Talk:Heidelberg University/Archive 1

Undid some changes

First of all, thanks to anyone helping to improve this article. However, I have a point of criticism concerning the latest changes: |- Since the placings "45-60" and "58-66" look relatively modest at the first glance, mentioning the fact that Heidelberg ranks ahead of two Ivies in all jiao tong tables, and at least ahead of one in all thes tables is neither irrelevant nor unobjective. The Ivies are commonly regarded as the peak of excellence, and that Heidelberg outranks some of them should count for something. They want to be benchmarks, they obviously are perceived as benchmarks, so why not benchmarking with them? The statement is verifiable by the citations given, and was also stressed in some official ranking statements of the university's management. One could also list lots of other brand name universities. For instance Georgetown, Rice, William & Mary, KCL, St. Andrews, Durham, Sciences Po, Sorbonne etc, and for the subject area rankings even more of such. But as it is just ment to give a taste, and it is not very friendly to name certain colleges in this context, we should stick with the previous wording, naming only a group of colleges. That these rankings themselves may not always be objective is already mentioned in the section. However, if they have a methodological bias, it is certainly not to the disadvantage of universities in the anglosphere.

BTW: Some other colleges DO name the universities they are ranked ahead of. See Bowdoin, Notre Dame etc.

Fred Plotz 14:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Style

I am surprised about the style of this text, that is supposed to form an Encyclopaedia entry.

Kindly ask yourself: if you were handed some advertizing pamphlet, and read it, and then this text here, esp. the opening lines, how would they differ in style (w.o.w.s: would they...) ?!

147.142.186.54 (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir or Lady,

if you would please be so kind and compare this article with those of other major universities, especially in the US, then you will probably find no remarkable differences in style. Everything stated in this article is true and verifiable. But if you have some facts in mind in order to relativize this article and make it more encyclopedic from your point of view, feel free to add them. Meanwhile, I removed some all too bloomy formulations, and added something about decline and obscurity to the opening section. By the way, when I started editing this article, it was not as long as this talk page now is. Since you're obviously contributing from the university's network, kindly ask yourself: Why didn't I do it myself in a way that seems apposite to me?! So long! Fred Plotz (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, reconsidered your objection and changed the opening section. Think it is more balanced now. Regards 88.66.52.255 (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

People associated with the university

The list of people seems somewhat unstructured and I wonder whether one could make it more clear. I especially think a chronological layout, e.g. according to the centuries the people lived, would add a lot. However, I am not sure if this is in everyone's interest and/or if there is a Wikipedia standard for this. Please share your comments. 84.168.101.54 (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to structure the text (no list, but prose according to wiki standards) into broad subject areas, even within the respective paragraph: In Arts and social sciences, I mentioned the social scientists (Max Weber, Hannah Arendt etc) first, then the philosophers, then the other arts. Within those broad subject areas, there roughly is a chronological order as I tried partially to indicate the relations between the persons mentioned in order to make the text..uhm..a little more interesting. In the medicine and science section, the nobel laureates are listed strictly chronological within their fields, and in the politics section you will also find a chronological order within the fields (1.historical figures, 1.1 historical politicians, 1.2 historical business men 2.contemporary people; in 2. I listed them following their perceived notability as they all are still alive). In the poetry section, there ought to be a roughly chronological order as well, but I didn't pay too much attention here. Rizal and Iqbal are mentioned separately since they were obviously more than literates, and initially I considered listing them in the politics section. Well, that's my idea of the structure, but if you have a plan on improving it, just tell me. Anyway, a purely chronological list without paying attention to the person's fields seems not to be a better way from my point of view, and I have no idea about how to make prose out of a chronological list, which is inevitable if we want a GA rating one day. BTW: don't you think fiction is a part of pop culture? I know, this heading is common, but it seems to me too huge for that tiny paragraph, so would you mind if I change it back? 88.67.250.193 (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I thougt of something similar to the history section, not a chronological list. The current text is good. But maybe it can be improved by adding some sub-categories like "Middle Ages", "19th and early 20th century", "Nazi era", "today", etc. As far as I understand it, fiction is not a subset of pop culture. Although some fiction is pop culture, not all fiction is pop culture. There may not be fiction that is not pop culture in the current paragraph, but maybe somebody adds something (fiction that is not pop culture) in the future and then the heading is already correct. :) But this is not really important to me, so change it if you want to. 84.168.101.54 (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, principally I wouldn't mind doing it this way, but my point is, this is no history section, and if you want to write a meaningful text in the shape of the history section, you will presumably have to mention the roles of the people in that age. Furthermore, most people mentioned lived in the 19th and early 20th century, and we have no people of the Dark Ages and no Nazis here(no, I don't want Goebbels here, we're not proud of him). One could do it in the way you suggested, but then we will have to expand the section and, believe me, this means lots of research. The German list of people kind of sucks as they don't even have the guys I found out (such unimportant fellas as the Kings of Greece and Thailand ;)), and on the other hand you must pay attention to international notability. Concluding, I basically did the best I could and I don't know how to make it much better without making editing this page a full time job. Try your luck, I'm curious what comes out. Other topic: what do you think about the style comment below? Does this article appear like an advertisement? 88.66.15.226 (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"Other topic: what do you think about the style comment below?" Yes, it sometimes does sound like an advertisement. It is remarkable that there seem to exist no negative facts about the university. Especially the admission paragraph sounds dubious.84.168.91.45 (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? There are lots of negative facts in the history section, and I just found out the acceptance rates and changed the admission section (yes, it admittedly was kinda nebulous as it was lacking facts and figures untill today). And, well, negative facts such as crowded lecture halls in the freshman and sophomore classes, professors who rather do research or attend advisory boards than being available for their students may be true, but firstly can you source that, and second did you read that somewhere else? 88.66.20.165 (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice work

Hey pal, nice work so far, but I think theology actually belongs to the broad field of "Arts and Humanities" and as math is actually a philosophical discipline (logic, if you recieve a doctorate in math, it will be a Dr. phil.), just the same. So how about merging the paragraphs to the Arts and social sciences and name the section Arts, Humanities and social sciences? 88.66.55.254 (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

de: Liste berühmter Persönlichkeiten der Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg sorts people by the faculty they studied under. That makes more sense than the current organization for sure, and would avoid any of us having to pick a classification system. — Laura Scudder ☎ 00:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess you're right. I just see the problem that the number of faculties changed from 4 to 5 to 16 to 12, so I will see what I can do in the next few days. Do you think this article is unduly advertising-style, and if so, where? Fred Plotz (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I tried to restructure the section by faculties but it doesn't work due to a couple of reasons. I'm going to re-add theology to the humanities section as it is a field of humanities by definition. The affiliation of mathematics is controversial so it is justifiably an independent section. 88.67.253.191 (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"...and as math is actually a philosophical discipline (logic, if you recieve a doctorate in math, it will be a Dr. phil.)..." Well, you also get a DPhil or PhD (Philosophiæ Doctor) in Mechanical Engineering and you wouldn't consider this a philosophical discipline, would you? The DPhil/PhD is just a relic from older times when any subject outside medicine, law and theology was considered philosophy. Anyway, I also think a classification by current faculties would not work for that reason. However, the current heading "humanities and social science" does not seem to make sense either. Isn't social science considered part of humanities? So why don't we just keep the archaic classification of theology, law, medicine, philosophy *G* 84.168.99.2 (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I was talking in German degree terms. For Engineering you get a Dr.-Ing, for natural sciences a Dr. rer. nat., and so on (albeit most recently some faculties decided to offer the opportunity to choose whether to be awarded a classical German doctorate, or an anglosaxon-style PhD). The German doctoral classification indicates the affiliation of a discipline with a broad field. Pure math was, and is according to the predominant belief, a branch of philosophy; however in the last few decades some German universities, especially the technical universities started to a ward a Dr. rer nat. even for pure math. According to the Wiki article, Humanities consist of classics, history, languages and literature, law, performing arts, philosophy, religion, and visual arts. Sociology, political sciences, economy, and business are social sciences by definition and definitely not humanities in the modern classification. The archaic structure is not the worst way. It's to some degree historically justifiable to count the social sciences (and math, of course) towards philosophy, but what are you going to do with natural sciences? And how about the politicians and literates? E.g. Rizal was a med student here, do you want to list him in that section? I'd suggest to delete the sub-headings completely to avoid further controversy on that point. 88.66.23.76 (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, just deleted the sub-headings. It's not so bad. Now we have smooth junctions starting with pure social scientists, coming to social scientists who are also considered philosophers like Arendt and Jaspers, to pure philosophers, to theologians, to law scholars, to fine arts, (all uncontroversial humanities), to math which is either a field of humanities or natural sciences, to those field which are natural sciences for sure (regarding the human body as a part of nature), ending with social life in the broader sense. 88.66.23.76 (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this makes sense. 84.168.99.2 (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we have reached agreement so far. By the way, this is about the style Dartmouth College managed the section and they are FA, so it was most likely the best decision. Now again: which sections or sentences do you consider as undue boosterism? I honestly need to know as I am going to nominate the article for GA review in the next weeks, so advertising style must disappear if there is some, but I just can't see. Please read, compare with Dartmouth College and Georgetown University, which both have the highest possible rating, and give a detailed opinion. I would also request a native speaker, such as the lady Laura Scudder, to check wording and grammar. Thanks a lot in advance. Fred Plotz (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I can proofread the article. Just be warned that I'm editing a very limited amount right now, so I can't make any promises on when I can do it. — Laura Scudder ☎ 21:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it's very kind of you. There's no need to hurry, but when you do it you must pay attention to punctuation as it is very different from German (you might know) and still is a mystery to me. If you find some academic boosterism you can change it. Fred Plotz (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Iconoclasm"?

Hey JimmeyTimmey, having pictures is nice, having many pictures is nicer, but this scenic accumulation in the structure section is definitely too much, as the columns are optimized (div/2) for firefox and it is really too crowded. I'm going to delete one or two (the ugly ones, Karlsruhe and ARI). And do you really think all this classroom pics are necessary? One is ok, but not so many. We must keep the balance, it can't be that there are more pics than text. I took these three below out. P.S.: The pic of the New University looks great, where did you get it from? Oh, and I can see me in that lecture hall pic I left in, guess who I am.

Students in the library

. 88.66.32.114 (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it did not look too crowded on my machine but if did on yours... So I understand that you took some pictures out again but how did you decide here? (1.) You said you deleted the ugly ones. But why should there only be nice pictures? I thought this article is not supposed to have any advertisment characteristics, so what is the reason of showing only nice things? (2.) I do think some classrooms pictures are necessary because, as I understand it, images in Wikipedia are to give an additional impression to the text. And currently most images only give an impression about the architecture which is only one of many aspects of the university. Maybe the most important aspect of the university - the art of teaching and learning - is currently not well represented in pictures. The New University and all other pictures were taken from http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/presse/bildarchiv.html JimmeyTimmey (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you use firefox? The MS-explorer does not show the two columns. I didn't find one notable university article with more than one classroom pic. I'm an assertor of best practice copying, so I guess we should not pursue the special Heidelberg Way here. Moreover, as an encyclopedic article, there should be an emphasis on the text, and it should not be too heavy on the pics which is discouraged by most peer rewievers here. I want GA status, so I'd suggest to follow the suggestions the rewievers made when assessing other articles. I deleted Karlsruhe simply because it is not in Heidelberg and hardly any student will ever see it, so it is not representative. Furthermore, the Karlsruhe Research Center recently merged with the TU Karlsruhe, so I'm not sure if we still share departments and faculty with them. I'll let it in the list as long as I don't hear anything contrary, but a pic is displaced anyway. I deleted ARI simply because the pic was of very bad quality, not because the ARI building is ugly, it is not. I'm still waiting for your detailed opinion on advertising style. The new structure is good. By the way, did you ask the press office for copyright allowance? The lady there gave me the permission to upload the original pics as own work, not to make unlimited self-service. Fred Plotz (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellence University

Hi Göttingen, I've mentioned the Excellence Initiative twice, in the history section and in the reputation section; in addition there is the Excellence University template down below. Once it was in the introdoction as well, but we found it was misplaced as it is not SOOO important, and referring to it thrice is sufficient, I guess. So I'm going to delete the paragraph in the intro. Fred Plotz (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Latest changes

Look User:JimmeyTimmey, I appreciate what you're doing but please stop wikifying names which have no wiki article, and if you find that sources are needed, then please google them yourself instead of inserting ((fact)) templates. I deleted these two sentences: "During the following 400 years, the university underwent times of great change. Often different political, social and religious forces implied both progress and regress for its development." I would also request you only to make changes where they are absolutely necessary, that is, if there are spelling or punctuation mistakes. We need some weeks of stability for this article before a GA nomination is possible. Thank you and kind regards Fred Plotz (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Fred, you do not own this article, so stop telling other people what to do. Wikifying new terms is not bad style but a valid means of inducing the creation of an article. Similarly, the ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› -template points to a lack of sources and thus adds value to the article. Ask yourself, why do you think templates exist in the first place? Finally, stability will automatically occur once the article reached an acceptable quality level; stability should not be an end in itself but a symptom of consensus. 84.168.70.131 (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not own this article but as I wrote 5/6 of it, spending lots of my sparetime, I have a genuine interest in its fate. All I asked you to do was to search for sources if you find they are needed instead of burdening the work on other people, that is, in case of doubt on me. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure noone will be induced to write an article on Jakob Wimpheling or the German Humanistic School just because they are red in this article, it's just spoiling it. I always intend to reach consensus, and I think I've already shown that clearly, but that usually requires discussion. Therefore, I would like to invite you for further discussion on this page (not in the edit summaries) before making significant changes or inserting templates. I agree, the people section needs complete revision, but if we don't do it, noone will (as for copyedit tag). So what do you think should we do for getting it improved? 88.67.235.177 (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, not I am burdening the work of looking for sources on others, you do by writing stuff with doubtful sources. I was just pointing to that. And if you do not want to correct it or look for sources because you think it is too much work, then just don't - you do not have to! And neither do I. However, please let others have the chance to notice a doubtful statement by not condemning the use of the ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› -template. And what is so bad about red links? Surely, linking the German Humanistic School will not automatically lead to the creation of an article, but the chance is even lower if it is not linked. It is definately not "spoiling" the article. On the contrary, it adds value to Wikipedia and shows that the article is more than a marketing brochure where everything that doesn't look so good is left out (anyway, does blue really look better than red?). Concerning discussions, I think it is sometimes useful but not always. If there is an edit you do not like, feel free to revert or change it. Otherwise I will assume there is no need for discussion. Discussing everything only impedes the process. And why do you think noone will join to work on the article? I think the template in the peoples section is like the red links and the fact-template... just because you do not like them for aesthetical reasons (?) is not a reason not to insert them. I feel the style and expression is not so good in this section and it does not read as well as e.g. the history section. 84.168.87.90 (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I plan to concentrate on the List of University of Heidelberg people. Maybe you want to see the discussion there and share you comments about a new layout. Thanks. 84.168.87.90 (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think any of the sources in this article are doubtful, second, I don't write "stuff", and I think you've understood me well. However, I don't want any argument nor an aggressive tone here. As already mentioned, I appreciate your help in making this one a good article, so I think we should concentrate on constructive discussion on the subject instead of pointing fingers on each other. My impression that noone will join is a result of the time passed, as noone except for the both of us has made any major edit yet, except for spell-fixes. The style of the people section is definately below the standard of the rest of the article, so something must happen. I personally think that now that we have a list, the section has become obsolete in greater parts. Therefore, I'd suggest to try to implemet those information you find indispensable in the history section and simply state in the people section that we have so and so many Nobel Laureates, Heads of State and so on. This is the way most American universities handle the section as it is obviously too hard to write an appealing text on people. Furthermore, the separation of people mentioned in the history section and in the people section does't seem to be adequate anymore. 88.64.183.59 (talk) 12:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for my aggressive tone. As I said, I am going to work on the List of University of Heidelberg people. With the additional information there, the people section on this page will become obsolete. But you may as well delete it now if you wish. 84.168.117.16 (talk) 12:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

German University vs. German speaking University

Heidelberg is the oldest German University in Germany, but historically the University of Prague was the first "German University." Is it possible to put this in the article somewhere? I'm not really sure if it would fit somewhere. Weeddude (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the University of Heidelberg is the oldest university in Germany and, after Prague and Vienna, the third oldest in the Holy Roman Empire. Maybe this could be added to the introduction. JimmeyTimmey (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. JimmeyTimmey (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

research and endowment section / Misc.

Hello again! After skiing and consequential hospitalisation I'm finally happy to be back.

1. According to an interview with Prof Eitel, the annual budget (including both medical and non-medical) is appox € 500 M ($ 790 M) >http://www.rnz.de/zusammenrnm/00_20080407090100_Vorstoss_in_die_internationale_Dimension.html< How comes that contradiction to the desastis statistics? And which figure to include? Anyway, going to distinguish between medical and non-medical.

2. What should we write in that research section? I already considered opening such a section, writing about the most notable or controversial research achievements made at Heidelberg, but discarded it due to a lack of sources.

3. These verbal injuries of unimut against ruprecht are not important enough to be mentioned here from my point of view. Going to delete that.

Regards Fred Plotz (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

1: I really don't know. Accounting is strange...

2: I am not sure if there is a lack of sources. One could for example talk about recent or current research that is somehow interesting. The university webpages give plenty of information on this. Anyway, I think the section should not become another history section but rather concentrate on contemporary issues.

3: How do you judge what is important? It surely cannot be unimportant because it does not sound nice. However, I see no other difference than this to the more positive MLP statement in the text. If you think the unimut statement is not important, why is the MLP statement important then? Should we not always get the different opinions into the article? Apart from that, the unimut would otherwise not be mentioned at all and it also seems noteworthy to show its relationship to ruprecht and other "mainstream" media etc. JimmeyTimmey (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, of course there can be included a critical voice, that's not the point. (I see you like to be a critical voice at the EBS article, and I enjoy that) I just found unimuts way of criticising kind of annoying. We can write like "...the left-wing student newspaper unimut critisized the ruprecht often for being superficial, conformed, and exceedingly layout-oriented" without without directly quoting the tasteless verbal offenses. Not mentioning the unimut was not intentional, I honestly thougt it was out of operation, but i just learned it is an online newspaper now. However, the sentence about MLP is about an award, that's unquestionable more notable anyway.

As far as the research section is concerned, I have no idea what to write and how to lay-out that. Of course, there is plenty information on every single page of our 102 institutes, but thats fucking mouldbreaking. Alone the institute I work with has 5 research focuses and some 50 current research projects. So we can only include what's really notable, and, once again, I have no idea how to decide what's notable enough. That's what I meant pointing on lacking sources: There is no article/source summing the research activities up somehow. If we'd find a dozend fellas, we could start articles about the faculties and include the research focuses of the respective associated institutes there, but I guess that's too much for the two of us, as there's still a list that needs to be edited. Fred Plotz (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of listing the DFG-funded projects and the two clusters of excellence? If there is a noteworthy individual research project, it could still be added, of course. JimmeyTimmey (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, basically; I just searched the dfg page and got 224 hits for Heidelberg institutions receiving dfg funds. Many of these institutions have more than one funded project. Still a little too much, eh?! Have a look: http://www.dfg.de/dfg_im_profil/zahlen_und_fakten/projekte_und_programme/index.html 88.66.27.129 (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Added the 4 PPs. Should we really list the dfg projects at other universities our guys participate in? It's not that I don't want to mention other universities, but the section is getting a bit too long from my pov.88.67.246.196 (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the projects at other universities and I used German abbreviations like SFB, SPP, and FOR because I think these are also the official abbreviations of the DFG in English. JimmeyTimmey (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

International Cooperation

"It has further specific agreements with 17 partner universities, among which are the University of Montpellier, Hebrew University, Kyoto University, Tsinghua University, Cornell University and the University of Cambridge. Additionally, the university has student exchange programs with 23 universities in 17 countries world-wide, and it participates in 7 European exchange programs, such as ERASMUS."

Which is right: 17 or 23 universities for student exchange? JimmeyTimmey (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

23 universities for student exchange; the recently added Cornell- Heidelberg fellowship is for PhD students and researchers, but as cornell is already included in the 23 exchange programs, I just deleted it. Fred Plotz (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Forget it. Suddenly, there are much more exchange programs on the university's page. I'll look after it. Fred Plotz (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, renewed the section. "...among which are Cornell University, Duke University, Harvard University, Institut d'Études Politiques de Paris, University of Cambridge, University of Oxford, University of Paris, Tsinghua University, and Yale University". Too much blustering? What do you think? Fred Plotz (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is an interesting fact. Could you specify which University of Paris you mean? JimmeyTimmey (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact the whole University of Paris system except for I,II, and VII. 88.64.189.25 (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

I changed some pictures. Please let me know if you disagree. JimmeyTimmey (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I liked that statue of Rupert. Maybe you can replace the St. Peter by the latter. BTW: If you want those pics to remain in the article you must upload them anew and release them under GFDL, otherwise they will be deleted. The copyright policy of the UKL database gives you the permission to do so. 88.67.247.245 (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I added Rupert again, but I would also like to keep St. Peter. I therefore moved some pictures. What do you think? JimmeyTimmey (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind I would like to delete the reference to vienna and prague. It's ok to mention that it was the 3rd university foundation in the HRE and 23rd in the world, but I feel it is not necessary to name them in the very first paragraph. 88.67.247.245 (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, looks nice. I added GFDL licencing to the new pics description. 88.67.248.131 (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Um...I'd like to move the old assembly hall pic to where St Peter currently is. It doesn't fit in the rankings section, and I really don't like the St Peter pic - solely for aesthetical reasons. Would you mind? Fred Plotz (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I just did so. If you want to keep St Peter in any case you can undo it. Fred Plotz (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Getting ready for review?

I guess we've got a pretty good and comprehensive article right now. Do you have any major improvements in mind yet? If not so, I'd suggest to leave the article alone for a while and to concentrate on the list again. As soon as we've completed it, i'd suggest to submit the article for peer review. After having successfully passed GA, we'll see what we can do additionally for getting it featured. What do you think? Fred Plotz (talk) 12:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is quite good, probably the best German university article in the English Wikipedia. Of course, there will always be something to add or to improve. But I do not plan to change anything about the article in the near future, or rather I can promise not to do so. I may however also not have much time to work on the list during the next weeks. Is it really neceessary to complete the list for GA? JimmeyTimmey (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it is definitely the best German university article (which is no less than adequate for the best German university, is it? :)). I don't know if it's really necessary to complete the list for GA, but since the people section is very tiny, the list is a complementary part of the article, somehow. So I don't want to nominate it before it is complete. I'll care for it in the next weeks, but if you find the time, I'd highly appreciate your support, of course. Fred Plotz (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Student Life

Why did you take out all the images in this section? I added again the collegium musicum and the academic fencing. JimmeyTimmey (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

With the gallery, there were too much pics from my pov, and those pics are no very encyclopedic, anyway. But we can keep these two if you want to. Fred Plotz (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What about the university's Karzer?

Karzer is a kind of detention room/ prison that was used until the world war. It is not mentioned in the article, is there a reason for that ? click here for a set of photos (@flickr) 89.1.72.27 (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a reason. But where would you add it? Maybe a separate article? JimmeyTimmey (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, there is already an article about Karzer with references to Heidelberg. JimmeyTimmey (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I also don't think it's necessary to mention the Karzer; that's a typical subject for a trivia section, which is discouraged by wiki. However, we can put the Karzer-wikilink in the See also section. Fred Plotz (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could start a "touristic sights" section sometime. But certainly not in the next few weeks. Fred Plotz (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Organization

Could we include a section about the rectorate, senate, council, administration, etc.? (see also http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/einrichtungen/organe/). I would do it myself but I do not know how they are organized and what their roles are. Maybe a organization chart would be nice, too. JimmeyTimmey (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should do so, but I surely know nothing more about than you do. That's the main reason that I didn't write such a section yet. I don't have much time these days, but we set it on our to-do list. Maybe you can also look round a little, as I want to finish the list before starting something new that requires some research. Btw: are those rooftops on the new pic really better than the nice postcard perspective we had before? I don't think so. Fred Plotz (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it shows more of Heidelberg so I thought it was better. I agree it would not make a nice postcard, but it is more informative, which I think should be prior to anything else in an encyclopedia. I notice we often have some disagreement about pictures. Is there any way to solve this once and for all? Perhaps a gallery at the end of the article for disputed pictures? JimmeyTimmey (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No pal, that's not necessary. I tend to be complaisant most times. I just want to stress that I don't want more pics in the article than there are now. We should really avoid making a picture gallery out of this article. I consider deleting the noted research centers section. Chiefly because I guess that there are too much lists at the moment. I've learnt from reading reviews that people here don't like lists. Out of sheer curiosity: What are you going to do with the faculty stubs? Are you planning to fill these empty sections sometime or is it just meant to encourage people to contribute? Fred Plotz (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have a plan for the faculty articles. I will work on them from time to time but others are welcome to contribute as well of course. JimmeyTimmey (talk) 09:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I like the new Governance section. Good work! Oh and yes, we should do something about those ugly lists in the organization section (graduate schools + research centers). Should we just delete them? JimmeyTimmey (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the flowers :) I think we must keep at least the faculties and associated institutes, but we should make prose out of the lists. I already tried to do so with the faculties but didn't save it as it ended up to be a mere enumeration, which doesn't look nice as well. So I'll have to think about what to write here. Maybe we could combine both sections somehow....we'll see. The grad schools and institutes can disapear anyway, but you should merge the Center for Astronomy and ARI with the faculty article before. The HCA, which doesn't seem to be attached to a specific faculty, can be put in the Research section as a further example of the new interdisciplinary approach. Fred Plotz (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Btw: I've learned from a QS "oldest universities ranking" that Heidelberg is actually not the 23rd oldest university but No 27. However, I feel this information is not valuable enough to mention it in the introduction. What do you think? Fred Plotz (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Merged ARI and ZAH with the faculty and deleted the grad school and institutes lists Fred Plotz (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Some helps

I made some modifications to help prep the article for its GA review. One list needs to be converted to prose, and the image captions should not have any bold lettering per WP:CAPS. Good luck! --Eustress (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Fixed the bold pic captions and deleted the greatest part of list since I have no idea how to convert it to prose and there are links to the original lists of the DFG in the references for anyone who wishes such detailed information. Will you do the review? Fred Plotz (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I might be able to in the next couple days, but just in case I can't, there are a couple things you can do right away that might take some time and most other reviewers will catch: (1) your citations are not inline with WP:CITE—specifically WP:Cite web and WP:Cite book—and all will need to be put in the proper format; (2) can you make the References in fiction and popular culture section read like prose instead of a bulleted list?; (3) the only way I could justify having a gallery of certain alumni on a page would be if the alumni are household names—i.e., if most people in Germany would recognize their names—and since I'm not familiar with German culture, you'll have to be the judge of that. You might also consider a less obtrusive gallery box (see Vanderbilt University and Brigham Young University).

Good luck! --Eustress (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Done! Reviewing the article you may find some formulations kind of clumsy. If so, feel free to make some improvements. Thanks a lot in advance for a gentle review ;-) Fred Plotz (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow...nice work! I know how tedious it is to do all that stuff. There are a few references you use more than once—for these, you need to also incorporate WP:REFNAME. It would also be nice to add geographic coordinates to the article, similar to most universities'. If you need an example, check out Marriott School of Management (ref#10 for the refname stuff). --Eustress (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Done! Fred Plotz (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

My GA Review of this article

First of all, in the future, when an edit tag like {{inuse}} is at the top of the page, please do not make edits!

Sorry for that. I saved my last edit seconds after you placed the tag, so I didn't notice it. However, sorry.Fred Plotz (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

A good article has the following attributes:

  1. It is well written. In this respect:
         (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
         (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

I removed quite a bit of POV and advertising language, but more will have to be done (through peer review) if this will ever get to FA. I also removed list of notable universities in the 236 research universities--there are a lot of non-notables on the list too (POV). This remains to be done:

Of course there are some non-notables among the partner universities, but facts are not pov by definition. Stating "...236 partner univeristies among which are..." implicates that the otheres are not as notable as those mentioned. The site of the HRK is not a "random" search engine; searching cooperations by institution the list can easily be accessed. I'd have given a direct link, but that's technically impossible since the web adress doesn't change when accessing the list.Fred Plotz (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• It's not necessary to provide inline citations for facts in the lead, but for a fact like "the oldest university in Germany", that's such a notable and possibly controversial claim that a citation would do well here as well.

 DoneFred Plotz (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Avoid starting sentences with numbers

 DoneFred Plotz (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Only put inline citations immediately after punctuation marks (e.g., periods, commas)—never in the middle of phrases (per WP:CITE)--international rankings section

 DoneFred Plotz (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• For the Academic Ranking of World Universities, I would only refer to the most recent ranking, and I'm not sure I'd mention the one Ivy League school (Brown) you beat out that year—doesn't seem incredibly notable if 69 other school did so as well, and Brown is the smallest of the Ivy League schools

I believe interpreting rankings is all about consistency. Different placings in several years are mainly due to changes in methodology, so the different editions are equally valuable. Oh, and it was Brown and Dartmouth in all editions of ARWU. Both are classified to have a "very high research activity" by Carnegie Foundation, so benchmarking with them is not unfair. Brown is obviously larger than Princeton, so size doesn't really matter here.Fred Plotz (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Don't abbreviate "approx."

 DoneFred Plotz (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• You need to provide U.S. dollar estimates for the Euro figures throughout doc (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Currencies)

Exchange rates are flickering day by day. 400 days ago dollar and euro were approx. pair. Now I get a $1,50 for a euro. I therefore think that's no good idea. Since this one is a country-specific article, giving $ estimates is not required as per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Currencies.

• I would internal-link sports, etc. in the Student life section

 DoneFred Plotz (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:
         (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;
         (b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;[2] and
         (c) contains no original research.

Be careful of plagiarism of some of your sources—use quotation marks if not paraphrased. Also, it would be more specific (and less potentially deceiving) if the Notable people section were separated out by faculty and alumni, like most other universities' articles; see Dartmouth College and Duke University; I would also remove the gallery and insert a couple pictures like these articles, while describing briefly their notability in the caption; however, this stuff is not required for GA. The following needs to be fixed:

• Please resolve the citation tags I added

 DoneFred Plotz (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• How does number of faculty constitute making it "one of Germany's larger universities"—this is POV and not necessarily true

 DoneFred Plotz (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ref#7 (rankings) is a circular reference--Wikipedia should never cite itself

 DoneFred Plotz (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
         (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;[3] and
         (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).

• Good--might consider outsourcing a couple sections to independent articles to make this article shorter (like History and Campuses), but it's all right.

  4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

This criterion is the largest area of concern:

• The History, Campuses, and Organization sections (and most of the article) come almost entirely come from a Catholic encyclopedia or the University itself (only section not like this is Rankings section)—39/101 references from UH-produced sites (almost half)—please improve this

• Statements like "Heidelberg became a center of Liberalism and the movement in favor of German national unity" definitely need another supporting reference independent of the Catholic Church.
• "the university was widely recognized as a center of democratic thinking" is credited to a UHeidelberg reference (not neutral)

Both points are not controversial, rather common knowledge in Germany. Catholic online is a reliable third party source and since Heidelberg has no religious affiliation, there's no particular reason for the Catholic Church to make Heidelberg look better than it is. However I'm looking for another reference it can be attributed to.Fred Plotz (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Are there no controversies or criticisms of the university?

No, since the racists have been thrown out in 1945, and the entire student parliament was arrested in 1975, it is a rather uncontroversial place.Fred Plotz (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  5. It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.

• No prior issues

  6. It is illustrated, where possible, by images.[4] In this respect:
         (a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
         (b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.[5]

I'm not sure about the copyright status of a couple pictures. On one, Fred says he's university staff, but his user page says he's a law school student. I'm not an expert with Wikipedia images, so another editor will have to look into this if it goes to FAC. Remember to put no periods at the end of picture captions (see WP:MOS#Captions). I also standardized picture sizes.

I'm a doctoral student and part-time research assistant at the law school. However, I can not authorize any image releases, but the press office can and did so.Fred Plotz (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Remove remaining italics from captions.

 DoneFred Plotz (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

In its current condition, I will put the article on hold for one week until the above issues are resolved. If it cannot pass this time, it can be renominated in the future. I spent a lot of time reviewing and making my own edits, so I hope this helps! Please indicate when a issue has been resolved. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Nominating editor withdrew nomination per concerns below. --Eustress (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Hi! Why are the pictures all in different sizes? For example, the picture of Rupert is very large compared to the MPI for Astronomy. Wouldn't it be better if they all had approx. the same size? Or is this again some GA regulation thing? JimmeyTimmey (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, not sure what happened. I was trying to get them to all be somewhat consistent...any help appreciated. --Eustress (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, why did you not just leave it the way it was? Personally, I think it was better before. JimmeyTimmey (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that I made a lot of minor changes—if you would like to tweak picture sizes, propose some changes and we could probably reach an agreement. --Eustress (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

International Cooperations

Eustress, I partially undid your edit in this section. I included some examples of cooperating universities. As there is no judgement about these example universities whatsoever, it is neutral and no POV. I hope you agree. JimmeyTimmey (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't how the GAN process works—you don't revert the reviewer's alterations unless after consensus—I thought I was being kind by only removing the "band wagon" appeal university list, "such as Cornell University, Duke University, Georgetown University, Harvard University, Institut d'Études Politiques de Paris, Pantheon Sorbonne University, University of Cambridge, University of Oxford, Tsinghua University, and Yale University." Now I'm questioning the entire phrase it belonged to, as the reference does not support the text—it's just some random search engine. (http://81.169.169.236/kompass/xml/index_koop_en.htm). My point is, you just searched for a bunch of prestigious universities—out of a list of 236 I'm sure there are a bunch of no-names. Thus, it is POV. Sorry, but I can't budge on this one.

The other revert ("is" vs. "deemed") is okay, but I still think it's best to avoid any potential POV, and it didn't discredit the title at all; I will however make a modification so it makes sense grammatically.

If there are any errors or problems with my review and bold edits, then you have the right to request a second opinion later, but for now I would encourage you to work on the things I pointed out. --Eustress (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

GA process

Eustress, thank you for your thorough review of the article. I am going to implement most of your suggestions. However, I am not able to accept having to request a second opinion before being allowed to alter clearly erroneous or misleading edits. I therefore hereby withdraw my GA nomination. Again, thank you for your efforts. Fred Plotz (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You reverted almost all of my edits (even the color boxes in accordance with WikiProject Universities FAs). This shows problems of ownership rather than a few issues with a GAN review. Reverting any edits without discussion or an edit summary is very poor etiquette. Please going about editing according to these guidelines. --Eustress (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted few of your edits and implemented most of your suggestions:

• I changed "(...)while now focuses mainly on the natural sciences and medicine." into "while now emphasizing the natural sciences and medicine, the university also maintains highly ranked faculties of humanities and social science" because stating a focus on natural sciences and medicine is misleading. The university has elaborated a conception of the university's future which is called "realizing the potential of a comprehensive university". The university downright aims to avoid a focus on a certain subject area. The humanities and social sciences are both ranked in Europe's top 25, which shows that this focus in non-existent. It certainly emphasizes the natural sciences and medicine financially, but that's in the nature of things.
• "Subsequently, the institution once again became a hub for independent thinkers, studying humanism and democracy;" That's factually incorrect: The university's professors were major exponents of humanism and democracy in a practical way. They served as masterminds of the democratic revolution of 1848 and many of them were members of the first freely elected German parliament of 1848. The university never had a chair for humanism or democracy, nor did it graduate any students in humanism and democracy. Both are not academic disciplines. I changed the sentence into (...)and became a "stronghold of humanism" and democracy, using quotation marks since it is a direct quotation of the Times of London's THES.

• I like the quotation marks...good idea. --Eustress (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• "On October 19, 1386 the first lecture was held, making Heidelberg is the oldest university in Germany" was changed into "On October 19, 1386 the first lecture was held, making Heidelberg the oldest university in Germany". I'm not an expert in english grammar but it seems better to me.

• Semantics...okay. --Eustress (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I changed "It recruited a large number of lecturers and expelled many students for political and racist reasons" into "It decruited a large number of lecturers and expelled many students for political and racist reasons" because your edit changed the meaning of the sentence into a factually incorrect statement.

• What does "decruited" mean? It doesn't exist in English, so I thought it might have been a typo for "recruited". Please clarify. --Eustress (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"decruited" is a synonym of "dismissed". Maybe a bit archaic, bit still common in UK

• I changed the color boxes into the universiy's flag, as for example all the University of London colleges do have their flag on that place. See e.g. University College London - a Good Article

• The color box I used was per a Featured Article (e.g., Cornell University)—use FAs as examples rather than GAs, if available. --Eustress (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, we can take the color boxes, that's no problem.

• I de-wikilinked Neuenheimer Feld because it is just a small quarter of the city which is practically solely occupied by the New Campus - it is very unlikely that there will ever be written a wikipedia article about it since almost everything to say about it is already stated in this article.

• Sounds reasonable, but you reference NF multiple times in the article, the only reason I thought it might be notable. --Eustress (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Short explanation: Neuenheimer Feld is basically another name for the New Campus. Just like e.g. Old Nassau and Princeton Campus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred Plotz (talk • contribs) 21:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I re-added the most notable partners as per above

• I still don't agree with this (as per above), but I'm done fighting it. --Eustress (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• All other changes were implementations of your suggestions.

• Thank you. I only had to revert because everything was mixed together with the apparent reverts.

As already mentioned, I am honestly grateful for your help. The aforementioned issues aside, the article has become much better in the course of your review, especially the lead is definitely another class now. I'm willing to discuss some of these points if you have reasonable objections, but, in general, I would like to kindly request you to revert your revert. I don't have feelings of ownership of this article, rather of well-intentioned paternity, so please assume good faith. Kind regards Fred Plotz (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation of the reverts and other edits. In the future, please provide Edit Summaries; otherwise, it's too tedious to try to figure out which edits were reverts and which were improvements. --Eustress (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Eustress, where was your good etiquette when you initially edited this article? You added clearly false or misleading statements and now we shall not correct them without prior dicussion? As Fred already said, we are grateful for your efforts but please do not expect us to dicuss and respect every mistake you made. If you disagree with any specific point in the recent edits, then please discuss it here... or if you are sure that it is a clear mistake, then correct it immediately. But please do not revert all the edits including all the improvements made therewith. That is not very nice. JimmeyTimmey (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there might be some language-barrier issues here, as my painstaking edits were meant to improve the article (without libel) and make it more understandable so it could pass to GA. Now that there has been an edit war over the article, the article will not be eligible for GA status for some time, as it will fail GA criterion #5. --Eustress (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Were there three reverts yet? Fred Plotz (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to re-revert now. Is that OK for everybody here? Fred Plotz (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Btw: Some changes I forgot mentioning:

• I re-added "(..) with more than one third of the universities doctoral students coming from abroad" since I consider this a characteristic feature of the university. Few other universities have a doctoral student body as international as Heidelberg; certainly no German university has. I also re-added "(...) internationally leading education venue for doctoral students", but if anyone can name ten top 100 global universities that graduate 1000 Ph.D.s each year, I will agree that's POV and delete it.
• I changed "(...) in several disciplines" into "(...) a broad array of diciplines" as that claim is reasonable and rather common on wikipedia.
• I also re-added "The Faculty of Physics and Astronomy is in an exceptional position since its faculty buildings are located in Heidelberg's exclusive residential area, overlooking the River Neckar, the ancient town, and the castle." as the faculty is not located at either campus (but close to the New Campus), which is notable, I think. One can say "exclusive residential area" is POV, but indeed the faculty is located in a large chateau and some gorgeous mansions, situated at the "Philosophenweg", a road that's nicknamed "billionairs alley" in southern Germany, so "exclusive residential area" is a rather innocuous description, I guess.

Objections welcome Fred Plotz (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Noted People

I would like to write a bit about alumni and faculty (see article). What do you think? JimmeyTimmey (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I think we should leave it well enough alone. I know it is kind of attractive to try to enlarge the section but we spent weeks going back and forth with it, and the outcome was rather poor. The discussion fills an archive. I think the section was good; small, yet quite impressive. Anyone can see the list for further information. Fred Plotz (talk) 06:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: I've imported the section to my new Sandbox here. Now we can work on it and see if something publishable comes out in the end, without continously changing the article. I hope you're d'accord; also see discussion there. Fred Plotz (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Some recent changes

• deleted sentence "while now emphasizing the natural sciences and medicine, the university also maintains highly ranked faculties of humanities and social science" as it doesn't add any value.

• replaced "in a broad array of disciplines" by "some 100 disciplines"

• changed "internationally leading" back into "international"

• Added "(...)at Master's level(...)" to Faculties section for clarification

• Changed (...)among which are such renowned names as(...) into "Some of the most notable include (...)" as it sounds more neutral. But, to be frank, I feel insisting in that sentence is getting more and more ridiculous, so if that's your sole concern, I give my blessing to its deletion.

• changed "continued to lose in brilliance and prestige" into "continued to lose in prestige"

• changed "The Faculty of Physics and Astronomy is in an exceptional position since its faculty buildings are located in Heidelberg's exclusive residential area, overlooking the River Neckar, the ancient town, and the castle." into "The Faculty of Physics and Astronomy is not located at either campus, but on the Philosophers' Walk, separated from the Old Town by River Neckar, and some two kilometers away from the New Campus."

• Deleted "outranks Ivies" stuff.

• Added reference "Cser, Andreas (2007). Kleine Geschichte der Stadt Heidelberg und ihrer Universität. Karlsruhe: Verlag G. Braun. ISBN 978-3-7650-8337-2." to support some historical facts.

I think most GAN issues should thereby be resolved. Fred Plotz (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Btw: Indeed 39/109 sources are hosted by UH affiliated institutions, i.e., 35,8 %, however only uncontroversial and neutral facts are supported by such (e.g. some historical matters; organization; locations of buildings on campuses; subjects offered; some admission figures; athletics and student groups; etc.). Also, please note that some UH sources in turn cite external sources which are not or no longer available on the web, so that they can't be cited directy. Thanks Fred Plotz (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

One may also compare the body of source material of featured university articles such as Cornell University or Georgetown University. I think this article compares favourably to many in this respect. Fred Plotz (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Full english name

Shouldn't there be a hyphen between Ruprecht and Karl in the full english name (i. e. "Ruprecht-Karl University of Heidelberg") as "Ruprecht Karl" is not the name of one person but rather the first names of two monarchs that in their respective times founded the university (Rupert I, Elector Palatine – "Ruprecht" – and Charles Frederick, Grand Duke of Baden – "Karl"). --88.66.53.95 (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, but it seems there exists some sort of convention regarding German university names on WP, as basically all the universities that include their founders' names in their official brands don't use hyphens in English (eg Munich, Freiburg, Göttingen, etc, which are all named after two monarchs). Also, I don't know if a hyphen is appropriate to indicate that Rupert and Charles were different persons; it could also indicate a double first name. You know, like Karl-Heinz University... ;) Fred Plotz (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE

PLEASE DOES THE UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG TEACHES IN ENGLISH? AND CAN ONE TAKE TRANSFER FROM ANY EUROPIAN MEDICAL UNIVERSITY TO THE SCHOOL? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.56.244 (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, the medical school does not offer any courses in English language for the first professional degree in clinical medicine. Transfer to the medical school is possible through the ECTS system, but there must be passed a language test for German. However, it is certainly possible to enter the medical school's doctoral programs after having completed the professional degree in any European country. Doctoral courses are offered in English and the thesis can be completed in English as well. Regards Fred Plotz (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Nazi era

"The university faculty and students helped built, in conjunction with the Reichsarbeitsdienst, the Thingstätte Nazi amphitheater on the northern hill called Heiligenberg, as well as the WWI memorial Ehrenfriedhof south-west of the Königstuhl mountain ." That's really too detailed information for this article.:Fred Plotz|talk]]) 22:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

University of Heidelberg wasn't third university in the Holy Roman Empire

In the first paragraph there is stated "Founded in 1386, it is the oldest university in Germany and was the third university established in the Holy Roman Empire." That is not entirely true because (to my knowledge) first university in the Holy Roman Empire was University of Bologna (1088 - first in western Europe), second was Charles University of Prague (1348), third was University of Vienna (1365) and then, as fourth, was University of Heidelberg (1386). You probably didn't count Charles University of Prague as the Kingdom of Bohemia was de-facto independent part of the Holy Roman Empire.

62.245.64.124 (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Martin Tichý

Thanks for the hint! Changed content according to your suggestion. 147.142.204.253 (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Goebbels

Neither graduates who became federal ministers of post-war Germany, nor other third reich ministers (e.g. minister of the interior Frick) are named in the main article, so there's no reason to pay Goebbels this particular compliment. He's mentioned in the List of University of Heidelberg people, as are all other people of his governmental rank.147.142.204.253 (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

hello! wanted to seek some guidance. I am a Medical Doctor (M.B.B.S) residing in Germany. I can speak English fluently,but learning german language.i want to persue my career in Dermatolgy,but not sure how to get in to it keeping in view this german language barrier that i have to face in patient- doctor relationship! please let me know if there is any way i can join derma residency programme? and if later i have to shif frm germany to anyother European state then can i get a transfer to some other medical university as well? thnks.. waiting for ur reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.167.127.249 (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Gourman Report

As for the continuing inserting and immediate deletion of the results of the latest 1997 gourman report, I think it's okay citing it in the context of the findings of all the other university rankings. First, all university rankings are subject to controversy in view of methodology; its not the task of an encyclopedia to evaluate widely cited reports. Second, it's irrelevant that the latest edition is 13 years old if the publishers find its results still valid, which is indicated by the fact that there's no later edition; the footnote clearly states the date of publishing so that any reader can draw his own conclusions on its validity. Third, most indicators of university rankings are of a rather long-range nature, so that annually changing ranking positions are more suspect than stable positions over a longer period of time. And finally, a couple of wiki articles on notable institutions (such as Notre Dame, Tulane, U of Illinois at Urbana) have been citing the gourman report for years without any editor taking umbrage at that fact, so we can assume a broad consensus on the citability of the report among wiki editors. Fred Plotz (talk) 11:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologize. I did not see this discussion in deleting (again) the insertion of this reference. I disagree that the material is appropriate for inclusion. Setting aside criticisms of the thing (which in my mind substantially undermine its reliability in the first place), it is old news. Thirteen years old. That may be but the blink of an eye in the long history of some of the older schools, but it is really a leap of faith to assume that a ranking that old has any current utility, or any pertinence except perhaps as an historical footnote. School administrations change. Funding sources dry up (or huge new ones are found). Faculty comes and faculty goes. In a decade and a half (almost!), one school may decline in quality - or the ones surrounding it in the rankings may improve. Indeed it is hard to imagine that such changes do *not* take place. While I concede that year-to-year rankings, particularly ones that reflect large annual variations, are pretty questionable, that criticism does not logically imply anything like the converse - namely, that a particular year's ranking taken from the decade before last has any validity left in it, just because it happens to have been the last one published. (I would note that Gourman appeared to publish new rankings every year, not every decade or so, so his methodology was presumably subject to the same fluctuations.) Finally, it's a real stretch to suggest that his 1997 rankings must still be valid for the reason he hasn't published any since. It's just as likely to suggest that he (or Princeton Review or whomever) found there wasn't enough money to be made in the endeavor, and simply gave up. It is, after all, not in print any more. (And *really* lastly - I think it would come as a big surprise to most readers of these articles that the Gourman rankings stuck right in beside the 2010 US News rankings, or Princeton Review, or what-all-else, dated to 1997. In that regard - and before I saw this discussion - I've undertaken to remove the Gourman rankings from the articles in which it appears, with my reasoning in my edit summary. If the consensus is that these dusty old ratings are worth anything, they'll soon be restored by other editors.) JohnInDC (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've thrown the issue out for broader discussion here. JohnInDC (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Should we make a separate article for the History

I'm in the process of ensuring a good sourcing of the article in general and the history section in particular. The article currently includes large portions of the Catholic encyclopedia article. In some case, these passage focus on religious issues whilst other facts are missing. That means the history section should get even longer. As the article is already very long, I think it would make sense to make an article History of Heidelberg University. What do you think? How to proceed? --Anneyh (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Anneyh! I'd appreciate a separate article on the university's history. Nevertheless, I don't think that the current section in the main article should be considerably shortened. Covering over 620 years of history just demands some space. 147.142.204.253 (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

My plan is to copy the current text in a new article, expand the history and then summarize it back here. The history section in the main article will probably stay about the same length, but the balance between some points may change a little bit. --Anneyh (talk) 11:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's see what you can do :D Fred Plotz (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

For tonight, not much, just the copy paste.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anneyh (talk • contribs) 20:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

---

University of Heidelberg → Heidelberg University – The university consistently calls itself Heidelberg University on its English language web pages. Other German universities call themselves University of X on their pages but Heidelberg University does not. Silvestre Zabala (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Agree with given motivation. -- SchreyP ^(messages) 07:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• support I'm a Ohio resident and I've never heard anyone call it University of Heidelberg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwojdacz (talk • contribs) 05:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name change from "University of Heidelberg" to "Heidelberg University"

May somebody with move rights please rename the rest of the subpages from "University of Heidelberg" to "Heidelberg University"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.206.27.128 (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No student body fees between 1977 and 2013

I saw an error in the "financial" part of the text. There it said that the tuition would have included student union fees. Well, it didn`t since official student unions were banned in the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg from 1977 until 2013. I studied in Heidelberg and took part in re-intrducing them, so I am pretty sure. But if you need proof, here from the University Homepage: http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/einrichtungen/studium/vs/ It should be corrected now.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Heidelberg University. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090215141632/http://mathphys.fsk.uni-heidelberg.de/ruprecht2.html to http://mathphys.fsk.uni-heidelberg.de/ruprecht2.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/indicators/docs/3rd_report_snaps10.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://cordis.europa.eu/indicators/third_report.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 02:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Heidelberg University. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513074927/http://www.hiik.de/en/konfliktbarometer/index.html to http://www.hiik.de/en/konfliktbarometer/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080402022043/http://www.mpil.de/ww/en/pub/research/profile/publ.cfm to http://www.mpil.de/ww/en/pub/research/profile/publ.cfm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Why isn't Goebbels in the list of alumni

He got his PhD here. Steeletrap (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if his degree was cancelled on grounds of war crimes. I am aware this university (as well as that of Leipzig) stripped Josef Mengele of the medical degrees it had awarded him early in his medical career for that consideration (as well as facilitating his deregistration as a practitioner).Cloptonson (talk) 12:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Heidelberg University. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071219133606/http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/university/welcome/history.html to http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/university/welcome/history.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080102164028/http://www.sino.uni-heidelberg.de/students/tjuelch/Bauwerke%20Altstadt/Peterskirche.htm to http://www.sino.uni-heidelberg.de/students/tjuelch/Bauwerke%20Altstadt/Peterskirche.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101005014556/http://www.topuniversities.com/university/heidelberguniversity to http://www.topuniversities.com/university/heidelberguniversity/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080420205701/http://www.unifr.ch/ztd/ems/berichte/b2/testergebnisse.htm to http://www.unifr.ch/ztd/ems/berichte/b2/testergebnisse.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 08:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Heidelberg University. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090204123535/http://heidelberg.de/servlet/PB/menu/1090707_l2/index.html to http://www.heidelberg.de/servlet/PB/menu/1090707_l2/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080607004818/http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/univ/besucher/wege.html to http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/univ/besucher/wege.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071225065616/http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/presse/news/2005schurman2.html to http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/presse/news/2005schurman2.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.magazine-deutschland.de/en/artikel-en/article/article/die-uni-heidelberg-in-new-york.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080420081519/http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/einrichtungen/organe/index.html to http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/einrichtungen/organe/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100819144915/http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/facts/ to http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/facts/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.rzuser.uni-hd.de/~it5/presse/news04/ausw.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.zuv.uni-heidelbereng.de/AAA/erasmus//info_erasmus_incoming_ankunft_wohn.htm/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513184310/http://www.ari.uni-heidelberg.de/aktuelles/publikationen.php.en to http://www.ari.uni-heidelberg.de/aktuelles/publikationen.php.en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080331095043/http://81.169.169.236/kompass/xml/index_koop_en.htm to http://81.169.169.236/kompass/xml/index_koop_en.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101006003152/http://www.zuv.uni-heidelberg.de/international/erasmus/incoming/angebote_en.html to http://www.zuv.uni-heidelberg.de/international/erasmus/incoming/angebote_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080530022839/http://www.ruprecht.de/fileadmin/pdf/Presseberichte/2007_10_07_RNZ.pdf to http://www.ruprecht.de/fileadmin/pdf/Presseberichte/2007_10_07_RNZ.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 02:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Heidelberg University. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www-ec.destatis.de/csp/shop/sfg/bpm.html.cms.cBroker.cls?cmspath=struktur,vollanzeige.csp&ID=1020857
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080709041557/http://www.bodyworlds.com/de/plastination/idee_plastination.html to http://www.bodyworlds.com/de/plastination/idee_plastination.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 14:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

• Alte Universitaet 01.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Heidelberg University Faculty of Behavioural Sciences and Empirical Cultural Sciences into Heidelberg University

Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, separate university departments or faculties (except law and medicine) are not inherently notable. Article does not establish notability for subject Rogermx (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Object as this focusses on 1 of 12 faculty pages without any justification. I'd have no opposition to an omnibus proposal affecting all 12, but that should be posted on all 12 pages. Klbrain (talk) 10:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Object for same reason as above, namely that 11 of the 12 faculties have seperate pages while only one (Faculty of Law) really merits its own article. Particularly bad offenders are the pages for Faculty of Law and Faculty of Modern Languages, both of which are just lists of empty headings. Patr2016 (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Subsection Nazi Germany

I have raised a citation need against this solitary one line paragraph:

The heads of the university helped in the deportation of Jewish men, women and children directly to the gas chambers

It seems somewhat a simplistic and emotive phraseing. It would benefit from clarification and expansion as in what way they helped deportations as it was a tertiary, mainly adult, educational institution. There would not have been child pupils by time of the Nazi era in the wake of the development of Germany's education system.Cloptonson (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)