Jump to content

Talk:University of London/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Recognised or Listed bodies

Are Courtald and Cancer Research still Listed Bodies? I thought they now had college status in their own right. Both are listed as individual institutions in the HESA statistics [1] and [2] Timrollpickering 22:19, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[3] states that the ICR is a College within the UoL. Courtaulds is less forthcoming. Icairns 00:05, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Further to this, the British Institute in Paris (BIP) is now called The University of London In Paris (TULIP). I see a ghosted link to the University of London Union also appears on some pages. 00:15, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

External Degree program

Someone with a better awareness of where to place it among the constituent college, etc. should include the large external degree program (www.londonexternal.ac.uk), and probably link it to distance education. 64.229.40.47 06:35, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alumni

The famous alumni listed are mostly UCL alumni. Add alums of other University of London colleges, or restrict these to the pages of the colleges themselves? Lukobe

Quotation: "...with between 10 and 20 percent of all UK students attending its colleges..." - could no one be more precise - surely some authority collects and maintains statistics on student numbers? Djegan 22:25, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Indeed they do, the HESA. Taking their figures the number actually works out at just over 5%, so I've edited the article accordingly. Daduzi 20:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I've added a lot more alumni, hoping to broaden the scope and deal with the criticism that the list was UCL centric. But I think now the list is getting very long - shall we create a page for alumni in their own right? Timrollpickering 11:23, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

It may be time for that especially considering the recent addition by an anonymous user. Lukobe 17:05, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps Former students of the University of London, with a brief selection here?
James F. (talk) 20:42, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Could you elaborate? Not sure quite what you mean. Lukobe 22:08, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
As in, the complete listing at the above, linked to from this page but with a small selection of the most famous ones here. Of course, the decision as to which ones are "most famous" is POV, but sometimes editorial discretion is useful. ;-)
James F. (talk) 23:06, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan! :) Lukobe 02:30, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

University of London Royal Postgraduate Medical School

How does this school fit into the overall structure? Fawcett5 15:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

  • The British Postgraduate Medical School, based at Hammersmith Hospital, was incorporated by Royal Charter in 1931 and opened in 1935. It was the result of recommendations by the Athlone Report of 1921, and was a pioneer institution of postgraduate clinical teaching and research. The school has always been closely linked with the Hammersmith Hospital and the Medical Research Council, where its teaching research and clinical work is carried out. Senior Academic staff of the school provided consultant services and academic leadership for Hammersmith Hospital.

The school became part of the British Postgraduate Medical Foundation in 1947, and was known as the Postgraduate Medical School of London. In 1974 the school became independent, with a new charter and the title Royal Postgraduate Medical School. In 1988 the school merged with the Institute of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, and became part of the Imperial College School of Medicine on its formation in 1997. --Duncan 15:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Imperial leaving UL

The article should mention that Imperial has left UL, also I think other colleges have award powers they do not use (eg I think LSE has this), also the article might do well to mention some of the impending controversy that might result in the disintegration of UL, info here: http://education.guardian.co.uk/administration/story/0,,1663818,00.html

  • Imperial has not left the University. It has announced that is will negotiate towards that. Of course, that meas it still many not happen. One outcome that can be ruled out is the disintegration of the University, even if the LSE and UCL follow it. --Duncan 11:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Central School of Speech and Drama joined University of London

That happened in September 2005, see here. I've added the category and the template University of London to Central School of Speech and Drama, but I can't find whether it should go under Recognised bodies or Listed bodies, so I have touched neither the text in University of London nor the template University of London… I'll leave that for UK editors to decide.  :-) --EjpH 00:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

UCL/Imperial merger?

A recent revision claims UCL and Imperial are to merge. I thought this plan was abandoned back in late 2002 - or is this a new attempt?

This plan was indeed abandoned, and I can find no info about a second attempt. Lukobe

Though the London Centre of Nonotechnology is an Imperial/UCL collaboration, the two are currently concerned with attempts to leave UL, not merge bits within it. MilleauRekiir 12:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Provisional Alumni list up

I've set up a page for a list of notable staff and students of the University of London. The paragraph at the top would be inserted into the main article, with a link to the list. I haven't linked to it yet since I'd appreciate if others could have a look and give some comments on structure, mistakes or omissions. Thanks. Daduzi 22:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If nobody has any objections I'll go ahead and put in the top paragraph in the page above into the article, with a link to the page. --Daduzi 13:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, done--Daduzi 13:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Major overhaul

I've just completely re-organised the page, following the guidlines set on Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities, and added some more information while I was at it. I'm sure it's not perfect, so I'd appreciate some copyediting. There's also a few sections that could do with expanding, but I hope this sets us off to a good start. --Daduzi talk 08:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Sir Richard Sykes

Sir Richard Sykes, Rector of Imperial College, said "Do we want to be badged as London University along with some less prestigious institutions?"

The quotation can be found here: Donald MacLeod, 'Getting out of London', The Guardian (Tuesday December 13, 2005)

I was wondering if there has been speculation as to which institutions he is regarding as less prestigious. Does he mean all of the other constituent parts of the federal University of London? There are surely one or two institutions in the university that are on a par with Imperial. I'm sure Imperial likes to think of itself as the next thing after Oxbridge (or, somewhat unrealistically, as on a par with Oxbridge), but I don't think it has an exclusive claim in that respect. The newspaper league tables are, of course, rather silly, but we know that people pay attention to them. LSE, SOAS, and UCL have all beaten Imperial in at least one league table, and I think on more than one occasion (the Guardian table has traditionally treated LSE, SOAS, and UCL quite favourably). In my opinion, for what it's worth, Oxford and Cambridge constitute the top stratum, and Imperial, LSE, SOAS, UCL, and a handful of non-London institutions (York and Warwick, for example) make up the second stratum. Looking at the Telegraph "table of tables" (2003), the other London colleges are ranked King's (15th), Royal Holloway (28th), Queen Mary (43rd), and Goldsmith's (56th). (Birkbeck, CSSD, Courtauld, Heythrop, ICR, IoE, LBS, LSHTM, the Royal Academy of Music, Royal Vet, School of Pharmacy, St George's, Paris, and the SAS are not listed). Has there been speculation? Has any of it been published? What do people think?--217.134.85.25 15:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with the word "College"?

Am I the only person wondering why University of London colleges are steadily dropping the word "College" from their colloquial names? We have "Royal Holloway, University of London", "Birkbeck, University of London", and "Queen Mary, University of London". "Queen Mary" is the silliest sounding because Queen Mary was so obviously somebody's name. "Thomas Holloway, University of London" or "George Birkbeck, University of London" would sound even sillier. What is wrong with the word "College"? The only sensible ones I can think of are Christ Church, Oxford and Peterhouse, Cambridge (and of course places called "Something Hall" - Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford, for example). These make sense because they do include a substantive - "Church" and "-house". Is the U of L trying to sound grand by having eccentrically named colleges? Maybe SOAS will become "OAS"?

Secondly, what's wrong with Bedford and Westfield, as in Royal Holloway and Bedford New College and Queen Mary and Westfield College? I admit that "The King's Hall and College of Brasenose" has been shortened to "Brasenose College", but that evolved rather more gradually.--AlexanderLondon 00:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

On the second, and easier point, there isn't much of Bedford and Westfield that's noticable in the current institutions (and RHUL is nowhere near Bedford - geography seems to be an ever more important consideration). At QMUL there are some portraits of past principles, a clock, a road on campus named "Westfield Way" and one or two other things, but other than the name one could spend their entire time at QMUL and not encounter any overt Westfield legacy. I presume the same is true for RHUL.
Also QMUL is officially the merger of four institutions - see for instance the notes on this recent press release:
Queen Mary's roots lie in four historic colleges: Queen Mary College, Westfield College, St Bartholomew's Hospital Medical College and the London Hospital Medical College.
Adding in Barts and the London to the full institution title would render even the acronym unwieldy.
As for "college" there is a growing feeling that in the UK people associate the term with further education/sixth form colleges. Some institutions are so famous that they can get away with still using it (ICL, KCL, UCL) but others have opted to drop it. Also "Queen Mary & Westfield College, University of London" so easily reduces to "Queen Mary & Westfield" (give or take an additional "College") whereas "Queen Mary, University of London" ensures that the UofL part is always present. I don't actually think it sounds silly (only when people shorten it further to "Queen Mary") - namewise it's not that far from "Queen's University of Belfast". Timrollpickering 08:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm interested by the idea that colleges are increasingly thought of as 6th form colleges or FE colleges. I've always found the word college useful, but maybe because I did my first degree at a collegiate university, so "college" did actually mean the college itself (as in "are you going back to college now?", enquired of a friend when leaving a lecture, which would almost never be held in a college, but in central university premises). Now that I am at SOAS I find it difficult to know what to refer to it as. The correct term is "School", I suppose. Neither "college" nor "university" sound quite right, but "school" doesn't either, so I have to call it SOAS. I do take the point that with London colleges, which are in effect universities, to say "college" (to describe King's, UCL, Goldsmith's, etc) does somewhat detract from the fact that one is actually talking about a university, and not a college in the Oxbridge/Durham sense, and yet to refer to those places as "university" doesn't quite work either, since they are also colleges, and they are quite small and contained (compared to Oxford, for example, which sprawls across the whole city).
As for the Queen's University of Belfast, it does, crucially, contain the word "University". My point is just that without the word "College", I'm left asking, "Goldsmith's? Goldsmith's what? Ah, Goldsmith's College". Of course in every day speech we might refer just to Balliol and expect somebody to know what we meant, but "Balliol, University of Oxford" would sound daft compared to "Balliol College, Oxford".--AlexanderLondon 10:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Just looking at the Goldsmiths website it seems the branding is a mess - the current masthead logo is "Goldsmiths, University of London" but the contact details are for "Goldsmiths College, University of London" and the page is copyrighted to "Goldsmiths College". And that's just the frontpage!
By and large most UofL institutions have at least one of "University", "College", "School" or "Institute" in the corporate branding. It's the contractions that get messy. Using the arconyms for "QMUL", "RHUL" and maybe "SGUL" (although medical schools can often get away with the hospital name) is workable (and, if memory serves me correct, are also used for the internet domains) but "BUL" sounds weird and I can't recall anyone ever using it (and the internet domain is BBK). Broadly it works give or take the odd anomaly or protest (anyone remember when "Imperial College" - short form "IC" - changed its branding to "Imperial College London" with intended short form "Imperial" and provoked a "keep the comma" protest from people who didn't want it called "ICL"?).
As for "college", the term was used at my BA/MA university (Kent) but by my day the concept was generally rather meaningless to students on the ground other than an irritation at times when it came to allocation of scarce facilities like accomodation (now phased out) and lockers. Most of the original plans for each college being a tight family seem to have fallen apart as number grew (they were envisaging c600 students in each of up to ten colleges, not 3000+ in four), an ever smaller proportion lived in the colleges (and non-college accomodation was built) and college based facilities became open to all students and some individual colleges lost their own (e.g. dining halls and "Junior Common Rooms"). And graduates who returned for postgraduate study were often members of different colleges from when they were undergraduates. Indeed whenever I post to the alumni mailing list I identify myself by my courses of study, not my college. Timrollpickering 10:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
There's no mystery here. The word college is unclear to a foreign applicant; taking the word university in the title increases the value, and adding London increases it further. And of course the branding will be inconsistent: universities are often weakly led, consenual organisations without the tight branding control found in corporate settings. --Duncan 12:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


Third oldest university debate article

I have now created Third oldest university in England debate to try to explain all the debate about whether it's Durham, KCL, UofL or UCL. This was mainly because attempts to explain it on the individual articles were getting out of sync (e.g. both the Durham and King's articles were asserting the claim as fact in the main article, whilst a footnote on King's mentioned the point of the Charter and was added to by an anonymous user asserting that the London School of Economics proves an institution doesn't need a charter to be a good university!). I think it would work best if the detail and explanation for this is kept on one page. Please come and help enhance the article. Timrollpickering 16:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Colleges no longer in existence

Could someone who is able to do it right update the line on Wye College? ("Now part of Imperial College") Much obliged, Notreallydavid 03:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

LSE, King's and UCL announce plans to award their own degrees in THES

Somebody questioned the inclusion of this information as it was "rumour". The Times Higher Education Supplement seems much firmer in their assertion than this would suggest, and there was no denial in the subsequent issue from any of the colleges or from the University of London itself.

The Times Higher article directly cites the director of the LSE ("Many of our students are now surprised to find themselves given a University of London certificate on their graduation day. We have therefore decided that it would be better for the LSE to issue degrees in its own name in future. We await approval from the University of London as a whole to that proposal.") and states that King's College and UCL had "also told The Times Higher that they hoped to award their own degrees from 2007-08." Consequently this does not seem to be a rumour at all. ThomasL 15:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's no rumour - it's been on the cards for some time and preparations for this are underway. It won't be an instant 100% change as any student enrolled pre 2007 (2006 for Imperial) is still entitled to a UofL degree, though Imperial at least offers them the option to take a college degree instead.
My immediate reaction to the quote "Many of our students are now surprised to find themselves given a University of London certificate on their graduation day" is that if an individual college isn't going to bother to acknowledge the link and tell their students then it is solely responsible for their surprise. (Also do LSE use their own stationary for exams? QMUL uses UofL stationary.) Timrollpickering 10:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


From a email cced to the LSE Alumi Subject:"LSE Director's Letter to Alumni" 8 March 2007 21:19:

--Philip Baird Shearer 10:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Most famous colleges"

"The nine most famous colleges are Birkbeck, Goldsmiths, King's College London, the London Business School, the London School of Economics, Queen Mary, Royal Holloway, the School of Oriental and African Studies, and University College London." Who gets to decide that exactly? Lfh 13:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Number of students

This will have gone down with the departure of Imperial. It needs to be updated. Lfh 12:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Most other pages are using the 2005-2006 stats as the most recent available ones - I'm not sure it's workable to arbitarily recalculate them until they catch up with departures and/or mergers. Timrollpickering 22:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
On that page I can only see the number of students in the schools of advanced study, and it would be misleading to use that only, so the options are to use the University's own figure, which seems reliable, or do our own calculation. Since all we are going here is subtracting Imperial from the previous number, it looks pretty straightforward. Which part of it would be arbitrary? --Duncan 06:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
On second thoughts, it probably would be original research to calculate our own figure. However the UoL website now gives the figure as 115,000 (+ 40,000 distance learners), which seems to roughly take into account the loss of Imperial (c. 12,000)so I am updating this. Lfh 14:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that the figures are at least one year out of date (due to the way the returns are done and then released) so it would be rather confusing to give a figure that amounts to "number registered or enrolled in previous years in institutions that are currently a part of the university". It won't be a true figure for the university in the year in question and it wouldn't be the current figures either.
OR is perhaps overused - really it should be "original conclusions". There's nothing original in taking figures that are in existance in the public domain (and which have a standing for veracity) and then compounding them where appropriately. Timrollpickering 23:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, but we don't need to do that anyway since the UoL has now updated its own site. Lfh 10:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm wary of using figures thrown about on "About the University" pages as often they're generalised numbers (does the University really have an exact 115,000?!) and there are many cases of the HESA stats being somewhat different. And 115,000 doesn't match up with the HESA stats for internal students at the colleges, which are the figures being used on the college articles. For consistency we should be using the same source (as near as possible) for both colleges and the University as a whole. FWIW here are the relevant HESA stats (complete with archaic names!) for 2005-2006:
Birkbeck College 19020
Central School of Speech and Drama 950
Courtauld Institute of Art 395
Goldsmiths College 7615
Imperial College of Science, Technology & Medicine 12665
Institute of Cancer Research 235
Institute of Education 7215
King's College London 21755
London Business School 1455
London School of Economics and Political Science 8810
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine 975
Queen Mary and Westfield College 11625
Royal Academy of Music 730
Royal Holloway and Bedford New College 7620
Royal Veterinary College 1610
School of Oriental and African Studies 4525
School of Pharmacy 1355
St George's Hospital Medical School 3785
University College London 21620
University of London (Institutes and activities) 430
i.e. the School of Advanced Study & everything within it, the University of London Institute in Paris and the University Marine Biological Station, Millport)
(Note that Heythrop College is privately funded and doesn't appear in HESA returns. The figure used on Heythrop College is "700".)
The internal HESA total is 134,390 (add Heythrop's 700 and we get 135,090). Without Imperial it's 121,725 (122,425 with the Heythrop figure).
The other (fairly major) problem is that the university infobox template doesn't actually contain "internal" and "external" student number fields, so the individual figures weren't displaying. I've been bold and changed the "students" figure to a separated one of internal and external students, with the internal clearly designated as the figure for 2005-2006 and the footnotes containing the individual numbers.
It may be slightly OR to include a total from the Heythrop website in the calculations but this is the figure the Wikipedia article on Heythop has been using anyway (I've added a reference). Separating the internal and external students in the box is preferable because there isn't a way to display the two otherwise and they are very different types of students. Also pragatically the External number (40,000 not 41,000) comes off the External webpage. Timrollpickering 11:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Chancellors

This will be useful but currently the information is incomplete. According to Negley Harte's book, the following were Chancellor:

From what I can tell there hasn't been a tradition of Chancellors staying in post until they die - Rosebery's the only one on the list who did.

Anne is the only Chancellor in a contested election - she beat Jack Jones and Nelson Mandela. The election was by Convocation.

Does anyone have information about the rest of the list? I've added navboxes to the six above. Timrollpickering 16:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Found a further one - Granville Leveson-Gower, 2nd Earl Granville. There's ambiguity because Harte's book says he held the post 1856-1891, as does his article. However the DNB says it was 15 years (1856-1871). Also the Wikipedia article claims he supported women's education whereas the DNB states He used his casting vote to block the admission of women to the matriculation examination in 1862, though he seems to have moved to a position of bored acquiescence a few years later.
For now I'm going with Harte's dates. Timrollpickering 11:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Further discoveries, frustratingly poorly indexed (there's no list of office holders and the Chancellorship isn't indexed fully so I've had to go through the images for the captions).
Edward Stanley, 15th Earl of Derby 1891-1893
Farrer Herschell, 1st Baron Herschell 1893-1899
John Wodehouse, 1st Earl of Kimberley 1899-1902
Archibald Primrose, 5th Earl of Rosebery 1902-1929
I've now added a full list to the article.
I'm not sure if it's worthy of note in the text but until 1931 all the Chancellors were Liberals in politics, bar Derby, who by 1891 was a Liberal Unionist (and until that year leader in the Lords). Then royals became the flavour of the day (Athlone was the younger brother of Queen Mary), although I'm not sure how close the 1980 election went - but I can take a look in Lexis Nexis. Timrollpickering 12:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Nice initiative. Just one question, can't we add this list at the bottom of the history section? Though it is quite justified to add honorable Chancellors name at University People section, but I just felt, it would be a special honor for them to list their names as a Hall of honor at the history section. Besides, their names should be listed in the main London People article also. Niaz bd 12:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah - I just bunged it in but didn't give the placing too much thought. By the way Anne was elected by a wide margin - see the new article University of London Chancellor election, 1981 - although the competition wasn't the strongest imaginable (Mandela was unable to perform the role from prison and looking at List of awards and honours bestowed on Nelson Mandela it seems that giving him various positions and honours as a statement against apartheid didn't take off in earnest until a couple of years later), not least because of the very limited time to get nominations together. Timrollpickering 14:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Handling Imperial in the people categories

Does anyone have any thoughts on how best to incorporate Imperial post departure into the various categories such as Category:People associated with the University of London, Category:Academics of the University of London and Category:Alumni of the University of London. For most of the time Imperial was in the University the federal university meant rather more than in its last few years and many of the academics and alumni in the categories have both the University and College listed in their own articles, implying something closer to the Oxbridge set-up than now. (Indeed how would categorisation handle a Cambridge college going it alone?) Currently the situation is to have some of the Imperial categories in the UofL ones but not others. The college is easily handled with a "former colleges" category, but that's not really workable for categories covering a massive time span. (And what do we do about the likes of Brian May who went away and came back?) Timrollpickering 13:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need any change to Category:People associated with the University of London or Category:Alumni of the University of London, since those associations remain. If Category:Academics of the University of London contains only current academics, then those working only at Imperial and nowhere else in the University should be removed. --Duncan 17:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I also thought about this problem and about to start a discussion. I think Imperial people before 2007 should be listed as UoL people as they actually received UoL degree (with an exception of Imperial degree that they awarded to their students who wanted to get so). People from 2007 and onwards should be listed as Imperial people and excluded from this list (though they are not famous enough to be listed in this list right now, but for future purpose). Niaz bd 12:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe just haul Category:People associated with Imperial College London and its daughters out of Category:People associated with the University of London (and daughters). Imperial was always quasi-autonymous, and alumni of the College remain its alumni regardless of the affiliation status. For completeness, all existing alumni/academics of Imperial could be categorised directly under Alumni/Academics of the University of London in addition to their current cat. A bot could do it: currently, all members of People associated with Imperial College London are also associated with the federal University. Over time, the cats will diverge, and the pre-2007 alumni will be the intersection of Imperial People and London People.
If you wanted to keep that intersection separate, you could call it Category:People associated with Imperial College London (1907-2007) and make it a subcat of both Imperial and London. — mholland (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it would be entirely workable to just add an additional 100 alumni and academics to the top level UofL categories - not only is there the size issue but it could open up arguments for people from other colleges to be added, especially those who lived in earlier eras. A partition on the Imperial category at 2007 may be the least worst option, although I wonder if it will last or if people will want all Imperial alumni & academics together. And Category:Academics of Imperial College London whilst in the University of London is getting silly. (We also have the mess that is Wye College, although not too many people linked to it are on Wikipedia.) Timrollpickering 14:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh and the Imperial situation is far from unique. A lot of the colleges had an existance before entering the University, whilst some were partially set up to offer courses for the External Degree, but later joined up fully. For example Ramsay MacDonald attended Birkbeck, but illness prevented him from taking the exams. He most definitely was an alumnus of Birkbeck (and is one of the many famous faces cited in publicity) but equally never considered to be a university educated Prime Minister (he never appears in the list of ones who went to universities other than Oxbridge).
Currently university alumni categories either ignore mergers or have sub-categories for those who attended pre merger (but often these also include post merger students whilst the gobbled up institution retained its identity). This is not an easy area to strictly delineate but then neither are many other categories... Timrollpickering 22:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I had the email below a few moments ago. I have removed the logo, and put a note on the image to say it can be deleted. --Duncan 15:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Duncan,

It would not be appropriate to allow for the use of our logo. Its use would be seen as an endorsement of the content which may not necessarily be the case.

However, I would like to thank you for your continued interest and support for the University of London.

If there is anything else I can help with please do get in touch.

By the way are you also editing the University of London External System Pages?

Kind regards

Ms Binda Rai Head of Media and Public Relations External System University of London Stewart House 32 Russell Square London WC1B 5DN Tel: 020 7862 8545

With due respect to the University, their permission is not necessary for the image to be used on Wikipedia under our Non-free content policy, or fair use doctrine. There is near-unanimous consensus that the use of logos and arms to identify organisations does not ordinarily make it appear as though organisations endorse Wikipedia (if it did, we wouldn't use logos, full stop). Queries like this one should, in the first instance, be politely directed to the "Contact us" page, where parties can follow the links to this page and send an e-mail for the WP:OTRS volunteers to field.
I can see that the image itself is tagged unsourced, so may be rightfully deleted anyway. But I don't see any reason why I, or another user, shouldn't go to http://www.london.ac.uk/ and reupload the logo. Such use appears to me to meet WP:LOGO. — mholland (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The source is the website (I uploaded the image from there) but I'm not sure that will be good enough, will it? --Duncan 22:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:4044.jpg has a different size and is of a different file type to the logo from london.ac.uk that's on the main page. A direct URL is the best way of pointing at an image's source, but you can't upload a GIF over a JPEG on mediawiki I dont think, so it may be best to delete the old image and upload a clean one, using the source above. I've left a message on the WP:UNI talk page asking whether the logo is genuinely necessary here. And if we do restore it, I'd be keen to let the University know, just as a courtesy. — mholland (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I just don’t understand that if the constituent colleges' Wikipedia sites are using their logos, why is the central university administration giving us a hard time on this issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uofler (talk • contribs) 21:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

How did it first come about?

How did it first come about, please? Can you give any background to the Times advertisement in 1831, referred to in the Edward William Wynne Pendarves article? Did Oxbridge resent the upstart at all? Vernon White . . . Talk 00:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Minor Historical Puzzle

The article says that “twelve universities in England ... began life as associate colleges of the university”. As far as I can make out from the respective Wikipedia articles on them, this statement covers only 11 universities (in chronological order, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Bristol, Nottingham, Southampton, Hull, Exeter, Leicester). The other three “redbrick” universities had no connections with London (Reading was linked with Oxford and Newcastle with Durham, while Keele awarded its own degrees even before it became a university). So, which university was the 12th? Or is 11 the correct figure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.242.160 (talk) 05:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Tuition/fees

There should be something on the tuition and fees, or an estimate if specific ones cannot be given out. I don't study in the UK and information like this would be useful and interesting. --Franciscoh (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sports

Within the sports section, I think there should be mention of the University of London representative football side. [4] (this site is outdated and applicable to last season's squad). There could even be a seperate page for the side, as there is with the boat club. I am a member of the squad, and could do this quite easily. Londonlucas1234 (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have now edited the page to include a mention of the football representative side. Let me know if it needs changing, it is my first edit! Londonlucas1234 (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Meaningless, unverified Athlone Press redirect: Error or joke?

Hi folks. On checking whether there is a need to create a Wikilink for Athlone Press, I found myself redirected to this article. A check of the article shows nothing justifying this link. A previous Chancellor was the 1st Earl of Athlone, but that tells one nothing at all in relation to an Athlone Press redirect. One might as well redirect to any of the multitude of pages that contain the term Athlone.

A quick check via the search function for Athlone Press gave me a page for Continuum International Publishing Group, but the only mention of Athlone Press is a link which, via redirect, brings one back to this article. That's either an editing error (as in the exercise wasn't completed to the point that it makes sense), or a little joke by someone. I found nothing enlightening on the Contimuum Books website Continuum Books website indicating Athlone Press is any part of the group.

The bottom line is the redirect to this article is meaningless, and I suggest that if there is a basis that someone out there knows about, and can verifiably substantiate, that should be done. Otherwise the redirect is useless, and should go.Wotnow (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Wotnow

Here is a link to this so-called Athlone Press to demonstrate what a truly useful service it provides, pending resolution of the matter.Wotnow (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Wotnow
Athlone Press was the University's publishing house between 1948 and 1979, before it was sold on - see [5] for details about the press's papers held in Senate House. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to reply with a useful lead. I have now added a brief sentence to the University of London article, using the citation provided by you, and another citation for the eventual acquisition by Continuum publishing. I have also amended the redirect to go to Continuum International Publishing Group, where it makes sense. There is no point in anything pointing to the UoL article unless someone creates a substantive section on Athlone Press. But if that never happens, the current arrangement solves the problem of the previously cryptic link, courtesy of your reply.Wotnow (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Wotnow

CIty university joining UoL?

I have heard rumors but I havent seen evidence except a thread at www.thestudentroom.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.13.71 (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Unacceptable justification for use of post-nominal letters (Lond)

I’ve been looking at this for a while. The final line of the introduction reads: “Graduates of the University of London may use the post-nominal letters 'Lond.' (Londiniensis) after their degree abbreviations (see post-nominal abbreviations).”

My question is who allows the use of post-nominal letters in this way, or what convention allows this use. I realise that in academia academics often put the name of the university at which they studied after their qualifications, e.g. PhD (Leeds), however I didn't think that this was allowed outside of academia with the exception of a small number of universities such as Cambridge, Oxford, Durham and St Andrew's. For instance MA (Cantab); MSt (Oxon); MA (Dunelm) and PhD (STA).

This article used to reference this sentence to an academic at Hull University’s website who used the post nominal (Lond) after her degree qualifications, however someone has deleted this reference in favour of linking to the article post-nominal abbreviations. Neither of these are acceptable as they cast no light on why this convention is applicable to the University of London. TehGrauniad (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The whole sentence could come out for now, since it isn't terribly important, but we all know that London graduates can and do add (Lond.) or (London) after their degree title, whenever they judge it useful to do so, in the same way that graduates of other universities can add (Leeds), (Essex), (Surrey), and the rest. If there is any restriction on when these post-nominals are used, then it will be written down somewhere, and we can cite it. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The sentence as it stands makes it seem as though the use of post-nominal letters is a special right of London graduates. It seems so because it forms a major part of this institution’s short introductory passage (it forms the third of three paragraphs), and has quite a grand tone “Graduates of the University of London may use the post-nominal letters ...” It might make one feel that if one studied at a different institution one may not use post-nominal letters in a similar way. TehGrauniad (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Merger of City University and UoL?

I've put in 'dubious' and 'Original Research?' tags into final paragraph of Organisation section. I can't see where this information comes from, perhaps the editor who wrote it has some inside information? TehGrauniad (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The University of London has a new logo which can be viewed at: http://www.freeimagehosting.net/7b51d

Would it be possible for this to be upload in replace of the arms to keep it consistent with other university pages?

Thanks,

Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.71.198 (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

File:UniversityofLondonLogo.jpg and File:UofLondon logo.png are currently uploaded to Wikipedia and both have a valid rationale for the article. Generally, the one in PNG format would be preferred. However, the article already has a non-free image image, namely File:University of London arms.svg. Thus File:University of London arms.svg should be replaced with File:UofLondon logo.png. Using both images could be considered overuse of non-free content. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I really don't see how, one is the logo and one is the coat of arms - and both are specified sections of the university navbox.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
The documentation at Template:Infobox university says the image should be "University-related graphic, preferably the university's official seal or logo". This is what File:UofLondon logo.png depicts. The template documentation says the logo parameter can be used "for an athletics logo, corporate emblem, or similar graphic." However, since that graphic is non-free, there needs to be a valid reason in which way the addition of that image is necessary for the readers understanding of the article. In particular, the image must meet all 10 criteria at WP:NFC#Policy. In my opinion, File:University of London arms.svg fails point 8 at WP:NFC Policy 8, since it is not necessary for the readers understanding of the article and therefore purely decorative. Only because someone has specified a field in a template does not mean the use of a non-free image in that field is allowed by Wikipedias non-free content policy. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I see where you are coming from but disagree with your interpretation - the coat of arms is not purely decorative and does help readers to understand the subject of the article better - precisely why it is a defined field in the university infobox. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I saw the request for a third opinion.
It seems to me that it would be appropriate to upload a larger version of the new logo, which would then serve as a reference image to both the coat of arms and the logo for readers of the article.
The university's press office might or might not be able to supply you with an appropriate vector version to turn into an SVG, which might be the best solution. (A couple of PDFs I looked at simply used rather scruffy bitmaps of the old logo; but if the UoL has just had its logo re-styled by an expensive design agency, it may be possible to get something rather cleaner. After all, there's no reason to suppose they should want their image tainted by JPEG compression noise).
As a guideline, we encourage uploaders to be wary of uploading images larger than about 300x300. But that is only a ball-park figure, and can be exceeded if there is good reason to do so. In this case I believe that allowing the reader to make out the details of the coat of arms that is incorporated in the logo would indeed constitute such good reason. If a version of the logo larger than 300x300 is uploaded, this should be noted in the "Low resolution?" part of the Fair Use Rationale, with an explanation as to why in this case 300x300 should be considered insufficient.
One might also note that, under U.S. law, it is really only the included depiction of the coat of arms that is of sufficient artistic originality and creativity to attract copyright -- so it is perhaps most appropriate to consider the resolution at which this part of the image is presented. Jheald (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Like Jheald, I was asked to provide a third opinion. I agree that one image is sufficient to convey the desired information. There's no need to include two images, as here. The current one image is fine, and I would support a large version of that image though not excessively large. It might do to include an image of the original rendering of the coat of arms (seen here) and add it to the coat of arms section; it would be free public domain by now, I would think. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


I agree with Hammersoft that two images are not needed. I think how the page currently looks is fine, although it would be good if the new logo was of a higher resolution. Maybe somebody could contact the Press Office for a higher resolution? However, in the mean time, I think the page and image should remain as it is, without the coat of arms. 86.5.71.198 (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Daniel


I've managed to obtain the University of London New Logo in a higher resolution. Could somebody please replace the current version with this higher resolution version: http://www.freeimagehosting.net/d53ae Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.71.198 (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. File:UofLondon logo.png now updated. Can you tell us where it was you were able to get the new version from, so we can note that information in the "Source:" line on the image description page? Jheald (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

After seeing the new logo uploaded, I noticed the red of the emblem is brighter than displayed on the University of London website, I've found an image that is the correct shade of red here: http://www.freeimagehosting.net/62b10 (you'll see what I mean if you visit london.ac.uk) Could somebody replace the current image? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.99.61 (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jheald (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi all. Just fairly new to Wikipedia editing. I've been looking at a few universities and noticed that most actually have the coat of arms at the top of the info box and the common logo at the bottom. In fact, all of Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, UoL's colleges (UCL, Queen Mary, Kings etc) and many other uni's use this precedent. For consistency shouldn't UoL follow suit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gold fish2011 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I also just noticed that University of London Institute in Paris also uses that arms/logo combination with the UoL coat of arms at the top of the info box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gold fish2011 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to keep banging on about this. I was reading the wikipedia non-free content policy last night. It seems in relation to the coat of arms the consensus above is that it does not meet point 8 at WP:NFC Policy 8. Given that the article actually discusses and describes the coat of arms I would have thought a large and clearly defined image of the coat of arms would 'increase readers' understanding of the topic'. It is clearly different from the standard logo used by the uni. Also, as mentioned other uni's that use a coat of arms or seal as part of their logo have both the coat of arms and logo included in the info box - just my two bobs worth. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gold fish2011 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Goldfish2011, we have already investigated this matter and the coat of arms does not meet point 8 of the policy. This is why we have changed the main image to the University of London logo. We are currently working on doing the same for other universities too as the same argument keeps cropping up. Please replace the coat of arms with the main logo as we need universities to start following suit to encourage others to follow. Can someone put the logo back to the top? (Also the coat of arms is the old vibrant red one, the new coat of arms 'lighter red' is in the logo) Thanks Daniel 81.106.115.143 (talk) 09:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


This crest of arms is the old colour red.

Please could somebody upload the new crest of arms colour red (that matches the logo):

http://i55.tinypic.com/14neqmh.png (remove white background if possible) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.32.30.70 (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the colour but the edges are a bit thick. Dont have time to fix it now but if anyone else wants to try feel free Gold fish2011 (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the edges Gold fish2011 (talk) 04:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Since when has Kaplan Business School been a recognised body of the UoL??

I've noticed that the Kaplan Business School has begun appearing under the "Colleges of the University of London" section: surely this is wrong and Kaplan is NOT a recognised body of the the UoL? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.15.243 (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. KBS's degrees are validated and awarded by UoL, but that doesn't make it a constituent college. It may merit a place in the section on University colleges in the International degree programme, and/or the separate article on University of London International Programmes. GrindtXX (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

University of London Alumni?

The University of London Alumni page should be deleted. It is basically a plagerism of the LSE Alumni page with a few additions. Also it is misleading to say that people are alumni of the University of London. No one studies at University of London. People study at member colleges for University of London degrees. The University of London is only a degree awarding body. - Sarah H

A lot do study at the University of London, whether at the central institutes, on intercollegiate degrees or in research. From recollection Birkbeck's School of Continuing Education has its origins as the central University Extra-Mural programme, whilst the External degree programme is at least marketted at being the University, not colleges. The central University operates as more than just a degree awarding body, with many central facilities - e.g. Halls, Library, ULU...
I agree the list needs a rethink but to say no-one studies at the University of London is misleading and inaccurate. Timrollpickering 15:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It is not misleading to say that people are alumni of the University of London, for the reasons stated above. More than one fifth of the University's students are in the external programme, which is three times the size of Imperial College. One could also consider the federal LLM program. I studied at London Business School, which is formally a graduate faculty of the University of London. Its students are granted UoL degrees. Considering the possible withdrawal of LSE, IC and UCL from the University, it's important to avoid historical revisionism, where people who are graduates of the University are painted out to not be. --Duncan 15:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
OK lets take the example of JFK. Saying JKF is LSE alumni is the truth. But saying JFK is University of London alumni is misleading (especially as he did not take a degree, the only function of Uni of Lond).
People graduate from UCL, KCL, LSE, Imperial etc with University of London degrees. They do not graduate from the University of London.
But I can compromise on this issue. If it is made clear that the list is of those who received Uni of London degrees (those who didn't take Uni of Lond degrees should not be on the list), and if the list puts in brackets which college they graduated from, that would make the section far more accurate. I would have no problems with such a list. And I dont think anyone can object to calls for an entry or section of an entry to be made more accurate.
Anyway, the list needs to spun off into a separate entry, as has happened with other university alumni pages. I dont have the technical know-how to do this. Can someone establish a separate University of London "alumni" page with the amendments I've mentioned? - Sarah H
Why not name the section something along the lines of "Alumni of University of London colleges"? I think a precise wording would be better than having to verify who did and did not gain UL degrees (which would be a nightmare). If we can settle on a name I have a list of alumni and could get the page up and running fairly quickly. Daduzi 03:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Alumnus does not mean 'graduate', it means former student, so there is no need to be so specific about who did or did not attend a college. Luckily, this means that the bizzare notion that people graduate from college of the University but not from the University need not be resolved. Those without degrees can be on the list, including President Kennedy. I am happy to call Senate House and ask their opinion... --Duncan 17:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Kennedy didn't even study at LSE - he merely enrolled. Similarly, the evidence for Gandhi as a student at UCL is very thin, so it might be good to use two other, more connected alumni. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.203.150.130 (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on University of London. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Nobel Laureates Calculation problem? | Total Numbers?

If you go as per the Wikipedia article List of University of London people, see the table below:

University College London 29
London School of Economics 18
Imperial College London 14
King's College London 12
University of London International Programmes 7
Queen Mary University of London 7
Birkbeck, University of London 4
Lister Institute for Preventive Medicine 3
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine 2
Central School of Speech and Drama 1
School of Oriental and African Studies 1
  • There is a calculation problem. If you simply add the above number i.e. the total laureates from each college from UOL, the number comes around to 98. However, taking into account that ICL (Imperial College London) has left the UOL, then it would be 98 (-) 14 = 84.
  • How is anyone getting to 74?
  • How is that the Wikipedia articles List of University of London people and University of London say there are only 74 laureates, whereas the calculation now shows that there are 84.

Please rectify the errors. How are the people here editing Wikipedia, dont know simple addition and mathematics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japanmomo (talk • contribs) 01:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on University of London. 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:

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) 02:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on University of London. 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:

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) 23:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Article protection

The article has been protected for three days because of an edit war. Please can editors seek consensus here rather than constantly reverting each other. Timrollpickering 20:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I was recently reverted by LondonV for removing material from the popular culture section. Apparently I have bias (?) and they belive it should stay because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at the Harvard University article. This section should follow WP:POPCULTURE, lets look at each part bit by bit:

  • Dr. Watson, a fictional character in the Sherlock Holmes stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, received his medical degree from Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry (now QMUL). There is no citation for this. Firstly, information should be verifiable and that Dr Watson (a fictional character) attended Barts' doesn't seem a significant contribution to the history of the University of London.
  • The Senate House, London and constituent colleges of the University of London has been featured in Hollywood and British films.. Requires a citation, also this is a very sweeping statement. Is it significant that these buildings have been featured in films?
  • Jay Sean was a medical candidate... - lots of people attended University of London. We have a whole page, List of University of London people. Why should be single out one person out of thousands who will have dropped out of UoL and mention them in this section?

These examples all seem like trivia and not remarkable aspects of the University of London. Aloneinthewild (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I entirely agree with all the above. "... has been featured in Hollywood and British films" is particularly meaningless and uninformative to the reader, given the huge and varied number of institutions and buildings that make up the university: does that even mean featured as part of the plot, or just used for location filming? There's already a relevant section in the Senate House article (Senate House, London#In popular culture), and an entire article on Filming at University College London, both giving specific (but far from exhaustive) lists of examples, and those are where this sort of material belongs. GrindtXX (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I generally agree. It would probably be a good idea to point people at the other articles, e.g. "For details of the Senate House and individual colleges in popular culture, please see the relevant articles." or something along those lines.
I had a look at the Harvard section. It doesn't contain anything about fictional alumni or people who have dropped out, all the literature references are to books set at Harvard. This would appear to not only be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but false WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS!
With regards to Watson, it would be interesting to know if London has been used as a generic university in literature because it isn't Oxbridge but is still 'good' and has a large number of graduates. Watson might well be an example of this, but it would require a reference actually exploring and analysing the idea. As it stands, it is trivia that doesn't belong here.
Robminchin (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Is just like to add the following quote from WP:POP CULTURE: "The importance of the works it may be reasonable to mention in a pop-culture section should rise commensurately with the level of notability of the subject of the article in which the section appears." This cuts to the heart of the problem here – inclusion of this kind of tangentially-related trivia plays down the importance of the university. Robminchin (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I have included references for everything, so, there wont be bias against what I have written. LondonV (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the references, but the main problem is that the content appears to be trivia that doesn't belong in the article, referenced or not. Robminchin (talk) 12:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I've always been of the opinion that "In popular culture" sections are pure WP:OR unless they are supported by sources that explicitly discuss the institution's role in or influence on popular culture. A list of Wikipedia editor-selected examples is synthesis. ElKevbo (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Given the recent edit war it might be good for editors to comment again. Should we remove the section that the IP insists on reverting? Aloneinthewild (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was that there appears to be a clear consensus for the second option listed - to exclude "London University" as an alternative name in the opening sentence. WaggersTALK 14:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

This is not usually an area I would stand my ground over but I feel I really can't edit this article without being in a revert cycle. This is part of a wider issue on this article with behaviour verging on ownership and minor attacks in edit summaries towards multiple users- labelling them and their edits 'vandalism', 'Bias or personal opinions', 'biased and not educated' and the best one 'Wikipedia should not suffer for your trash.' (see the recent history).

All the conflicting edits appear to involve IPs addresses in a similar locality. Previously conflicts (over different content) involved a failure to engage the editor in the talk discussion (see #Popular culture, hence I turn to an Rfc this time.

The content under debate is the lead sentence, should it read:

  • The University of London (informally London University and commonly abbreviated as Lond. or, more rarely, Londin) or
  • The University of London (abbreviated as Lond. or more rarely Londin in post-nominals)

I believe the second option is more appropriate, firstly, I see no sources showing it is referred to as London University. Even so, its unnecessary to tell people that the order of the name can be rearranged and guess what - same place. Second, its name is not commonly abbreviated as these abbreviations. To say so is misleading, it is only abbreviated like this for Post-nominal letters. This is why I also favour simply keeping to the sentence that is already at the end of the lead (in my first edit that as reverted).

Thanks for reading this far, hopefully some extra input can help we can avoid these endless contact disputes --Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Aloneinthewild. Of course people occasionally refer to London University, but it's technically incorrect, and as the entire institution is – for most students, graduates and academics – a fairly remote and abstract entity that has little direct impact on their lives, those occasions are relatively few and far between: no graduate, for example, would ever claim to have studied at either London University or the University of London. I see no real point in referring to this "alternative" designation at all. And the postnominals are only rarely seen, and I agree best left in the single-sentence para at the end of the lede. (On a lesser point, "Londin." should have a full stop at the end: it's an abbreviation for Londiniensis.) GrindtXX (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
This is very funny. British people are really weak with facts and history. No wonder even A level graduates dont know much about slavery engaged by the British people in the British Empire, as well as, beautiful racism and colonialism, you guys practiced in India and the world for almost 250 years. Lets get to facts now.

- Signed James — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.69.88.90 (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how we got round to slavery, "beautiful racism", and colonialism, so I'll just stick with the three examples you give of (supposed) references to "London University".
Example 1, from the Guardian, has a headline starting "London university criticised ..." – a lower-case "u" for "university", so what is meant is an unspecified university in London, not a named institution. The text similarly begins "A university has been criticised ...". The sub-headline, and the body of the text, refer consistently and correctly to the institution in question as the "University of London".
Example 2, from The Tab, refers in passing to "a London uni rugby club" – again, meaning a generic "uni", not a specific institution. The institution is correctly named elsewhere as Imperial College.
Example 3, from the London Free Press, refers to "a London university residence ..." – again, a lower case "u". Perhaps the more important point to note here, however, is that the London in question is London, Ontario, and the institution is King's University College (University of Western Ontario).
If those are really the best you can come up with, they rather underline the point that the name "London University" is hardly ever used. GrindtXX (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
They dont underline anything. Are you guys stupid?
  • All that matters is London university has been stated. Upper case/Lower case - no one gives a damn about English language construction other than few white British dumbos here.
  • Second, The weblinks that was shared was not to prove literal points, but to show (or have some sort of evidence) that University of London can also be informally written as London University.
  • Third, there are several constituent colleges within the University of London (as like Oxford and Cambridge). However, when you graduate, it is not necessary by law to state which constituent college one graduated from. One can just state BA/Bsc/Msc/PhD from University of London (Example - Tedros Adhanom is current elected 8th Director-General of the World Health Organization. He graduated from LSHTM; however, his UN CV or detailed profile in the United Nations just officially states "M.Sc from University of London, UK" - http://www.who.int/dg/election/cv-tedros-en.pdf
  • In addition you guys have to read a lot of books. There are several published books where University of London has been stated as London University within the text in books
    • The University of London, 1858-1900: The Politics of Senate and Convocation (Publisher: Boydell Press, 2004; ISBN 9781843830658)
    • Higher Education in South Africa: A Scholarly Look Behind the Scenes (Publisher: AFRICAN SUN MeDIA, 2009; ISBN 9781920338145)
    • From Dependence to Autonomy: The Development of Asian Universities (Publisher: Springer Science & Business Media, 2012; ISBN 9789400925632)

- Signed James — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.69.6.215 (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

But it is not being written, informally or otherwise, as "London University". As the above editors pointed out, "London" is being used as an adjective in those examples, not the name of the institution. If you saw the sentence "A London man has been arrested for speeding." You wouldn't assume that the man in question also goes by the name "London Man". Also, please could you refrain from personal attacks and remain civil? Thanks. Jdcooper (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Please be educated and not illiterate. University of London can be formally and informally written and stated as "London University. "it is not being written, informally or otherwise" - do you have proof for this? I have stated weblinks as well as published (texts within) textbooks with ISBNs. Please spend money, purchase those books and start reading. Your personal opinion and bias is not required. Please refrain from attacking and making silly comments.- Signed James
I also agree entirely with Aloneinthewild. The University of London itself is almost always called "University of London" and almost never called "London University". The great majority of supposed exceptions are simply references to an unspecified University in London, rather than the University of London. The only exception of any significance is in the phrase "London University Degrees", which has a rather technical meaning and does not generalise. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
The non support seems insignificant because the bias and hatred from alumnus from 3rd class universities is clearly seen. However, there are numerous sources (published books) which clearly state London University instead of University of London. As long as legitimate sources exist, it should be stated. Wikipedia is not here for personal opinion and whims/fancies of administrator or irrelevant writers here.
    • The University of London, 1858-1900: The Politics of Senate and Convocation (Publisher: Boydell Press, 2004; ISBN 9781843830658)
    • Higher Education in South Africa: A Scholarly Look Behind the Scenes (Publisher: AFRICAN SUN MeDIA, 2009; ISBN 9781920338145)
    • From Dependence to Autonomy: The Development of Asian Universities (Publisher: Springer Science & Business Media, 2012; ISBN 9789400925632)

- Signed James

Please provide quotations from these sources which support your claims. Merely giving the name of a book is wholly inadequate. If you do not do this then the material may be removed by other editors. I further note that the rough consensus at this page is against you, and so the onus is absolutely on you to support your claims, and not on those challenging them. In the meantime I urge you to desist from your continual personal attacks on other editors, which are doing nothing to enhance your credibility. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
    • There are several pages in several books where University of London has been stated as London University. It should be your job to purchase those book and read those books in its entirety. Stop promoting your self bias and hatred for the federal university. I have stated the books with ISBNs. What gives you the right to delete verifiable sources especially when you dont have the decency to buy a book?- Signed James — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.227.158.81 (talk) 07:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Please provide quotations from these sources which support your claims. Merely giving the name of a book is wholly inadequate. Furthermore the quotations must support your claim that there is significant current use of "London University" as an informal name for the "University of London": uses of this term by authors in passing does not establish your claim, and neither does use in a historic context. If you do not do this then the material may be removed by other editors. I further note that the rough consensus at this page is against you, and so the onus is absolutely on you to support your claims, and not on those challenging them. In the meantime I urge you to desist from your continual personal attacks on other editors, which are doing nothing to enhance your credibility. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree broadly with Aloneinthewild, in order to justify inclusion as an 'alternative', the usage should be both reasonably common and not self-evident. 'Attack on Pearl Harbor', is sometimes referred to as 'Pearl Harbor attack', sometimes by the UK spelling of 'Harbour', providing two further alternatives, but these variations are so marginal as to not need 'explaining'. We achieve that on WP with redirects. I'm sure Theresa May is sometimes called 'Mrs May', some usages might be T. M. May - but again what's the point of listing every self-evident variation on how she could be referred to? English is like that, informally people can make all kinds of 'shorthands', but unless their use is sufficiently common and not self-evident - what value is there in recording them? Pincrete (talk) 07:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments, it seems some consensus is forming. Regarding the post nominals - I can agree with GrindtXX this could just stay as a sentence, after all that was the status quo before these edits. Aloneinthewild (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Temporary protection

The article has been protected from anonymous editing for three days due to the edit warring. Please can editors discuss the issue here rather than back & forth reverting. Timrollpickering 09:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The IP is a block-evading sock, anyway. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2019

Current section of the article

Controversy In recent years the University of London has seen lots of controversy surrounding its treatment of staff and students.

In 2012, outsourced cleaning staff ran the "3 Cosas" campaign, fighting for improvements in three areas - sick pay, holiday and pensions. After over a year of high profile strikes, protests and occupations, concessions were made by the university in terms of sick pay and holidays, however these improvements were nowhere near to the extent of what was being demanded by the campaign.[97]

In 2013, after a student occupation in favour of ten demands, including fair pay for workers, a halt to privatisation of the university and an end to plans to shut down the university's student union ULU, police were called, resulting in the violent eviction and arrests of over 60 students, as well as police violence towards students outside supporting the occupation.[98] After these events, a high profile "Cops Off Campus" demonstration was held against the university's use of police violence to crush student protest, with thousands in attendance.[99]

In 2018, a student occupation in support of a continued campaign to bring all workers in-house at the university gained national media attention after a video of university staff drilling shut a fire door to trap students in a room they had occupied, putting them at serious risk of harm, was viewed over 19,000 times.[100] Video footage later emerged of university managers harassing students and harming their property on top of this.[101] Later on in 2018, an article was published by Vice that reported the militarisation of the university campus at Senate House, where over 25 extra security had been brought in, with students known to be involved in political campaigns being barred from using university facilities, as well as being verbally, physically and sexually assaulted by temporary security staff.[102] As of June 2018 no staff are known to have been reprimanded for these actions.

In December 2018, the Independent Workers' Union of Great Britain called for a boycott of events at the university's central administration buildings, including Senate House, with the aim of putting pressure on the University of London to bring outsourced cleaning, catering and security staff in-house by targeting a revenue stream worth around £40 million per year.[103][104][105]

To be changed with the additions below

Controversy In recent years the University of London has seen lots of controversy surrounding its treatment of staff and students.

In 2012, outsourced cleaning staff ran the "3 Cosas" campaign, fighting for improvements in three areas - sick pay, holiday and pensions. After over a year of high profile strikes, protests and occupations, concessions were made by the university in terms of sick pay and holidays, however these improvements were nowhere near to the extent of what was being demanded by the campaign.[97]

In 2013, after a student occupation in favour of ten demands, including fair pay for workers, a halt to privatisation of the university and an end to plans to shut down the university's student union ULU, police were called, resulting in the violent eviction and arrests of over 60 students, as well as police violence towards students outside supporting the occupation.[98] After these events, a high profile "Cops Off Campus" demonstration was held against the university's use of police violence to crush student protest, with thousands in attendance.[99]

In November 2017 the University of London announced a review of its contracted out facilities management services such as front of house, cleaning, security and catering. It was announced that reception, porters, audio-visual staff will be brought back in-house by spring/summer 2019, with other contracts being tested again in-house comparator bids when they come to an end. [footnote to: https://london.ac.uk/october-30th-2018-statement-facilities-management-services]

In 2018, a student occupation in support of a continued campaign to bring all workers in-house at the university gained national media attention after a video of university staff drilling shut a fire door to trap students in a room they had occupied, putting them at serious risk of harm, was viewed over 19,000 times.[100] Video footage later emerged of university managers harassing students and harming their property on top of this.[101] Later on in 2018, an article was published by Vice that reported the militarisation of the university campus at Senate House, where over 25 extra security had been brought in, with students known to be involved in political campaigns being barred from using university facilities, as well as being verbally, physically and sexually assaulted by temporary security staff.[102] As of June 2018 no staff are known to have been reprimanded for these actions.

In December 2018, the Independent Workers' Union of Great Britain called for a boycott of events at the university's central administration buildings, including Senate House, with the aim of putting pressure on the University of London to bring outsourced cleaning, catering and security staff in-house by targeting a revenue stream worth around £40 million per year.[103][104][105]

A statement from Vice-Chancellor Peter Kopelman [relink to entry] published in February 2019 [footnote to: https://london.ac.uk/5-february-2019-statement-vice-chancellor-boycott-senate-house and http://www.facilitatemagazine.com/news/news-analysis/outsourced-fm-workers-fight-for-recognition-is-not-over/], the University of London’s position was clarified. It states that the university “supports the principle of in-sourcing services” and is bringing front of house, portering and post room services back in-house by the end of May 2019. A staged approach for the remaining contracts has been taken “to avoid substantial financial penalties from breaking contracts and to assure affordability”.

The University of London has been paying the London Living Wage (LLW) [relink to entry] since 2011 and requires, as a minimum, all contractors to pay LLW as well. In October 2018 an end of zero-hour contracts among the university’s suppliers was announced. [footnote to: https://london.ac.uk/10-december-2018-university-london-statement-boycott-senate-house] Unioflondon (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Can you provide sources that are not press releases from the University in question? Also, please be aware of WP:COI. NiciVampireHeart 11:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2019

The new Vice-Chancellor Wendy Thomson is not listed in the box at the bottom of the page (the former interim Vice-Chancellor's name is still there). B4thelaw (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Nobel prizes

I think that there're less than 84 nobel prizes associated with the university, maybe 70 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GS-216.1993 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

If anything, the way out is calculated currently (according to the footnote) is an underestimate as it apparently does not include alumni of London who attended Imperial or Nobel's earned by staff at Imperial while it was a college, which seems wrong to me. Those people studied and worked at a University of London college and they should be included here. Robminchin (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
GS-216.1993 is wrong. Stop guessing (maybe 70? prove that 84 is first wrong.) If you can make a table with the math of Nobel prize winners (alumni) from each constituent college+Central academic bodies+research institute then a accurate number can be totalled to 84(or maybe more). I think the number from Imperial College should be included (the footnote should be updated with this detail) because from its origin "year 1907" to year 2007, Imperial only awarded the degree of "University of London", just like other constituent colleges. Imperial only started awarding its own degree with exclusively it's name only from year 2008 when few other colleges joined in with that trend. Imperial (ICL) became a independent University in 2007. So, now the total number should be 84(UOL)+14(Imperial)=98 Nobel Prize alumni in the UOL federation collegiate University. - Samuel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.225.82.238 (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
More numbers to be added. Peter J. Ratcliffe won 2019 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. He earned Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery from St Bartholomew's Hospital Medical College {QMUL, University of London). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.180.196.190 (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020


"The list of affiliated colleges grew by 1858 to include over 50 institutions, including all other British universities." It did not include all other British universities; this should be removed. Tomadillon (talk) 11:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

The 1858 royal charter (which is what the citation points to) includes in the list "The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and the several Colleges and Houses of Learning in such Universities respectively; the Universities of Durham, Edinburgh, St Andrews and Glasgow; The King's College of Aberdeen; The Marischal College of Aberdeen; The University of Dublin; The Queen's University in Ireland; The University of Sydney;" then follow the colleges, starting with "University College, London; King's College, London…". The list does thus include all other British universities that existed in 1858 (and the University of Sydney). Robminchin (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Like Tomadillon I'm very confuded by that sentence. On its face it seems to be saying that "The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and the several Colleges and Houses of Learning in such Universities respectively; the Universities of Durham, Edinburgh, St Andrews and Glasgow; The King's College of Aberdeen; The Marischal College of Aberdeen; The University of Dublin; The Queen's University in Ireland; The University of Sydney" were affiliated colleges of the University of London. Which isn't true. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
There's only a single list of institutions who were able to award the certificates necessary for students to sit the UoL exams (up to 1858), which included all of the universities as well as various colleges. In 1858 the University of Oxford's was – by the UoL charter – as affiliated to the University of London as UCL and King's College London were. The universities don't appear to have made use of this affiliation (I think it was probably done to try to get around the restrictions on who could get degrees at the other English universities, but unless we kind find somewhere that discusses this that's only speculation), but it is there in the charter (and, with the exception of Queen's University in Ireland and the University of Sydney, in the 1850 supplemental charter). Robminchin (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The charter states that "the University of London is already in connexion with" the list of institutions you quote; it is not clear to me that this means affiliation - particularly as it is phrased to suggest that UofL is connected to them rather than the reverse. I may, of course, be mistaken.Tomadillon (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
It's 'already in connexion with' because they were already connected, and the purpose of the list (given later in the paragraph) is that "persons shall be admitted as Candidates for the respective Degrees of Bachelor of Arts, Master of Arts, Bachelor of Laws, and Doctor of Laws, to be conferred by the said University, on satisfying the Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, and Fellows that they have completed in any of the said Institutions the course of instruction which the said Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, and Fellows shall from time to time by regulations in that behalf determine."
A rather more readable summary might be this from University of London: the Historical Record (1836-1926) 'Just twenty-two years after its foundation a very important change was made in the policy of the University. The University, which was intended "to perform all the functions of the Examiners in the Senate House of Cambridge" although limited to the duty of examination, admitted to its examinations only those students who had gone through a course of study at University or King's College or some other "approved institution." The list of these "approved institutions" rapidly expanded. In 1850 a supplemental Charter admitted the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge and their several Colleges, but a number of institutions of varying character and status had also been added by the Crown from time to time.' Robminchin (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Having looked at both the 1836 and 1858 charters, it appears you are right in saying that the status of UCL and King's was similar to that of the other institutions. I am aware of the meaning of the charter as you quote it, and to some degree that is my point: the "connexion" consists solely of a right to submit candidates for exams, whereas the word "affiliated" suggests a more comprehensive relationship - particularly in the context of the modern status of UofL member colleges.
Perhaps an easy solution to this issue is to replace the phrase in the article with a less ambiguous description of the Universities' relationship: "Under the 1858 charter, all British universities were given the right to submit candidates for University of London exams".Tomadillon (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
They had already gained that right prior to 1858 (by the 1850 charter, according to the Historical Supplement), and it's not just about the universities but also the size to which the list had grown. Re-writing does sound like a good way forwards though. How about: "The list of institutions whose students could enter University of London examinations grew rapidly by 1858, including all other British universities as well as over 30 other schools and colleges outside of London. In that year, a new charter opened up the examinations to everyone, effectively abolishing the weak link between the university and the colleges." Adding some secondary references wouldn't hurt either – the Historical Supplement linked above, An Account of the Reconstruction of the University of London The Abolition of the Collegiate System, pp 8–16 and The University of London, 1858-1900, p 1 would be better than linking to the charter. Robminchin (talk) 04:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
That sounds ideal to me, it also fits in better with the rest of the paragraph. Glad we've got it resolved.Tomadillon (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I can see that a consensus was reached here. But due to the long discussion, I'm not sure what edit is being proposed, or how sources are to be cited. Please note that edit requests should be kept short, simple, and separate from discussions on the merit of an edit for this reason. Briefly state the agreed-upon edit below and someone will add it. — Tartan357  (Talk) 00:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done A consensus was reached and a change made. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Factual error regarding the admission of women to degrees in 1878.

The text currently reads:

In 1878, the university set another first when it became the first university in the UK to admit women to degrees, via the grant of a supplemental charter. Four female students obtained Bachelor of Arts degrees in 1880 and two obtained Bachelor of Science degrees in 1881, again the first in the country.

This is incorrect; University College Bristol had been admitting women to degrees since 1876. You can read more here: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/university/history/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.94 (talk) 12:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

What is in the article is accurate. Bristol was the first college to admit women to study alongside men; London was the first university to admit women to degrees. At that time, London was purely am examining university that did not teach – all the teaching was done by colleges, including Bristol, who submitted their students for examination. Bristol did not admit women, or men, to degrees until it became a university in 1909.
(As an aside, Newcastle was the first to permit women to study alongside men, from its opening in 1871, but didn't actually enrol any women until 1881, five years after the first women entered Bristol. UCL did not allow women to study alongside men until 1878, two years after Bristol). Robminchin (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_London/Archive_1&oldid=1137287728"