Talk:University of Oslo

Untitled
I removed some instances of patent nonsense and added the name of the new rector.

--Thorsen 13:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Untitled 2
While Oslo has some of the highest real estate prices in the world

Is this correct? I think not - in fact they are almost reasonable compared to other major cities I could mention... -- Egil 01:08 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)


 * Real estate prices in Oslo are higher than in other parts of Norway, but relatively modest compared to most European cities.
 * --Thorsen 13:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Probably derived from the fact that Oslo is one of the world's most expensive cities to live in - and ranked on the very top of that list in 2005, well above giants like Tokyo and Hong Kong. --82.148.167.103 01:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

History: Personal union
This is not correct. Norway was a part of Denmark from 1536 to 1814. Who revoked the edit? And why should this be "unhistorical nonsense"? Jørgen 10:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Norway was a separate Kingdom according to the union treaty, and the King always used the style "King of Denmark and Norway".


 * Please sign your posts. After 1536, Norway was considered a province of Denmark, in a way similar to Schleswig-Holstein. Jørgen 21:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You are both right. Norway was, from the time of Christian III (1536), considered a province of Denmark. However, The king continued until 1814 to include "King of Denmark and Norway" in his full title used in official correspondence. In de facto terms, Norway was governed along much the same lines as other overseas territories under the Danish king, such as Iceland, i.e. by the personal representatives of the king himself. --Thorsen 13:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Tuition fee
The University of Oslo charges NOK 200 in 'paper money' (kopiavgift) per year of tuition. See the university's web page here (in Norwegian). This is in addition to the approx NOK 400 paid to the student welfare oranization. O. Prytz 10:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be clear that the "semesteravgift" is not a tuition fee, but a fee going to the student welfare organization. Strictly, the University of Oslo does not charge a tuition fee, but you have to be a member of the student welfare organization, and the fee for this only goes to student welfare (housing, sport facilities etc.) and not to the university. --Niels Petter (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the best in Europe
"According to a study published in THES, the Times Higher Education Supplement, the Arts Faculty at the University of Oslo is among the global elite. THES writes that the Oslo Arts Faculty is ranked 16th in the world, fifth best in Europe, and the best in Scandinavia. Bjarne Rogan, the Faculty's dean, notes that the faculty does well in several fields, including contemporary history, Oriental studies, and media subjects. The University's rector is pleased at the Arts Faculty's high ranking, and believes it will make the University a more attractive partner for other institutes of research." (http://www.universitas.no/index.php?sak=11345#11345 )

oldest, largest and most prestigious university in Norway
The University of Oslo, historically informally known as simply "the University", is not only the only old university in Norway and the only large university, but also the only university that is ranked as one of the world's best in recognized international rankings (the best university in Norway, the 19th best in Europe and 69th best in the world in the Academic Ranking of World Universities). As stated by rector Geir Ellingsrud: "Dette viser at Universitetet i Oslo er et fremragende universitet i internasjonal sammenheng og i en klasse for seg i Norge". As such, it is clearly the most prestigious university of Norway, as no other Norwegian universities enjoy such international recognition. BrunoBarn (talk) 02:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Overall you are perhaps correct, but in the engineering disciplines NTNU is without a doubt the most prestigious, and it is actually not that much smaller than UiO. I would also like to add that this year NTNU came out above UiO in Webometrics Ranking of World Universities, which uses different criteria from the Academic Ranking of World Universities. That the rector of UiO feels that UiO is in a league of its own in Norway is hardly surprising. The oldest parts of NTNU (The Museum of Natural History and Archaeology and The University Library) actually date back to the 1760s (with the Royal Norwegian Society of Sciences and Letters). -- Nidator T / C 10:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Claiming that NTNU ranks better in engineering disciplines is an overstatement, especially in regards to such as software engineering. UiO was ranked as 1st in Norway, 3rd in Europe, and 12th in the world within Computer Science and Engineering by ShanghaiRanking Global Ranking of World Universities in 2017, see: https://web.archive.org/web/20190811074404/http://www.shanghairanking.com/Shanghairanking-Subject-Rankings-2017/computer-science-engineering.html. Elysian9 (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Universities and colleges in Norway vs. Category:University of Oslo
Category:University of Oslo is itself a category within Category:Universities and colleges in Norway. — Robert Greer (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Demographics
I think a section regarding the Universitys demographics of the student body i.e age, gender, ethnicity, et cetera would be useful. I can't seem to find anything though, if anyone could that would be useful and help raise the standard of the article. BodvarBjarki (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

SSB has some data on this, I just updated the number of students at UiO in the main article. Got the infor from http://www.ssb.no/utuvh/tab-2009-01-23-01.html Frankol77 (talk) 12:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Alumni list
Is the alumni list intended to be an exhaustive list of alumni who have a Wikipedia bio, or just the most prominent people? --Kjetil Kjernsmo (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The main alumni list on List of University of Oslo people is in principle a list of all notable alumni (i.e. individuals who have a Wikipedia biography, or who obviously should have a Wikipedia biography). The list here in this article is just an excerpt of the most notable ones. Bjerrebæk (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Ranking and introduction
Why does this article need to bring university rankings into not only the introduction, but even to the very first paragraph? Also, if first mentioning rankings, why only mention the ranking where UiO does best? Why not also include both QS and Times?

Imagine if all university articles did the same, highlighting only its strongest ranking, each university would appear better than they really are.. The sentance "The university is recognized as one of Northern Europe's most prestigious universities" also does more bad than good as it is unsourced and completely unnecessary. Makes the article seem more like an advertisement to me..

I believe fixing these issues would improve the article's credibility and strength.. Anyone agree? Nooop (talk) 07:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Beboj3140 + IP 188.182.194.148: Edit warring in lead
Both User:Beboj3140 and curiously, IP 188.182.194.148, are currently engaged in an edit war regarding a sentence in the lead about the reputation of this university. The comment appears to be consistent with the rankings which are sourced in this section. Those rankings include Norway, that region in Europe and internationally. So again, because the rankings sourced are so high, the sentence appears to be a reasonable copyedit.

But the place to resolve disputes is through discussion here. User:Beboj3140 has been warned in the edit log and on their talk page and ignored both warnings and continues to edit war. So this user will be reported.

Edit-warring is disruptive and repeatedly reverting edits, violates Wikipedia policy WP:3RR. It also appears User:Beboj3140 is also IP 188.182.194.148, as the two are warring over the same sentence and using virtually identical language. This is being done as either a means to skirt 3RR policy, or give the artificial appearance of consensus. Either way, it will also be reported. X4n6 (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Embarrassing page
The page as it presently appears needs attention from a scholarly person skilled in writing the English language, and, of course, it needs more citations. I recently placed a tag on the page to say that it reads like an advertisement, but that was removed as part of the edit warring mentioned above. There are several aspects of the page that make it an embarrassment to a scholarly institution, quite apart from whatever character the institution itself might actually have.

The page is poorly organized and poorly written, with repetition and poorly chosen words that make it hard to read. The section called "Faculties" mixes a discussion of architecture with the organizational structure of the various disciplines. "Some of the notable academics of the university are" includes a number of people who have died and thus (one presumes) are not available to mentor students.

I removed a count of the number of Nobel laureates from the first section because it seemed to suggest that they live in the corridors, or something (but some are not even alive; is the place haunted? That could be an interesting clarification.)

The emphasis in the initial paragraphs on the university rankings might be what non-scholars care about to the exclusion of any other aspects of the university, but this is a university, and so the lead section should emphasize matters that are of interest to scholars, including prospective students who have an inclination towards learning rather than towards boasting about what institution they are paying fees to. In a similar vein, the heading "Hierarchy" brings to mind a section that would end with a list of the lowest ranks at the university, perhaps first-year students, or perhaps the cleaning staff (but the section is probably intended to be only about a hierarchy of academic positions, I think).

So to summarize, the page needs a lot of work, and it needs a tag saying that it reads like an advertisement, so that people who specialize in rewriting cringe-worthy advertising copy can find it to work on it. However, given the edit-warring climate ... Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Your critique of this article appears to come, at least in part, from some confusion about what an article about a university should contain. Have you looked at other university articles for guidance? For example, you noted that you removed the number of Nobel laureates from the lead because "it seemed to suggest they live in the corridors or something." So if you found the phrasing objectionable, then why not simply rewrite it, instead of removing the entire reference from the lead? Did you find no value in the lead noting the academic institution's achievements in connection with the highest possible academic award? Please review WP:LEAD. Also, if you review other university articles, for example those for Harvard University, Yale University, the University of Chicago and the University of Oxford, you'll see that Nobel laureates are always listed in the lead. Why should the University of Oslo be different? Especially when, as the article does note, it has also been the physical host of that award? What's more, the articles for Chicago and Oxford are both listed as good articles. So I'll restore that information to the lead and add sources. I'd also note moving forward, that what consists of a good university article here really isn't something that requires a subjective reinventing of the wheel each time. Nor does it require some special "scholarly person." It only requires that editors follow the style guide, not remove items which are relevant and reliably sourced, work collaboratively; and, in this case, refrain from comments that make a bad situation worse by claiming your advert tag was removed because of edit-warring. It was not. It was removed because it did not apply. Again, we should use those good university articles for guidance. X4n6 (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

RaphaelQS has updated the seal for us to match with the university's guidelines. Thank you!
According to the university's graphic design guidelines the seal must have a red background with white text, or black with white text if in black and white.

http://www.uio.no/om/designmanual/grunnelementer/segl/ "Seglet skal, så langt det er mulig, gjengis med hvit tekst og tegning på rød sirkulær bakgrunn, som vist her"

http://www.uio.no/om/designmanual/grunnelementer/segl/segl-retningslinjer/ "Seglets høyrøde farge er hentet fra tradisjonelle, røde lakksegl. Seglet skal derfor i fargeversjon alltid gjengis i rødt med hvit tegning og hvit tekst – uansett bakgrunn. I sort/hvitt-trykksaker kan seglet gjengis i sort."

PromisingLight (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)