Talk:University of Edinburgh

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

University of Edinburgh has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 22, 2013	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
September 13, 2021	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Higher education

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education

Scotland High‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Edinburgh Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Edinburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Edinburgh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EdinburghWikipedia:WikiProject EdinburghTemplate:WikiProject EdinburghEdinburgh
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Arcaist (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. (I am an employee of the university and have contributed significantly to the article, including bringing it to GA status. I believe that my edits have not been affected by COI, and I have not attempted to present the University in a particularly positive light (e.g. I've culled the list of notable people and expanded a section on poor student satisfaction). Please flag any of my edits you feel are problematic here or on my talk page.)

Thomas Jefferson quote

I commented out the quote from Thomas Jefferson as I'm not sure it belongs with the history of the university. link The fact that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a family member doesn't seem relevant, also the emphasis seems POV (ok Thomas Jefferson thought the courses were great in 1786, but...). Any other opinions?

Article review

I took a look at this article, and noticed lots of uncited statements and paragraphs. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean sure, but the article does have over 400 references, so are there any sections that you feel are missing adequate sourcing? — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 08:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Arcaist: Sorry, I didn't see this question until now. Would it be helpful to add citation needed tags to the article? There is typically supposed to be a citation at the end of every paragraph. Z1720 (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries @Z1720 — yes, please add maintenance tags, that makes our job easier. Mind you, from what I remember back when we brought this to GA, in many cases there might be a confirming citation very close to the end of the paragraph, even if it's not at the very end. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 08:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Arcaist: I have added citation needed tags to places where I think a citation is missing. Z1720 (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 Thanks, that was very helpful. I've added citations for all of these and removed the respective CN tags.

One question: Was there a reason for adding CN to the "Nobel and Nobel equivalent prizes" paragraphs, although the first one already has one or more citations for each person listed, and the second paragraph just describes the structure of the table? I've removed them for now, but please put them back if I've misunderstood. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 15:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was for the table: I didn't see that they were listed in that first paragraph. However, the paragraph does not list if they are alumnus or staff, and since the table doesn't have citations that information is currently unverified. Citations should be added to verify the status. Z1720 (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

There is a new article on the Regenting system in ancient Scottish universities, but about half of the page is off-topic, in the sense that it discusses what follows that system, and only in the University of Edinburgh. Hence, I suggest merging the section on Regenting system#Carstares' reforms into this page on the grounds of overlap, and to help solve the off topic problem at Regenting system. Klbrain (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's because it was called 'The Regenting System (Edinburgh)' until you edited it... The page is entirely on topic, once I return the correct title, since it discusses the peculiar aspects of the regenting system at the University of Edinburgh as largely distinct from St Andrews, Glasgow, and Aberdeen (e.g., Greek from the bajan class, examination by the town council, directly reformed by the Principal along Dutch lines, etc.).

This is, already, a long and dense article. I cannot see how merging the minutiae of Lee's theorised etymology of the word bajani and the various elements of what was taught to the Bachelors in the 16th would benefit this article (a general overview of the University and its history). Psychopompologist (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to integrate the findings of the "Race Review"

That university has now published its multi-year Race Review about its links to slavery and racism, which is also getting some significant press coverage, e.g. in the Guardian [1] [2] [3] [4], but also elsewhere [5] [6].

There are probably a few things from the Review we should integrate into the historical sections, and probably also some other places. But since this is a GA, I wanted to brainstorm this first. Any strong feelings about how we go about this? — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 14:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for raising this. It seems to me this merits either a new heading in the History section, or an entirely new section: ‘Social policy’ that would not restrict us to Race as a protected class. Such a section might lay out the university’s historical and contemporary approaches to what are now termed ‘protected characteristics’ under the Equality Act 2010:

age
disability
gender reassignment
marriage and civil partnership
pregnancy and maternity
race
religion or belief
sex
sexual orientation

There are references already throughout the article, such as in the Staff Networks and Research Projects that could cross-link. Chrisdevelop (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]