Talk:University of Westminster/Archive 1

Archive 1

History of Harrow campus

The history confuses the history of the different components of the university and, in particular, completely ignores that of the Harrow campus prior to becoming part of the polytechnic. --David Woolley 13:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Campuses section confused

The campuses section lacks structure, and looks as though the Harrow campus was particularly prominent in promoting itself. The section probably needs sub-sections for each campus.

The bit about dropping languages doesn't belong in that section at all; it looks like it was put there by an aggrieved party that didn't think before they edited. --David Woolley 13:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hyperbole and style

It would seem that David Woolley is right. Much of what is written on this page lacks substansiation and the tone and tenor of the article jar. I don't know whether he is right in his supposition that the article was written by the University PR department. This may be or not be the case. However, whoever wrote the article did not pay much attention to grammar(let alone style). What was apparent immediately is that the English (tenses etc) leave a lot to be desired. I did a little tinkering with the article(and may do some more if I have some time). The best thing, however, would be for somebody to rewrite the lot.

--Dfcarolan 19:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Eric Richardson

Editors of this page may wish to note the Obituary of Eric Richardson (June 30, 1905 - July 20, 2006), Director of th Regent Street Poly from 1957 until an unspecified date in the Guardian newspaper August 15, 2006

[1]

Vernon White 23:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

University ratings

(I'm posting this to all articles on UK universities as so far discussion hasn't really taken off on Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities.)

There needs to be a broader convention about which university rankings to include in articles. Currently it seems most pages are listing primarily those that show the institution at its best (or worst in a few cases). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#University ratings. Timrollpickering 23:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As a student enrolled at the University, completing a Business Management course, it thoroughly infuriates me as to how poorly some departments are maintained and taught...that is not to say all departments are poor.

In an attempt to have blanket coverage on as many different types of subjects available, it appears that quality has been diluted to an extreme state. The handling of funds has also been particularly poor, £750,000 spent on a bar for aspiring alcoholics, as a non-drinking student (to which many current students can relate to, no doubt), a bar benefits me in no way, and is certainly an unhealthy addition to an already cramped campus.

Samuraiman89 01.57, 7 Januray 2007

UK not London?

Since its former name is, Polytechnic of Central London, and that, together with University College and King's College London it is the oldest undergraduate educational institution in London and England (after Oxbridge)... I think we should also keep the Universities in London link. Politis 19:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Alumni

'Ian Ritchie - architect' is mentioned in the list of alumni, but the link connects to Ian Ritchie the composer. Can I suggest a new 'Ian Ritchie' page is created? My Wikipedia knowledge is not extensive enough to deal with creating a new page with the same name as another.Getafix 15:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SmokeRadioLogo.gif

Image:SmokeRadioLogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Studio pottery and ceramicists

Please could someone provide a referenced defintion of 'ceramicists.' This is because ceramics, which must be the source of the word ceramicists, is an extremely large group of materials. Most of these materials will not have been included, or even mentioned, during a BA Ceramics course which are entirely focused on the use of pottery (which loosely correlates to whiteware ceramics.) Also an explanation and references to the difference between studio potters and 'ceramicists' would be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.178 (talk • contribs) 21:40, December 3, 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary gives for “ceramic” (adjective), "of or pertaining to pottery, esp. as an art"; for “ceramics” (plural noun) it gives, "the ceramic art, the art of making pottery"; and for “ceramic” (singular noun), "products of the ceramic art; pottery". Marshall46 (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for quoting the OED on 'ceramic' and 'ceramics' although I do not understand why. The request was for a defintion of 'ceramicists' and the difference to 'studio pottery.' Also the claim of The BA Ceramics course is still often referred to as 'The Harrow Course' is unreferenced and therefore needs a reputable supporting citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.178 (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Implementing this ceramic section is ridiculous. It is rightly deleted, much like the BA from the University prospectus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.185.249 (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hyperbole

It looks as though the base for this article was written by the PR department. As a result it generally violates the neutral point of view rule. Although Wikipedia is very deficient as far as references are concerned, every fact in Wikipedia is supposed to be traceable to an identified and reputable source that other people can check. That's particularly true if you make a claim that something or someone is particularly good in a particular respect.

Also, without a good citation for the interpretation of the meaning of the statue, it looks like a violation of the no original research rule.

I've marked much of the hyperbole as requiring citations. In many cases, a more correct approach would be to simply delete the superlative, but, if you want to keep them, you must provide a reputable source for them (the university prospectus does not count as a reputable source in this context). --David Woolley 13:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[The below comment (and technically parts of the above comment) are no longer applicable, as the offending out of date private league table position has been removed. The person below is promoting Nottingham and also adds their own personal unsubstantiated opinion that Westminster "is terrible" - where is your evidence to support this statement? I take it you are just relying on the private league tables - so please stop being misleading. As any self-respecting person with their own independent and critical analysis will know, the private media tables hardly tell the whole story] - The below person should have also taken a look at the talk page guidelines too. C D forever (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more on this issue; the selective use of figures, such as in the following sentence "The University of Westminster was ranked 55th out of 122 university-level institutions in the United Kingdom in 2005, by The Guardian newspaper". So ... why was that specific ranking quoted? Why not the Guardian's 2010 list? I'm 99% certain that (if true) 55th is the best place in any ranking that Westminster has ever received, and that is exactly why that ranking has been quoted. We all know that in reality Westminster isn't even consistently in the top 100. The Guardian's 2010 ranking places Westminster 110th, so why not list that ranking in this article?

My own university, University of Nottingham, lists every ranking by every newspaper in recent years, to give a much more honest and varied take of the University's change in ranking in recent years, so why does Westminster cherry pick only the best figures? How about on Nottingham's page we just put: "Nottingham was placed 6th best university in the United Kingdom by the Daily Telegraph in 2003"? Whilst being technically true is that giving a fair representation of how Nottingham normally performs? No it isn't, therefore I think this article should clearly state that Westminster Uni usually places above the 100 mark, but did once get placed 55th by The Guardian in 2005, as that is more fair and truthful, this is an encyclopedia after all and not a place for advertisements, save the hyperbole and white lies for Westminster's website. I'm sorry if I'm making a big deal out of a little issue but I find it extremely irritating that students/staff of Westminster are trying to pull the wool over people's eyes to make them think that Westminster is a decent institution, in reality it isn't at all, it's terrible. 04:45, 20th September 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.88.138 (talk • contribs)

Sanitised article

I'd like to second comments above about this article looking like it was written by the PR department. The University of Westminster has just come rock bottom of a major national student satisfaction survey [2]. Mention of this kind of thing is essential. It's a problem for much of Wikipedia that articles are mainly written by people who are interested in and therefore frequently sympathetic to their subjects: university articles are maintained predominantly by students, staff and alumni and end up reading as if these institutions do not exist within any wider context, just lots of anodyne words about the wonderful facilities and all the exciting courses that are offered. If a department has done well in an RAE, you can bet it will be mentioned, but there is no mention of surveys and assessments where the institution has performed poorly. Beorhtwulf (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You make a valid point but in this case not a huge weight can be given to the value of this survey given that just 101 students (0.4%) took part. Poltair (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is not a valid objection. Surveys and opinion polls are routinely carried out with samples of half a percent (often much less), and it is very well established that provided the sampling has been done properly they produce broadly reliable results. The spreadsheet shows that samples were of similar size for all the universities surveyed. The survey was carried out by professional opinion pollsters who know what they're doing with sampling, and I was pleasantly surprised to see that in the main results article they have been very clear about their methodology, like good academics should be: [3] There's also a quote on that page from Craig Mahoney, chief executive of the Higher Education Academy, saying: "Surveys like this, and the HEA's postgraduate student surveys, help us to understand what students think about different aspects of their experience. This informs our work, and the work of everyone involved in improving student learning experiences. We welcome it." I think if any universities felt that the methodology was flawed and they had been portrayed unfairly they would have been on to people like him straight away to explain why they felt he ought to disregard the findings. If this is the University of Westminster's PR line about the survey then I hope they don't offer any courses on social research methods! I've reverted your edit because I think it gives the misleading impression that there is something dodgy about the survey. If you believe it is flawed it shouldn't be hard to find a reliable source trashing it (any statistician at a university that's been shown in a bad light would be a start). Since such people appear to be keeping quiet, I think we can conclude that the results are a reasonably fair reflection of student satisfaction at Westminster and everywhere else. Beorhtwulf (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no connection whatsoever to the University of Westminster. This has just reminded me why I stopped contributing to Wikipedia. I shall go away and leave you to grind away. Poltair (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no connection to it either (and no particular reason to bash it - I just thought it odd that it had come bottom in a recent survey and the article made it sound like a paradise), and I too left Wikipedia, because of frustration at poor standards like those encountered on university articles. I have no axe to grind beyond my concern for accuracy and objectivity. I have spent many years using and praising Wikipedia (and editing it on-and-off), but there are problems that run so deep I'm not sure how they will ever be fixed. People who edit particular articles are very often disproportionately sympathetic to their subjects. That applies to so many topics and it really shows. If there was some kind of 'universities editorial board' that oversaw all the university articles it could decide what kind of surveys and such were relevant, and ensure that they were included in all university articles without fear or favour to any particular institution. If you have a look at Talk:University of East London#University ratings (which came second bottom in the survey we've been discussing) you'll see that someone back in 2006 raised the idea of setting out objective standards for league tables and rankings, and was met with "You are not qualified to have an opinion about any university other than the one you went to." from someone who'd been to UEL. I'm afraid I can't take an encyclopaedia seriously when people making these kind of sensible proposals are met with such idiotic responses. I don't mean to chase you away from this article or from Wikipedia, but it is a shame you have taken exception to my comments and effectively stormed off rather than responding to the substance of my point. The sample size is not cause to dismiss the survey results. To suggest that it is made me wonder if you were connected with the UoW or had an axe to grind yourself. Evidently I jumped to the wrong conclusion, for which I apologise. Beorhtwulf (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Time to de-sanitise this article

Am I alone in thinking this article needs substantial revision? I thought I had done a reasonable revision a month ago but someone with I suspect vested interests seems to think otherwise. Claiming to be the UK's 3rd oldest university is just plain daft. Am I alone? Cj1340 (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Self-published sources banner

Okay, Rangoon11, you want to reach consensus regarding the self-published sources banner I added? How about you address explicitly here the central issue (that this article relies almost exclusively on (mainly promotional and puff-piece) sources on the UoW website) before you remove it again? If we are to establish the importance of the subject of the article, we cannot simply accept UoW's word for it, correct? Famousdog (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely no question that this university is inherently notable under WP policies, and I am puzzled that you have even mentioned that issue.

It would be helpful if you could specifically list those claims in the article which you feel require third-party sources.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's a notable institution. But this is an extremely long article most of which is unimportant (unless the article is intended to be an advert for UoW) and applies to ALL universities (and is therefore redundant info). WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Do we need to know the distance to every tube stop and the inside leg measurements of every VC since 1950? And stop reverting my changes, since I HAVE taken this to talk, as you suggested. Famousdog (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"Of course it's a notable institution." So why did you question this in your previous post? Have you got any interest in actually working to improve this article, or just in adding tags to it (which any moron can do in a couple of minutes) and wasting others' time on this Talk page? And wholly factual and uncontentious information such as financials does not need third party citations. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You are showing severe ownership issues regarding this article. I am adding tags to point out the areas where there are difficulties in order that we can work to improve it. What is your problem? And don't call me a moron, that's in extremely bad faith. Famousdog (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

So you are now adding failure to assume good faith to edit warring. I'm fast losing interest in discussing this with you at all. You come across as a nasty piece of work. In the meantime, wait for consensus before seeking to impose changes to the stable version of this article which have been reverted for good reason (and by an editor who has actually spent time trying to improve this article, rather than merely adding tags to it). You also appear unable to read. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I repeat: You are showing severe ownership issues regarding this article. I am adding tags to point out the areas where there are difficulties in order that we can work to improve it. You yourself say "It would be helpful if you could specifically list those claims in the article which you feel require third-party sources" - I have tagged those statements that are poorly sourced or of trivial importance or need citations. It seems that I'm making all the compromises here. Now I'm "a nasty piece of work" and am "unable to read"??? Do I need to report you for harrassment? Famousdog (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You are attempting to impose the addition of an excessive number of tags to this article by edit warring. Thus far, every time your edits have been reverted, you have simply reverted again and added even more tags. Such behaviour is uncollegial and unacceptable, as is your accusation of harrassment.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Outrageous Bullying and ownership by Rangoon11

Okay, I'm just going to set out the chronology of my involvement in this article so I can get it straight in my (and your) head:

• I boldly add a banner saying that this article relies too much on self-published sources, which it does. The vast majority of links are to UoW, raising valid conflict-of-interest and promotional issues
• You revert this claiming my banner was "unjustified". No explanation beyond that.
• I put the banner back and you revert, asking me to reach consensus on the talk page. Really? With who? You haven't justified either of your reverts yet.
• In order to "justify" the addition of the banner, I tag the sections I see as problematic and explain my reasoning on the talk page, as you suggested.
• There then followed a sequence of edits in which you basically deleted most of my tags, thereby breaching WP:3RR. Finally you make your first comment on the talk page. Asking me to, as far as I can see, do something I've already done.
• I reinstate the tags, since you haven't address the core WP:SPS issue that I have raised.
• You revert, saying "take it to talk". I already am talking (quite a lot by this point).
• You, on the other hand, call me a moron.
• When I suggest that this is not in very good faith, you call me a "nasty piece of work" and suggest I am "unable to read"!
• I tag the various sections I consider as being of dubious importance - you simply revert. Who is being "wholly unconstructive" now?
• Finally, in a bizarre bit of mental ju-jitsu, you suggest that I am edit warring!!!

WTF? As far as I can see, I am faithfully following the bold-revert-discuss cycle while you are hurling abuse and edit warring. Famousdog (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with these comments which is my experience of trying to improve this site in August last year - see history especially around August 12. If I was the VC of this establishment I would be very concerned at the image this gives out. The same goes for some of the links to overseas sites linked from the main article. This site and related sites need substantial work. For the record I have no connection whatsoever with this university, just a desire to improve a site which frankly looks like the work of a very poor PR department. Cj1340 (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Do either of you seriously believe that this article has been improved by today's addition of a massive number of tags? Or that wholly factual information such as financials, the date on which the name changed to the Royal Polytechnic Institution, the number of campuses, the names of faculties, and the fact that the union operates a bar and a night club on the Harrow site, require third party citations?

This article does need a lot of work. It does not require the crude addition of massive number of tags - for example the entire Organisation and administration section, which is perfectly standard and entirely factual, has now been defaced with completely unnecessary tags. Equally far from being too long, the article is in fact far shorter than those of most UK universities and actually requires expansion. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon11, thanks for your recent, very helpful edits. I am just looking through them now and you have fixed several problems that I tagged. I think you misunderstand the point of tags. They are there to flag any issues so that said issue can be resolved. There are a massive number of problems with this article, hence my (as you say) "crude addition of massive number of tags." If you simply remove them every time I add them, how will any other editors spot problems that need to be fixed? Secondly, I'm not suggesting you find third-party citations for "wholly factual information such as financials ... and the fact that the union operates a bar and a night club" or the whole Organisation and administration section. I actually think that information is not notable enough to BE HERE. Most universities operate like this. Concentrate on what is special about UoW? I agree with Cj1340 that this article currently "looks like the work of a very poor PR department." Famousdog (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Too many tags

Hi, can I propose a quick appeal to common sense? The point of page notices and in-line notices are to attract new editors to improve the article. The header notices have been merged to avoid becoming a mess of page-filling warnings but to be honest the text does look like a schoolboy's failed English Lit essay with a depressing morass of teacher's notes. It is good to see the article being discussed and improved, but adding too many in-line notices runs the risk of putting off new editors from trying to help while the article looks like a war zone. Often, it is more helpful to have just a page header notice and a section on the talk page explaining what the issues are (such as poor quality sources) with suggestions on how they can be fixed. If in practice you are likely to return to the article and fix the problems yourself, then Be bold encourages us to just get on with it, rather than using notices to moan about the problem. At the end of the day we are trying to create articles that the public can enjoy and benefit from reading, this principle should apply even whilst the article continues to improve.

In particular I see heavy use of {{Self-published inline}}, this seems rather unfair when there are relatively simple facts being presented and the University's website would be the best source of the material. If you think the phrasing is overly promotional then simple weeding of the non-neutral text is a copyedit problem rather than a poor sourcing issue. The big notice at the top of the page is sufficient for future editors to consider finding more independent sources such as the archives available at http://www.aim25.ac.uk/cats/15/5141.htm. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Fae. I will do as you suggest by, for example, removing SPS tags from sections that are trivia (and should be removed for that reason, not because they are SPS). However, I have tried to raise these same issues a couple of times waaaaay back in February 2011 and also suggested a merge from the Journalism department that, frankly, doesn't seem notable enough to warrent it's own entry. I did this mainly by adding a simple banner, rather than inline tags, however, Rangoon11 systematically dismantled and downgraded the banners I originally put up, without really addressing any of the issues. This is why I decided to point out the individual breaches of policy, as he clearly had not understood which sections were at fault. Famousdog (talk) 10:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of relevant and cited information

Wholly factual details of financials, faculties and schools and leadership/organisation are entirely standard for university articles and should not be removed without prior discussion here. That these have been removed by an editor who yesterday festooned this article with a vast number of unnecessary maintenance tags, is especially disappointing.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Where does it say that this is standard practice for University articles? Just because something is true does not mean it is, as you say, "relevant" or belongs in an encyclopedia article. I repeat, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. Secondly, I have explained several times why I tagged the sections and statements that I did. Stop bitching because I tried to add some editorial rigour to your rose-tinted essay about UoW. You do not own this article. If that disappoints you, tough cookies. Or am I being too "nasty" for you again? Famousdog (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Chancellor Baron Paul

Here's some useful info:

Lord Paul is the chancellor. His family trust has given £300,000 to the university. Since the 1960s he has lived in Portland Place, around the corner from the flagship building.

Not sure where this fits best. Governing structure? Staff? He is the titular head of the institution so he needs to get a couple of lines (especially given the financial angle, and him being in the news). BrainyBabe (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

References