oriel College? Is it just the physical boundary (which means it doesn't share academic facilities like library with any other college)? Is it faculty (If I pick up the name of a professor, do I say he belongs to Oriel College or he belongs to Oxford university)? Is it department (Is Oriel College a sum total of specific academic disciplines)? I believe from your reply above that the third question is ruled out. I asked to confirm that I have not misunderstood what you said. I think if these questions are satisfactorily answered in article prose, then my first objection (relating to academics) stands resolved. But reflecting on what we have discussed, I think if ] will have trouble understanding this article, then something is wrong with the article. — ] (]) 13:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Oriel College is defined in a number of ways, prinicpally by its foundation which in turns owns a number of buildings, which its staff and students may live/teach/play/drink/etc. in (for example the first quad of Oriel has staircases one through six - in rooms 1.1, 1.2 for the last goodness knows how long you will find the boat club captains and at least two others' accomodation, in 3.3 you will find the chaplain - as you would have done in the days before John Henry Newman, but there is also the lodge, which deals with all incoming general enquries, the Chapel, the Hall with the kitchens and more senior dining rooms linking from it, there is the college bar, the college office where the Provost's secretary works, the academic office which deals with admissions and current academic issues, and some of the Provosts Lodgings, in 6.A the provost's guests are accomodated as is the reigning monarch when he/she chooses (or is required) to attend, as well as about 40-50 other student accomodation rooms). So yes, you're on the right track there. I doesn't share facilities as a college as such but its students do access common Oxford University buildings, like the fairly famous ]. Is is not a faculty and if you were to pick a random professor you may find that they are considered to "belong" to more than one place, depending on their personal history and the nature of the professorship, Regius Professors are linked to colleges in an ex-offico manner for example. The same will apply to nearly every single one of the colleges of Oxford, each article would have to re-state what is generally outlined at ], I'm not sure that is practical, even if wise. The article spent a day on the main page and not a single comment relating to this came up. It is a common question for tourists to ask "where is the University" to which most locals reply (if they are within four or five miles of the centre) "You're already in it, look about!", it takes a lot of patience and time for locals to continually answer the preconception that there is a defined "campus" and "which college is the one to do History in?" type questions are quite frankly practically unanswerable in person on a day to day basis and certainly so in an encylopedia article.--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 13:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I think you can incorporate some text from . Specifically, Oriel College has academic disciplines in arts and sciences. Also, students belong to different nationalities. Details of the admission process can also be included. The tutors (faculty) are reportedly specific to the college, so the details/statistics of faculty in various disciplines can be included. The facilities available at the college can also be discussed. suggests that the college has specialised (and possibly advanced) computing facilities. Details of well-known laboratories in the college can also be included. The academic publication statistics (if any) can also be mentioned. I believe the college would be using facilities from ]. Have any books by Oriel faculty been published in OUP or elsewhere. If any related information is available, it can be included. If you think repeating information is not wise, provide a link to some article that does. — ] (]) 14:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
From what I have gathered, the college isn't secular in nature. This can be seen in the "Grace" which has references to Jesus Christ as Lord. Are there exceptions for students from other religious backgrounds. If there are exceptions, state them. If there are not, even then this can be mentioned. — ] (]) 14:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:From an Oxford perspective "arts & sciences" means pretty much all subjects and is therefore pretty meaningless, and the same applies to virtually every other college in Oxford University. Students at every college belong to different nationalities, Oriel is not special there, it's student make-up is pretty similar to the other Oxford colleges - there is a higher proportion of non-indiginous students studying as graduates than undergraduates. I have where possible avoided using data from the primary source for the usual reasons. The facilities such as they are, are discussed, in the building sections and in the student life section. There are no labs in Oriel, notable or otherwise. The admission process does not vary from this college to the next - again this would involve the exact same data being needed in evry college article. Tutors being sepcific to college is already mentioned in the article and I'll repeat it again Oriel is a college, not a faculty. The computing facilties despite what the primary source might suggest, are nothing special, better are found at the relevant university department (or faculty). Individual members of Oriel have published various things in the past - the historians Rannie, Pantin and Catto have written works about Oriel and are extensively cited in the article. It might be better to suggest a standard lead section summarising the Oxford Univeristy academic system and admissions procedure to the Oxford Univeristy project as that is not specific to this article. And yes the college is secular, it was religious based when it was founded, as were all oclleges and halls at the time, but is no longer, as is the case with virtually all other colleges, the data about how many gaudies (previously they were religious observances) being taken down in numbers from over twenty to two is actually mentioned in the article. There was never any particular decision about this, like most of the former religious 'houses' of Oxford, they have gradually accepted a more and more secular process, again that is not specific to Oriel.--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 14:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Your comments about grace are similar to asking that in every single English school article, the fact that assembly was once a time for prayer and singing of hymns has changed to being a secular event - I'm just shaking my head here, I can't see how stuff that is standard amongst a vast amount of places needs to be address in every single article about colleges and schools.--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 14:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Quite a discussion that's erupted here! It all seems to stem from a lack of understanding of the nature of a college within the University of Oxford. If I might say so, I think the most appropriate place to ensure this is clearly explained is the ] page. This is already linked to from the first paragraphs of most if not all the individual college articles (including this one) though maybe some way needs to be found of emphasising these links and raising awareness that the colleges may be unlike those of other institutions the reader is familiar with. |
|
|
|
|
|
::At present I don't think the ] page (or for that matter the main ] page) gives sufficient explanation of the roles the colleges play (or don't play) in the academic life of the university. In both articles the details that ''are'' given about the nature of the collegiate university focus on undergraduate courses – lectures and tutorials are mentioned, but there's nothing to say where research goes on. ] 22:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Sorry for replying late. Was busy for the last few days, and even now don't have much time. I will get beck to details of the concerns raised by you later in detail, but prima facie, I still think that related articles need to be linked from it. For example, a link to a page that deals with admission to Oxford colleges needs to be added either in "See also" form, or with a 2~3 sentence brief introduction to the common norms and ways. Regards, — ] (]) 09:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Thanks for the additions. — ] (]) 17:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Oriel Noetics == |
|
|
|
|
|
I changed the name from Oxford Noetics to Oriel Noetics to match current academic parlance. The term 'Oriel Noetics' has been used by several authors notably: |
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Mandler 'Tories and Paupers: Christian Political Economy and the Making of the New Poor Law' in Historical Journal 33.1 (March 1990) |
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Brent 'Liberal Anglican Politics, Whiggery, Religion, and Reform 1830 - 1841' (OUP, 1987), ch. 4 'The Theological Origins of Liberal Anglicanism: Oriel Noetics and Trinity Liberals' |
|
|
|
|
|
Idem 'The Oriel Noetics', History of the University of Oxford Vol. VI (Nineteenth Century Volume I of II), pp. 73 - 76 |
|
|
|
|
|
Would have put these references in myself but felt too inexperienced to wish to try. |
|
|
|
|
|
] 12:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Daryl |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== IPA == |
|
== Oriel College, or Oriel College, Oxford? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some indication of some pronunciation would help. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
] is the odd one out. Every other Oxford college (and all the Cambridge ones, too) have articles and categories called "Blank College, Oxbridge" - see ] and ]. Even Oriel's main category is ], not ]. I know that, ordinarily, there would be no need for a disambiguating phrase in an article's title in the absence of any other articles needing disambiguation. However, Oriel's article name is inconsistent without good reason. I therefore suggest that the article is '''moved to Oriel College, Oxford''' over the redirect. I would be bold and do this myself, but as this is a FA I didn't want to step on toes. Thoughts? ]] 10:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Page update needed - new Provost == |
|
:] and go ahead. ] 12:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm the comms officer at Oriel College (and therefore won't edit directly) but I wanted to request that somebody please update the page to reflect our recent change in Provost. Moira Wallace came to the end of her term on 31st August 2018, and Neil Mendoza (https://en.wikipedia.org/Neil_Mendoza) took up the post of Provost on 1st September 2018. His profile page on the College website is here in case you need to link to it: https://www.oriel.ox.ac.uk/people/mr-neil-mendoza. Thank you. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
:Agreed. <sup>]</sup>] 13:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Featured article review needed == |
|
{{done}}. Thank you. For information, when fixing the double redirect, I found (and have nominated at ]) ]. ]] 14:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
This is a 2007 Featured article that has not been maintained to ] standards. There is considerable uncited text, overquoting, short choppy sections, and citation formatting needs cleanup. Unless someone is able to restore this article to FA standards, it should be submitted to ]. ] (]) 22:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
* ]ing of images also needs to be corrected, ] (]) 04:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Pusey == |
|
== Updating the article == |
|
Keeps creeping in as one of the founders of the Oxford Movement. "He was not, however, fully associated in the movement till 1835 and 1836, when he published his tract on baptism and started the Library of the Fathers" - Faught, C. Brad (2003). ''The Oxford Movement: A Thematic History of the Tractarians and Their Times'', University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 978-02710-224-99. He is mentioned in context in the modern section, would require reforming (OR) the way the info is put forward if Pusey is for inclusion in the lead, which IMO (as one the authors getting this FA) he is not for inclusion in the lead.--] (]) 06:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{u|Ravenpuff}} thanks for making a start on this. Most of the information on the chapel glass seems to be available at https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/oxon/vol3/pp119-131 (Presentation) and https://www.british-history.ac.uk/rchme/oxon/pp91-95 (St Margaret). Are you familiar with the notation for references used in 2007? ] (]) 01:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
: The Oxford Movement's founding took place throughout the 1830s, so any author of one of the ''Tracts for the Times'' deserves to be called a founding member. All the more so when the movement in question is actually ''named after that person'' in one of its most common names (]). The Tracts only started in 1833 and Pusey was contributing in 1834. That's not relevant, though: the point is that Pusey is noteworthy and that he was a fellow at Oriel. Full stop. This isn't an article about the Oxford Movement. |
|
|
: The purpose of mentioning any of this in the lead in an article about Oriel College, is to say that the three big figures of the movement were fellows at Oriel. The whole theological triumvirate, as it were. The chronology of the Oxford Movement doesn't matter here, rather the relative stature of Oriel's various distinguished alumni. If Keble and Newman are significant enough to warrant mention, then Pusey, who is of equal importance in English and Ecclesiastical history, also deserves mention (more so than Keble, in fact). IMO Cecil Rhodes and Sir Walter Raleigh are also noteworthy enough to deserve mention in the lead. --] (]) 14:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yes, there are many arguments that one could make for many people to be in the lead, all apparently equal or better than the last. This has been a stable Featured Article for years, listyfying the lead to include anyone of import doesn't fit the 'write enough in the lead to summarise the relevant section and entice the reader to read the article. The lead is not there to be a mini stand alone article, although it should be able to do so, it should also be noted that this summarises a section which itself is summarised as it has a stand alone article.--] (]) 01:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Then why on earth mention Keble? I don't think there can be any argument that he is a more obscure figure than Pusey, Raleigh, or Rhodes. What does the article gain by singling him out to the exclusion of all Oriel's other alumni, save Newman? If the Nobel laureates aren't named, I don't see any logic to why the first and third most important figures of the Oxford movement should be, passing over the second. --] (]) 10:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::We are talking about the summary section for the article. It mentions Keble in the same breath and for the same reason as mentions Newman, they are both '''founders''' of the OM. You think wrong and putting Pusey alongside Raleigh and Rhodes is laughable. This article is about Oriel, not the Oxford Movement. The laureates are named, in the section, see comment above about placement, balance and encouragement to read the article.--] (]) 05:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Yes, this article is about Oriel, not the Oxford movement. Therefore, ''who cares whether Keble founded the Oxford movement''? The only reason to mention Keble here is that he was from Oriel, but in that case, the question must necessarily be raised whether his prominence is greater that that of all the other famous Orielenses, who are not mentioned. Their founding or not founding of the Oxford Movement is completely moot. Isn't founding Rhodesia a more significant accomplishment than the assize sermon? If so, Rhodes belongs in the lead, and Keble doesn't. --] (]) 10:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: Please read the guidance ] before acting on what you perceive the purpose of the lead to be. Rhodes was a ''student'' (when he was there), the current text talks about prominent ''fellows'', so that would need formulating some text - exactly what text do you think should be there? If you've ever looked at the alumni page for Oriel, you can imagine that theologians will spend all day debating imperialists, sportsmen, politicians and such as to who is most notable, what text do you suggest to summarise the section to which it relates to give proper proportionate cover, that does not have issues such as Raleigh actually being a student of a hall that was later incorporated into Oriel so cannot be easily said to be student at Oriel. |
|
|
:::::: From the college's point of view: Keble and Newman have their portraits in hall, two of twenty: Pusey does not. Keble and Newman have their coats of arms decorating college: Pusey does not. Whereas Keble and Newman were fellows in the full sense, Pusey was elected to a fellowship, but only on the understanding that he would not be a tutor. Their own guides invariably mention Newman, Rhodes, Raleigh, Brummel, White, the Arnolds, Sellars and Yeatman, AJP Taylor, Todd and Meade '''before''' they ever mention Pusey. Is it possible that the subject you have studied has coloured your selection of figure that you insisted should go alongside the two easy, clear cut, 'uncriticable' (except by theologians) prominent fellows?--] (]) 20:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: On the contrary, my contention is that Keble is not noteworthy enough to warrant mention in the lead. His inclusion is neither "clear-cut" nor "uncriticable", but rather out of place. This could be corrected ''either'' by adding Pusey, to emphasise the presence of the three major leaders of the movement, ''or'', since that is proving contentious, by simply removing him altogether from the lead. (Although an argument could be made for retaining Newman, as he is significantly more noteworthy.) Keble is only known today for a few hymns, and the college that ''Pusey'' built and named after him. |
|
|
::::: If we take the portraits in hall as our guide, then Raleigh and Butler are the two alumni that should be mentioned: their portraits are far larger and have pride of place. Marlborough and Pierrepont's achievements of arms are larger. Rhodes, dominating the college's façade on the high, also would have a stronger architectural claim than anyone associated with the Oxford movement. |
|
|
::::: The point of this paragraph, to quote WP:LEAD, is to "explain why the topic is interesting or notable", viz. because noteworthy people are associated with the college and because it has some noteworthy possessions. At no point have I called any of this into question or altered the structure of the lead. I have merely sought to improve the ''existing'' sentences which begin ''"Oriel's notable alumni include ____"'' and ''"Among Oriel's more notable possessions are ____"''. If you feel that those sentences contradict WP:LEAD, fine. I have cited why I believe that they do not, but in any event, I am not the one who put them there, so your condescension is misplaced. |
|
|
::::: If we accept that those sentences do belong, it is nonsensical to argue that we should mention Keble by name, even though he's less noteworthy than others, because if we mentioned more noteworthy people, there would be too many others to name! |
|
|
::::: Rather, if there is no general consensus on who Oriel's most noteworthy two or three alumni are (be they students, fellows, or scouts--association with Oriel is all that's relevant, not the nature of the association), then ''none'' should be mentioned by name in the lead. As I write this, no one is named in the lead, which I think is an improved state of affairs. (Though I still find the noteworthy possessions phrase is problematic, as it fails to mention the college's most noteworthy possession, the Magna Carta. Your new phrasing "a painting by painting by Bernard van Orley", in my opinion lowers the quality of the article.) --] (]) 08:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I'll repeat, what form of text are you suggesting? Re: Magna Carta, who says it is Oriel's most notable possession? Source? Whereas I did manage to find who can be sourced as being known as Oriel's most famous person (Raleigh) but as explained already, he was a student of Mary Hall. What form of text are you suggesting be used?--] (]) 21:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::The correction of an obvious doubling is hardly contentious, yet you chose to leave it in.--] (]) 21:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I really don't understand your reply to my pointing out the utter absence of Pusey-isms around the college, having clearly stated that even if we take it from the college's point of view... I did not expect you to take this as any notion or reason for inclusion, it is obvious OR and flies in the face V. I was merely pointing out that college appears not to accord Pusey the same status as Keble, as Keble-isms are evident alongside Newman-isms but Pusey-isms are not to be found. If you enjoy irony you may chuckle at the fact that the only verifiable source regarding portraits (quoted below) I have come across considers neither of the portraits of the students you theorised as being notable as being notable. As to their being in a place of honour - is it not more likely that, considering their size, that unless the monarchs' portraits are displaced, those are the only places they could be accomodated in (that or not have them up at all)? |
|
|
:::::::<blockquote>The college portraits are described in Mrs. R. L. Poole's Catalogue of Oxford Portraits, vol. ii (Oxford Hist. Soc., lxxxi, 1926), pp. 79–108. The most notable are the portraits of Provost Blencowe, dated 1601; Provost Tolson, dated 1637; Provost Say, c. 1660–91; Bishop John Robinson, dated 1713; Provost Eveleigh, c. 1781–1814, by Hoppner; Provost Copleston, c. 1819, by Thomas Phillips; Provost Hawkins, c. 1855, by Sir Francis Grant; Cardinal Newman, c. 1880, by W. W. Ouless, and 1844, by G. Richmond; Charles Boyle, Viscount Dungarvan, 1745, by Arthur Pond.</blockquote> |
|
|
:::::::From: 'Oriel College and St Mary hall', A History of the County of Oxford: Volume 3: The University of Oxford (1954), pp. 119-131. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=63876 Date accessed: 09 March 2012. |
|
|
:::::::If you were the person who had spent time and trouble putting this article together, nominating and seeing it through the Featured Article process and appeared to be condescending to an author who repeatedly tinkered with the the summary to add data that they later state shouldn't be in anyway, as well data that is for inclusion but should have gone into body, albeit in the form of a factoid, personally I would not have said that to be misplaced. As you are not and I am, you will forgive any apparent "way I come across" in ensuring the best for the article.--] (]) 04:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
