Talk:London School of Theology

London Low‑importance

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

Higher education

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

Scandal

Any mention of the scandal involving the outgoing principal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.14.80 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 5 November 2007

Recent edits on "academic reputation"

I am concerned that the recent edits by Hi-Teach are verging on advertising again and seem to indicate a conflict of interest regarding this institution and the article. There is no need to keep adding to the "academic reputation" section - especially when one person's opinions about this are being presented as the "truth". Such editing isn't acceptable. Afterwriting (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this post again: I only corrected the quote at that time because your citation of the "one person's" study on LST's influence was wrong. I am okay with your version though the quote is still wrong today.--Hi-Teach (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full list of faculty

I don't think it's proportionate to list all faculty. I've removed this twce but it's been reverted by the same IP - I commented on their talk page last time and am now bringing it her for the community. Tacyarg (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, there is no need for the list. Notable staff of course can be mentioned. DuncanHill (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History section too long

The newly added section on the college's history is much too long compared to the overall article size. Further, it is nearly a cut-and-paste job from a book. And that single book forms the only significant source for the section. I propose significantly shortening it, perhaps a week or so from now (so mid-March 2019) unless there is majority consensus to preserve it all. Feline Hymnic (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Done. Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]