Talk:Proctor

In the USA, the word Proctor can also mean a person assigned to oversee the educational process of an individual student, synonymous with the word mentor. This is especially common in the Emergency Medical Services field where a Proctor is assigned to an EMT or Paramedic student.

Can anyone guide me as to the best way to include this in the article? Firerescuelieut 20:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I called for this article to be deleted under the "prod" process because it has no verified sources. However on reflection I went back and removed the prod tag and called for it to be merged to Proctor. I was at Oxford for 6 years and never heard of them even though I had a College disciplinary position for 2 years. Google does report that they had been disbanded in 2003 as the article states but I did not find information for the other statements. I would also add that an organisation that no longer exists and does not seem to be widely known even in Oxford is not notable. The article Proctor has a section on the Oxford University Proctors that is tagged as needing updating and seems to be taken from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain. That section should be updated and the information on the Police should be merged there. It is quite out of balance for WP to have a separate article on the Police and no up to date information on the Proctors. --Bduke 21:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The source for the article is clearly [1], and they merited a mention here [2] in 2001. They have a few mentions (but not many) in the press. Hard to reconcile it with the 1911 material, or to know how to incorporate it. The only mention of the police appears to be the "sworn constables". Lozleader 00:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry but the source for the article is not clearly anything, as the article has no sources. As I say above your first link seems only to say that the Police were disbanded. I do not think it says there were 40 of them or when they were formed. I'm not going to read your 2nd reference of over 30 pages just to find a mention. If you want these to be sources for the article, please add them as sources and be specific about sections, page numbers and so on. There must be more information on the Proctors so it should not be too difficult to rewrite the Oxford section of Proctor. If you are in UK or particularly Oxford, it would be easier for you than for me as I am in Melbourne, Australia. I see no problem about merging material about the Police into the Proctor article if consensus is reached here to do so. --Bduke 00:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ouch! Withdraws slapped wrist. I only said it was clearly the source as it was taken almost word-for-word with a few tense changes. As far as the PDF is concerned its in annex F, page 31. (There is a search facility in acrobat reader). There were forty officers in the force at that date.

Anyhoo, I'm not defending the article, it looks like being very nearly a copyvio as it is, just saying there is a bit of stuff that would allow a rewite, probably a single paragraph. The media mentions seem somewhat contradictory, in summary:

• Charm controls flour of Oxford's youth, The Times, May 27, 1992

Notes the appointment of the first woman constable to Oxford University's "police force"(sic). Samantha Clements is the first woman to don the traditional black bowler hat and dark suit since the Bulldogs appeared outside college gates in 1825.

• Oxford bulldogs' bowler is old hat, The Times, May 30, 2000

The bowler hats worn by Oxford University Police, believed to be the world's oldest force, are being shelved in a modernisation plan. At the time the force had "5 full-time and 30 part-time officers, known as bulldogs", and were to be given conventional police uniforms. The University Marshal, who was in charge of the force noted they had become an historical anomaly, and the president-elect of the students' union called for their abolition.

The article goes on to claim that it is "believed" that the constables had patrolled the streets of Oxford since 1215, making them the oldest police force in England (hmmm) but were only formalised in 1829.

• University police branded 'too powerful', Oxford Times, May 22, 2002

Traders at the Covered Market in Oxford called for the force to be stripped of its powers. The dispute was about the moving on of delivery vehicles in Merton Street. They wrote to the local MP asking for an amendment to the Police Reform Bill to remove the powers enjoyed by the University Police since 1825. The university police had "the same powers as police constables, including the power of arrest, within four miles of any university building".

• Straw rejoices as Oxford's Bulldogs are put down, Daily Telegraph, October 15, 2002.

The University Force "reckoned to be England's oldest" was abolished at a University Council meeting.Gives the forces establishment date as 1825. They were apparently were still wearing their bowler hats, as one opponent of their abolition stated that "Apart from anything else, the tourists loved their bowler hats".

Accordng to the Victoria County History of Oxfordshire, Volume IV: [3]

• The policing of the city was left almost entirely to the university until 1836, when the city corporation established a force, however the university police still had exclusive night time jurisdicytion until 1869, when a joint police committee was formed.
• The city and university forces were amalgamated in 1869.

There was apparently an Oxford Police Act 1869 (31 7 32 Vict. c.59), and I will see if I can access a copy. I will try and find if there was legislation in 1825 or 1829 (or both). Lozleader 13:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

My bad: It was the Oxford Police Act 1868 [4] Lozleader 13:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

You have done a great job on sources. I did not realise that by the OU Police you mean the Bulldogs. I thought you meant there was a different gtoup of people. I also thought the Bulldogs had no powers and they just did what the proctors told them to do. In other words I thought the power was with the Proctors who toured the streets with the Bulldogs. Now I understand what this is about I am even clearer that is should be merged to Proctor. It should not be too difficult to rewrite it. It looks as if the Cambridge bit has been rewritten. I'll have a go and add your excellent sources to the article too. It may take me a while to get around to it. --Bduke 00:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I had to dig out some Cambridge references for the Taxor article - you might find them useful here. - Pointillist (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

The section on Cambridge proctors has no citations, and includes the phrase "women of bad character", which is antiquated and misogynist.

Would it be fair to compare proctors to rangers in the article? Their roles are very similar in enforcing authority but not the power to detain on a long term. -99.226.203.145 (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Proctor. 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/20150402101618/http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/2002/05/22/6593799.University_police_branded__too_powerful_/?ref=arc to http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/2002/05/22/6593799.University_police_branded__too_powerful_/?ref=arc

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) 09:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Reply