Talk:Wadham College, Oxford/Archive 1

radicalism vs liberalism
i agree absolutely about the radicalism claim. though oxford's radical forum is still organised through wadham and primarily by wadham students, it is by no means a hot bed. what is true is that it has a history of protest that other colleges don't and the fellows accept protest in ways that other colleges don't. also, i think it is stil fair to claim that it is liberal, diverse tolerant and progressive, numerous sources make reference to this, it is something that the fellows believe, the students believe, the incoming warden believes, and the university at large, if contentiously and at times superficially, believe also. it is in many respects the defining characteristic of the college and the way it is governed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.207.92 (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

College templates
I have created a series of templates for former students of Oxford's various colleges. There are still plenty to do, but if you want to add one of the templates to your user page then feel free. See Userboxes/Education/United Kingdom/University of Oxford for complete list. Please contact me if you would like another college fast-tracked... Deano 18:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Claims of Radicalism
I'm completely bewildered by the claim that Wadham has been a 'hotbed of radicalism' for 'four decades'. I was a student there in the 1960s (1964-70) and the College wasn't radical at the time. In the fact the main preoccupation at undergraduate level was to get the highest possible class of degree, and there just wasn't time for fooling around with radicalism and the like. Norvo, 18.58 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Wadham definitely isn't a 'hotbed of radicalism' today. That from a present Wadham graduate student.

--Ilnyckyj 03:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I was a student at Wadham about five years ago, and there wasn't any radicalism at that time, either.

--Saabie 20:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wadham was a little radical in the late 70s/early 80s when I was an undergrad.--ukexpat 12:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Famous Wardens and Fellows
Robert J.C. Young, post-colonial theorist, for example. Good luck to him, but is he really famous? Probably every fellow or (especially) warden is notable to some extent, but we don't want to just list them all here, and famous is a big word. Flapdragon 00:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

JCR Quad
I should start by saying that I'm a former Wadham student. I will shortly remove references to "Ho Chi Minh Quad" for six reasons.

1. Although the term is part of college folklore, I've never seen a citation to any SU meeting from the 1970s.

2. Decisions such as "quad names" are made by the college fellows, not the SU.

3. The College and most students use the term "JCR Quad."

4. Oxford JCRs produce lots of silly resolutions, very few of which deserve life support after thirty years.

5. "The times they are a-changin'," and Wadham students today are different from those in the 1970s.

6. Wadham's noteriety as a radical college (in contrast to "just" being tolerant and progressive) harms its ability to recruit ordinary people from under-represented communities in Britain.

--Saabie 05:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

With reference to the above points - I spoke to a lady who graduated in the 1970's, and she reacted to my comment that I lived overlooking the "bar quad" (which is how the JCR quad is typically referred... we're all so imaginative) by asking "is that Ho Chi Minh Quad?" However, I think on maps of the college, it is labelled as the JCR quad, so I'm not disputing your decision, only muddying the waters a little!

Incidentally, the college are also trying to varify claims that they are the first traditionally all-male college to go mixed that has seen a mother and daughter go to the same college (which will be nice for College and it's feminist element if it can be proven). Wadhamite 10:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

We called it the Ho Chi Minh Quad in the early 80s. --ukexpat 12:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

We still occasionally call it the Ho Chi Minh Quad today, as we also call the Yasser Arrafat Laundry!

Not heard that one, is it due to the number of Palestinian scarves lying around?! Wadhamite 07:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

New Photos
Miguel, you've done a lot on this page, particularly with the new photos. You may want to crop your front quad image to remove the heavy shadows in the foreground. Second, I'm not sure that the hall picture you've put up is an improvement. The problem with photos taken from the choir loft is that they usually (a) come out too dark; (b) ignore the screen, which is more impressive than the windows; and (c) don't convey the proportions of the room. You may want to try and replicate the vertical photo that I had up previously (which admittedly could be improved). --69.125.199.69 (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC) (ex-Saabie)

The picture of the Hall has been copied from my Flickr stream from a picture I took in 2003. I will work on the correct attribution and re-licensing it, it is not currently in the public domain. http://www.flickr.com/photos/major_clanger/13000978/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.142.244 (talk) 06:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ox WikiProject Assessment
I am upgrading this article to C-class mainly due to the number of internal references, the amount of information available and the quality of its illustration.

To improve this article I would suggest to:
 * regroup all the building related content in one sub-section
 * provide further external references
 * provide information about topics such as college facilities, student life etc..

Ghaag (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Date of Foundation
I just corrected the date of the college's Foundation to 1610 from 1613 (in the text, the ibox was correct), with a source. The college celebrates its 400th anniversary next year so the 1613 date was clearly incorrect and the source supports the 1610 date. – ukexpat (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Image for ibox
We appear to have some disagreement over the image that should appear in the ibox.

IMHO File:WadhamCollege2010.JPG is not the best one to use -- it's dark and doesn't show the Hall entrance very well. The previous image (File:Wadham.jpg) works much better. Thoughts? – ukexpat (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Wadham.jpg is a better introductory image, I agree, because it shows more of the college than the other one. BencherliteTalk 07:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I find File:Wadham.jpg a little inadequate: it is blurry and at low resolution. I would go back to File:Wadh3.jpg, which was previously used in the ibox, as it provides much greater detail on both the frontispiece, hall windows, and side walls of the quad.  Alternatively, I would also consider File:Wadh.jpg, showing the hall windows and side dormers from the Holywell Quad side. It's both a more attractive perspective and a more distinctive aspect of Wadham's architecture.


 * Honestly, I think most of the current photos are actually worse than those that were up in 2006.--208.27.203.129 (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * OK I have replaced current image with File:Wadh3.jpg. Next time I am there I will take a tripod and my 5DII and take some more images. – ukexpat (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That would be great. What we could really use are some better photos of the hall and chapel. These are hard to get without some kind of wide or fisheye lens. For the hall, ideally you would get a photo facing backwards, since the Jacobean screen and hammer-beam roof are more architecturally significant than the Victorian windows. (The chapel windows are important, though.)


 * Also, we currently have interior photos of the main quad, but no photos of the exteriors. We might also want to include a broader photo of Holywell Quad, and/or some of the newer buildings. --208.27.203.129 (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I may have some from trips in 2009 and 2010. I'll check my RAW files when I have time and see what I can find. – ukexpat (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Anecdotes
I feel that the anecdotes/curiosities deserve a section for themselves: they are currently scattered in the History section, which seems an odd place to put them. Whereas I think the history section needs some expansion. For example the history section jumps from the founding in 1613 to the late 20th century, without mentioning, say, the wardenship of Wilkins and the Oxford philosophical club.

Rp31 (talk) 10:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I expanded the History section, and I've moved the anecdotes and curiosities into a separate section.

Rp31 (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

intro
someone changed the introduction paragraph, probably someone trying to remove association with left wing. this is clearly documented in many sources, real sources that aren't just the colleges website (as the previous version had, which read like a PR statement). If it's changed back without good reason and references to support i will open a POV dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.185.25 (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the change made by user 131.111.185.25 and I disagree that this user is being neutral. The user changed the original sentence "Wadham is a liberal and progressive college which aims to maintain the diversity of its student body and a friendly atmosphere" to "Wadham is a liberal and progressive college, renowned for its left-wing politics and the diversity of its student body" The user says that "association with left wing is clearly documented in many sources", but the only citation given is Alister E. McGrath, A Scientific Theology (the other citation refers to a generic page of the Wadham College website). If you follow the link to McGrath, you see that McGrath writes that he chose to study at Wadham "partly on account of the college's association with left-wing politics at this time". McGrath went to Wadham in 1971, so "at this time" refers to the period just after the 1968 student protests that swept across the US and Europe. This citation is therefore not sufficient evidence to suggest that, 45 years later, Wadham College is renowned for its left-wing politics (what politics? whose politics?). The time-period is very relevant in this discussion because on the same page McGrath also writes "It was intellectually fashionable to be a Marxist at this time in Oxford". Moreover, if a claim of "left-wing association" is suggested, it should be clarified who has this association: the majority of the student-body? the Student's Union? the majority of fellowship? the college administration? who? And what citation will support such a claim? I'm surprised that user 131.111.185.25 questions the neutrality of the article: the user is threateningly forcing the wikipedia community to accept the claim that an academic institution has a political bias, suggesting that there are "real sources" to document this (??) Rp31 (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Npov
Number of edits made that are unreferenced, for example words such as splendid and magnificent. Reads as if written by a fellow or press officer

(THE SENTENCE ABOVE HAS NO SIGNATURE: It was edited by user 131.111.194.10, is that the same as user 131.111.185.25 since they suggested to open an NPOV discussion?)

If you look at the "View History" and compare "Revision as of 16:18, 24 June 2014 143.97.2.35" with "Revision as of 13:40, 25 June 2014 131.111.185.25", you see that user 131.111.185.25 has changed "notable example of Jacobean architecture" to "splendid example of Jacobean architecture"; they changed "large and ornate Hall" to "magnificent Hall". So user 131.111.185.25 has reverted neutral-language to non-neutral language. Rp31 (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

As I already mentioned when I made a major revision of the Wikipedia entry for Wadham College (December 2013), the History section should not be filled with anecdotes about the "laundress", about humorous "non-negotiable demands" by the fellowship in the face of student protests, filled with a humorous limerick inspired by an anecdote of a homosexual scandal, or filled with curiosities about skeleton bones found which the police originally thought involved bullet wounds. All these should be put later in a much later section called Anecdotes and Curiosities, as I had suggested. I also don't understand why user 131.111.185.25 removes the only notable history of the college to speak of, which was around the time of Warden Wilkins, Sir Christopher Wren and the origins of the Royal Society. Under "People associated with Wadham", as I already mentioned then, I do not think that the picture of the former Archbishop of Canterbury should be used. As a religious representative, he is a divisive figure, and a less divisive choice should be made. For example, I suggested that a more reasonable choice is Sir Roger Penrose, a very renowned physicist. All in all, I think user 131.111.185.25 has made a great disservice to the Wikipedia community by undoing he major revision which I had made, and which had been carefully improved by many other wikipedia users (including, for example, revisions which made the language more neutral -- thanks to user Ruby Murray for those improvements) Rp31 (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't agree with large-scale reversions by anonymous IP addresses, however well-intentioned (in this instance they resolve to the University of Cambridge, which is fair enough given Wilkins was master of both Oxon's Wadham and Cam's Trinity). Nevertheless I believe the article and citations could do with further improvement. I don't have time for it at the moment but if you would like to stay involved the key thing IMO is to remove any remaining "peacock" claims and ensure that the article is presenting a balanced long-term picture, grounded in high quality sources, e.g. British History Online and the history by Joseph Wells. Wadham's links with the Royal Society are important: there's a brief overview here, the transcript of Robin Wilson's Gresham lecture might be useful, and if you have a Bodleian reader's card you might consult Dixey's 1912 book. FYI the BBC published a catalogue of pictures held by the college, most of which should be freely usable on the grounds of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. Hope this helps - Pointillist (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)