Talk:Golden triangle (universities)

Golden Triangle
My Previous Confusion that I posted at UCL's discussion page ''"I came to know from the web that Oxbridge and UCL-ICL-LSE are considered as the member of Golden Triangle (GT). But, later on from a wiki page I got to know KCL is also with in the GT. Some other page said, as LSE is not strongly involved in the research work and GT is a research based grouping, ICL-KCL-UCL are the best choice as the member of GT from UofL. So, I became confused. This article also says KCL is a member of GT. Which one is true ? Please discuss. - Niaz bd 06:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)" ''

Finally I got the solution. I found a pdf file at UCL's official webpage written the following lines. '''"Imperial College, King’s College, the LSE and UCL are all in the small group of leading universities in the UK and with Cambridge and Oxford are sometimes referred to as “the Golden Triangle”." ' The future of the University of London: a discussion paper from the Provost of UCL'', Malcolm Grant, President and Provost, UCL. (p.6)

I guess, this may bring a solution about the Golden Triangle issue.

Here is the link of this PDF

Niaz bd 06:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm highly sceptical about KCL's inclusion. It can be said without much debate the LSE, ICL (as specialist institutions) and Oxbridge and the very top four universities in the UK. UCL is next. But KCL has been overshadowed in recent years by the likes of Warwick, York, Durham, Bristol etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.252.222 (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nonesense. KCL has a global reputation, in North America and Europe and Asia. Its name is taken to mean quality. The likes of Bristol et al cannot be deemed as equal. Not in academic reputation and marque value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.142.147 (talk) 02:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay the use of the term "Golden Triangle" is confused because AFAIK there is no official definition or even general agreement on just what the London angle encompasses. Everyone seems to include Imperial and UCL, but beyond that it depends upon the individual user's preferences/biases. I've seen it limited to just Imperial/UCL as well as being used for the full University of London (some other college faculties rank just as highly as some Imperial/UCL ones), with various combinations of colleges in between. Timrollpickering 16:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried a lot to find the actual data when I started this discussion page and also started to extend this golden triangle article in 2006. But, I could not find the stuffs. If anyone have the data (distribution of research funding) please post it here. It may help us to make an end regarding KCL debate. It's me who included KCL as a Golden Triangle university in Wikipedia. So, I am personally feeling guilty until I get any authenticated data. I include KCL based on a source which I found while searching UCL page. I have mentioned the link also. Still, I have doubt regarding the matter and waiting for any constructive reply.

Another thing, please post your new discussion section at the bottom of the page as it helps other to get the flow. It is also a common practice at Wikipedia.

Niaz bd 05:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Actual Data Finally I found the actual DATA that makes it clear who is the part of the Golden Triangle and who is not. Here we must remember one thing, Golden Triangle is not any ranking or reputation based qualification like G5 etc. It is a straight forward calculation - who is getting most Research Funding.

Higher Education Funding Council for England has published its research funding for the year 2007-08 for the universities in England. Top 10 Universities of the list is illustrated here.

Higher Education Research Funding for England (2007-08)

This list clearly shows that University of Cambridge, University of Oxford and University of London along with its three giant constituent colleges (UCL, Imperial and King's) founds the Golden Triangle of UK Universities. University of Manchester is also a strong candidate but traditionally Golden Triangle refers Cambridge, Oxford and London.

I think we can now rearrange and reorganize this article based on proper data. I am bit busy these days and may not get the time to organize the article to a large extend. Hope other wikipedians will start editing and I will, for sure, join in the middle. Regards, Niaz bd 06:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Golden Triangle refers to research funding...
I believe that, the term "Golden Triangle" actually refers to the universities with the most research funding (by far), rather than the most prestigious universities, (the 'golden' part refering to money)...meaning Oxford, Cambridge, UCL and Imperial, with Kings sometimes being included (having considerably less research funding than Oxbridge UCL and Imperial, but considerably more than the other unis), but LSE never being included as it doesn't have exceptional research funding despite its prestige.

A guardian article here defines it this way: http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,,968896,00.html "The golden triangle of Oxford, Cambridge, University College London and Imperial College, show no sign of slowing down in their race away from the rest of the sector when it comes to research funding. " Including Oxford, Cambridge, UCL and Imperial but excluding KCL ad LSE.

A New Scientist article here defines it this way, also not mentioning Kings College London or LSE. http://www.newscientistjobs.com/insider/article.action?article.id=insider132&focusId=u

Here, Bristol University Vice Chancellor Professor Eric Thomas again, refers to the "Golden Triangle" as the best funded universities http://www.bris.ac.uk/university/vc/financial-times.html "Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial, University College London and, possibly, Kings College London - the "Golden Triangle". ", notably excluding LSE and indicating that Kings College London's status in it is questionable.

The grouping of universities refered to as the "G5" (Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial, UCL and KCL) as a sub-group within the Russel Group, refers to something different.

http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/events/hecu3/documents/frederico_matos.doc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoJoyInMudville (talk • contribs) 02:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * LSE does have exceptional funding - it has the highest funding for social sciences (hence its place in the Russell Group) but because it doesn't do science (where most of the money is) its total funding level is significantly lower on the lists. One could interpret it either way. Timrollpickering 08:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This point about research funding is correct, and on that count KCL is certainly a leader: its research revenues are around £100m annually.--Duncan 12:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

KCL and SOAS
It is interesting what is written below. I think that most people would agree that SOAS has a much stronger reputation than King's. (So, too, does the Courtauld Institute and the Royal Academy and Royal College of Music). Maybe they are considered too small to be golden triangle candidate? Maybe their smallness means they get less money.--AlexanderLondon 20:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not think that most people would think that SOAS has a much stronger reputation than King's College. King's College was a founding member of the University of London, is much larger than SOAS, has greater funding than SOAS, and is a member of the Russell Group. It is commonly referred to as being in the "Big Four" of London universities, along with UCL, London School of Economics, and Imperial College. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.233.155 (talk) 07:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If entry requirements are considered SOAS would not be equivalent to KCL given that it's entry requirements are low. History at KCL for example requires AAA at A-level I believe as opposed to BBC-BCC at SOAS. SOAS and the other named institutions are also very specialist, their research is not as broad as KCL. Subject rankings for KCL are very high and overall it usually comes above the other institutions. --Disillusioned- 14:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Golden Diamond?
How should we relate to the rise of manchester after its merger? UCL, for examples, refers to a 'golden diamond' and this useage is widespread. It's also interesting that UCL tries to introduce a further qualifer: performing well in research funding across all areas (to reduce the standing of Imperial's science focus, LSE's leadership in social science and KCL's focus on medicine and the humanities. --Duncan 12:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And the first page of the Google search includes one page talking about the Triangle becoming a Diamond and another talking about the Diamond being shattered! To be honest we're dealing with terms that have never been official or completely defined (i.e. the London angle) - a lot of the usage seems to be in specific subjects so in, say, the sciences (where this term seems to be most popular) the inclusion or not of LSE is irrelevant. One has to wonder if the term is really used to raise or diminish the relative standing of institutions as part of institutionalism egotism. Timrollpickering 12:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no personal opinion or interest in including or not reference to Golden Diamond. It seems however quite strange to me that the argument for including Manchester to form the Golden Diamond is from manchestereveningnews.co.uk. alexander.mitsos 12 January 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.67.241.226 (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

King's excluded from list
Why is King's often excluded from this list? To my knowledge the school has the fifth largest research budget for universities in the UK, and has a strong reputation which is growing (see recent THES world rankings, where King's went up 30 places to 46th in the world in the past few years). I realise that UCL, IC, and LSE seem to make up the top 3-5 universities in the UK, but why exclude King's from this list, when it is clearly amongst the top research universities in London? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.233.155 (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The University of London (UoL) has no authority to state who is entitled to be classed as a 'Golden Triangle' institution. Indeed, it is in its interests to increase the number of its institutions that it classifies as being included, especially as ICL will be leaving UoL later this year, and LSE and UCL threatening to do the same. If LSE and UCL also left, the UoL would have none of the G5 institutions remaining, and therefore it is attempting to impose the Golden Triangle badge onto Kings (who have stated they want to remain as part of the UoL). This UoL document is a biased source which cannot be relied upon.
 * 88.107.168.156 11:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're going to mention that King's has decided to stay in the UofL for the time being, you should also mention that LSE and UCL are no longer considering leaving UofL. What evidence do you have to support the assertion that the UofL has stated that King's is a part of the Golden Triangle as insurance against institutions such as LSE and UCL leaving? It was the provost of UCL's statement that IC/UCL/LSE/KCL made up the London part of the triangle which this article has based its information on.
 * The Golden Triangle also does not refer to the G5, as you suggest, which refers to a group of five universities within the Russell Group--you are welcome to create an article about the G5.
 * Since the Golden Triangle refers to -research money--, please stop cutting KCL out of this article; please create an article on the G5. Also, where has the article gone which listed KCL as part of the Golden Triangle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.233.155 (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for GT
I think the best approach would be simply to use the following as a criteria:


 * 1. Location i.e. Oxford, Cambridge and London? (if yes 40 points)
 * 2. Research Funding Total (if in top ten then 40 points)
 * 3. Overall reputation (if in top ten in university league tables (normally the Times) then 20 points)

Based on the above then, Oxford, Cambridge, IC, UCL would get 100 points. KCL would get 80 points (1+2). LSE 60 points (1+3). SOAS 40 points (1). My own opinion is that SOAS ought not to be included since being in London is not a reflection of excellence on its own, but whether LSE or KCL can and should be debated.

FYI: I am fortunate enough to have studied at Cambridge, Oxford, King's and for a few courses at UCL. Having come across this term during lectures, I decided to create this article some time ago. I had presumed that the UCL Provost quote would have sufficed, however, understandably there has been some confusion and bias. I also think it is worth pointing out that he also intimated that Royal Holloway was also a fitting college, although I notice that has not been mentioned.

The above criteria is not meant to exclude universities or colleges, but to highlight a few highly successful institutions, with abundant resources from the public purse and a worldwide reputation equivalent to the IVY league in the states. Just like being outside the IVY league (MIT, CalTech and many others) does not mean the university is rubbish, being outside the Golden Triangle is no bad thing either.

I have no preference which Universities or Colleges are included, I leave that for others to decide.

Hope this helps.

89.240.47.87 (talk) 03:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Why Queen Mary should not be added....
Below is the only quote found that seems to be fairly definitive wrt which institutions are part of the Golden Triangle...

'True, there are varying levels of dependence upon the University in terms of services and “the brand” of the University of London; dependence is predictably higher among the smaller Colleges. But the federation also includes several university institutions that are world-renowned in their own right, and for whom the existence of the University of London tends to be a source more of confusion than of strength. Imperial College, King’s College, the LSE and UCL are all in the small group of leading universities in the UK and with Cambridge and Oxford''' are sometimes referred to as “the Golden Triangle”. So too Royal Holloway College, which claims its place amongst the top 10 universities in the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise.'

...This was Malcolm Grant, Provost of UCL. If we are to use the criteria mentioned before, which I agree with, then Queen Mary is not included, recently or otherwise as a GT member.

This is not to say that QMW is not an excellent institution, it is just not a GT institution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.24.253 (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Golden Triangle (UK universities)
Message copied from Talkpage of Rangoon11:

Don't bother changing back the correct version of the web page to your laughably incorrect one. If your not going to be factually honest with the site, then get out of it!!!!!! As the founder said at the Berkman Law Center at Harvard University one evening in the first half of 2005, Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia of facts that can be corrected by anyone on earth so long as the corrections are verifiable by any reliable source(s) that can be checked. Your version of the web page is not only intentionally incorrect, but also devoid of any factual source to back up what you say. I checked the Columbia University website and it doesn't even come close to what your count of the Nobel Prize winners was. Spread your falsehood on a blog and not on an encyclopedia that requires verifiable facts from reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.132.234 (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm only going to say this once: Thetruthnow2012/24.5.132.234, I have already corrected the error which I think you correctly pointed out, so stop reverting for the sake of reverting. This article is about the five UK universities, so stop trying to make your WP:POINT by adding an irrelevant list of universities with Nobel Prize winners. Also, please read Wikipedia's manual of style guidelines on WP:PEACOCK and find out why the sort of language you are using is not objective and certainly unencyclopedic. - Yk3 talk ~ contrib 23:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

BOLD edit to show how the article should look
I have made a very big edit to the article removing the summary of each university, that is not needed, this article should be on the group as a whole. Mtking (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Bold indeed. Won't revert because I agree with you in principle. — Yk3 talk ~ contrib 02:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not an edit that I would have made myself but on reflection I support it. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with this as well. If we want summaries of the universities involved we have them at their respective pages. There is simply not enough information on the idea of the golden triangle to have separate sections for each university in this article. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion
As someone who has not come across the phrase outside of Wikipedia, this article seems a bit dubious. However there are quite a few mentions of it, before the article itself was created. If anyone wants to improve this article (and perhaps clean up some of the discussions above about the London corner), this search could be a good place to look. -- Fluteflute Talk Contributions 18:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

New To wiki. But it seems citation 4 excludes Kings but not LSE from the GT. However, due to the way it the sentence is phrased it gives the impression there are mutliple sources which do not include LSE. Can I take it out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.102.65 (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of table
Rangoon, I can't see anything problematic about the table you're removing. It's arguably needed in the interests of neutrality to offset the idea that the "golden triangle" universities are necessarily the best in the UK. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not removing it, I am reverting the addition of it. I have an issue with just one of the four domestic league tables being included, since they are highly variable and The Guardian ranking is also notorious in terms of its rather odd inputs. I'm also not clear on the relevance of a table of the top 30 when 14 to 30 are not part of the topic of this article. What would make far more sense is simply giving the ranking of the members of the group. The QS table is included primarily to demonstrate that the members of the group are highly ranked internationally, rather than to demonstrate something about their relative quality.
 * There is a case for including all rankings for neutrality, but I can't support inclusion of just the Guardian ranking.
 * There are also separate issues with the text which was added to the lead, which is in my view POV pushing and dubious. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * To revert the addition of it is to remove it. I explained the relevance in my post, and so far as I know the Guardian tables are respected. As there seems to be no reason to accept the QS table but not this one, I'd like to restore it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You haven't responded to any of my points above. The Guardian tables are something of a joke actually but I have nothing against their inclusion provided 1. the other domestic tables are included, 2. we actually give the rankings for all members of the golden triangle (which that top 30 table does not do, and 3. we don't give unnecessary detail (such as a table listing 14 to 30, which are not in the golden triangle). I am also against the wording stating that the Guardian table is "often cited", which is unnecessary and misleading. Rangoon11 (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for the Guardian tables being a joke? I think the 14-30 listing is interesting enough; no reason to exclude it. I don't mind about other tables if you want to add them. Point taken about often cited, so I restored the table but removed that commentary. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Why did you attempt to re add the table when it is under discussion here? I find this concerning behaviour by an Admin. "I think the 14-30 listing is interesting enough; no reason to exclude it" - they are completely irrelvant to the topic of this article, the table has clearly just been copied from Rankings of universities in the United Kingdom. This is not an article on rankings of universities in the United Kingdom, but on six specific British universities. Rangoon11 (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You said above that you had no objection, and as I said it's needed for NPOV. Could we start with some more sources for this golden triangle? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I said I've got no objection in principle, but I have specific issues with the table, which I have detailed above. Re sources for members, I will reply in the separate thread. Rangoon11 (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Then don't keep removing it, please. You seem to remove an awful lot of material, Rangoon, and then you're quite aggressive about keeping it out, often for no reason that I can see. I hope you'll reconsider your approach. Sometimes these issues that you disagree with are things that readers would find interesting, or that would provide context (as this table does). SlimVirgin (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The table in this form is simply not appropriate and is a crude cut and paste. Why don't you actually engage with the issues I am raising. Rangoon11 (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That you have put the table in again is simply not on. Such behaviour shows a complete contempt for this talk page discussion. I am finding your behaviour increasingly concerning, this is not the sort of behaviour which an admin should be partaking in. Rangoon11 (talk) 03:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The table is fine. Just include the major 4 rankings, Times Higher Education. QS World Rankings. AWRU. and US News Global Rankings (as it is the predominant ranking in the US).  Most other rankings are not rigorous enough, some would question whether US News is rigorous enough.  Leiden is not sufficient or needed.  Either are Google Rankings of Web Searches.  Or Russian University Rankings.  Just use the main one's and the article can be consolidated, instead of overburdened with excess data.  I think the Times Reputation Rankings are a bit too much data also, as the Times Rankings are right there. It seems there has been some consensus on the Talk page that the Times Higher Education rankings are pretty good and reliable, and among the best indicator, so I put them first. I left the job employability table in case people wanted that about jobs, but I do not think there is a need for 9 ranking systems which is just too much data. I think its fine to include tables, but we need include every single listing imaginable or have a discussion over all the ranking systems and their merits and lack there of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.239.124 (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Royal Holloway
Although a source has been found which suggests that the author regards Royal Holloway as being a member of the "golden triangle", this is very much a minority view and I can find no other source which states this and have certainly never read it in the THE. Royal Holloway is not a member of the Russell Group (unlike Queen Mary), has a significantly lower research income and is ranked lower in most international rankings.

Mentioning Royal Holloway in the lead but not Queen Mary looks decidedly odd and is in my view undue. Rangoon11 (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with this view. I think the Golden Triangle (GT) being an informal collection of Institutions that clearly stand out in the UK university landscape there need to be some established objective criteria to include an institution. To me some obvious one are national and international rankings, research income, number of Nobel Prize winners that are former faculty or students ( possibly FRS / FBA faculty, Heads of State etc ? ) Oxbridge are undebatable in all respects and the only London institutions that stand out from the crowd in many ( but usually not all ) of these aspects are IC, LSE, UCL and KCL. I don't see how Royal Holloway is doing well in a single one of these criteria ?
 * Hypatia (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It's also worth noting that there are a number of specialist University of London institutions, such as ICR, IoE, LBS and LSHTM, which in their respective areas are far more highly ranked and prestigious than Royal Holloway. However I never see them described specifically as being part of the golden triangle, although they would certainly be relevant when the triangle is described in a non-specific way as just "Cambridge, Oxford and London". Royal Holloway is at best a mid ranking institution.
 * Third party sources essentially always include Imperial and UCL, except where London is mentioned non-specifically. They should therefore be emphasised, and the lead basically does do this. LSE is less frequently mentioned, and of course never in a scientific context. King's less frequently again. And Royal Holloway basically never. Ditto I never see Queen Mary described specifically as being part of the triangle, but on most objective measures it has a better claim that Royal Holloway. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * agreed with the possible exception that based on many objective criteria (especially national ranking and nobel prize associations) it would seem strange to emphasise the inclusion of one outstanding specialist institution ( IC ) whilst not the other (LSE). (notably none of the big 4 london institutions are outstanding in ALL criteria, and LSE is the only one that has never ranked outside the top 10 in any major UK ranking ) Hypatia (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I would prefer that the lead mention only Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial, or perhaps also UCL. But LSE, King's and Royal Holloway, no. Some sources do mention them, but they are not obvious ones to include. I added them only because at least one source mentioned them.


 * I think the Guardian table ought to be restored. Rangoon has removed it five times,     but it is needed as a dissident voice to show that there are British universities that rank higher than some of the so-called golden triangle members. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Royal Holloway should be removed from the lead, to knowledgeable readers its presence there just makes it look like the text was written by someone with no real understanding of the topic, and damages the credibility of the whole article.
 * In my view the text should be something like "The University of Oxford and the University of Cambridge form two corners of the triangle. The third is formed by London, specifically Imperial College London and University College London (UCL). The London School of Economics (LSE) and King's College London are sometimes also referred to as members."
 * Re the Guardian (and I am wholly confused as to why the Guardian ranking is being obsessed upon, it is just one of four domestic rankings) - that is self evident from the rankings of the golden triangle members. Readers are not so dim that they cannot grasp that if the universities in the Complete which are ranked 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 18 in the UK are in the golden triangle, the others are not. Someone so dim that they cannot grasp this would struggle to even understand what a university is, and I doubt that they would be reading this article in the first place. We have a separate article for rankings of universities in the UK, if people want to know the whole top 30 for each ranking then that is the place to go. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Which source, other than the Royal Holloway source, says that King's is a member of this triangle? As for the table, I want to include the names of the other universities -- not the way you did it, but the way the Guardian did it. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The Nature article includes King's . Rangoon11 (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Not explicitly; it just says King's is jockeying for position. Do you have a source that very clearly lists King's as one of the triangle members? I think we are on the verge of OR here. Oxbridge and Imperial, yes. UCL -- some sources include that too. But to move into LSE and King's, we would have to include all the colleges that someone has said belong to the triangle, and that would include Royal Holloway, odd as it seems (re: your view that the source didn't know what he was talking about, I believe it was the UCL chancellor). SlimVirgin (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No the article says that within London, Imperial College, University College and King's College jockey for top position. The whole article is about the triangle and King's is placed firmly and prominently within this topic by the article. However I'm happy for Kings to just be mentioned in a note, I acknowledge that it is not mentioned that often as a member and is frequently specifically excluded by sources such as THE and the Guardian. I do think that it should be mentioned somewhere in the article though. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think unless we want to drop reference to particular universities completely the only option that is likely to find a consensus is to have the London Big 4 included indiscriminately ( i.e. all of them ). Excluding any of the G5 would be a bit silly in my view, and KCL is doing to well in the big international rankings recently to be excluded. Also it has double digit Nobel Prize associations compared to only 4 at the next most successful London institution ( QM ) I think below the Big 4 there is quite a natural dividing line. Hypatia (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The term was originally used to refer to the Oxbridge-London axis, without specifying colleges, so all these lists are somewhat fluid. (Manchester apparently wants to become part of the "golden quadrangle.") Hypatia, we have to stick to the preponderance of sources and not focus on the colleges we prefer. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree it s not about what we or some provost prefers. I think we can find subjective sources on many institutions that have no objective claim to be part of this group. ( see http://www.kcl.ac.uk/health/research/rae2008.aspx for another KCL claim ) I think without some objective criteria that go beyond what somebody with a biased affiliation claims this article is doomed :-) Hypatia (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * e/c I don't think that the exclusion of LSE either by third party sources or this article (from the lead I mean, I certainly think it should be mentioned in the article somewhere) should be seen as a reflection on its quality but rather on its size and specialist nature. It is more analagous to LBS, IoE and LSHTM than to Imperial and UCL, and the only reason that I can see that LBS, IoE and LSHTM are excluded is because they are specialist. In terms of quality they are all comparable to Imperial and UCL. It is true that Imperial does not have much of a presence in the social sciences and humanities, but it is a large multi faculty institution with a very wide range of activities (large medical school, large business school etc).
 * Being purely objective I can see a big gap between Imperial and UCL, and King's, in terms of international and domestic rankings and research income. That is not to say that Kings isn't a good university, and it has some areas of real excellence (eg psychiatry and law).Rangoon11 (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * LSE and Imperial are roughly same size in terms of students. LSE is multifaculty and 5 times the size of LBS. It has more Nobel Prize winners then IC and beats IC in every big national ranking. KCL has a weaker case, but I see the objective cut off below KCL as it s too close to the other 3 top London institutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsopc (talk • contribs) 21:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It depends how you define "multi faculty" but LSE is essentially just social sciences. Its turnover is under a third that of Imperial, its research income less than a tenth. IoE, LBS and LSHTM all have a turnover around £100m, LSE £200m, Imperial £700m. LSE tends to do much worse than Imperial in overall global rankings (it does much better in the social science subject rankings) due to its much more narrow span of activities. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying IC should be excluded ! ( so in a sense I guess I agree with you ) research income is much lower at LSE, true ! This does weaken it's claim, but is related to the fact that you basically need university hospitals and lab subjects (much more expensive activities then social sciences, stats, maths or philosophy ) I think this drawback is compensated by the aspects that LSE does well at, just like ICs bad performance in national rankings is compensated by it's unrivalled expertise in the natural sciences and it's performance in international rankings. Hypatia (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits
Hypatia/Johnsopc, could you say what you are trying to achieve here? There are problems with your edits (poor sources, not following the preponderance of sources, and formatting issues), but you revert when they are fixed, so I'm unsure what the misunderstanding is. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Please explain what you mean. I don't agree 3 rankings are too many. THES is a reputable source and the reputation ranking is clearly relevant. If anything we should have 5 rather then 2 World Rankings. I don't agree you are fixing anything. We started a nice discussion about this yesterday, but rather then keep it going people just went ahead to change the article. Unless we have agreement you cannot just remove some of the original 6 members from this grouping either. Hypatia (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You're focusing too much on the Times, and the ref you gave for the "reputation" rank didn't lead anywhere relevant. King's and LSE are not mentioned by most commentators and our article has to reflect that. You referenced two THE articles to support LSE, but both were written by the same person, so that is just one source; and your second source was not a reliable one.


 * The edits looked as though they were trying to promote King's and LSE, rather than just reporting what most of the sources say. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, your THE refs did not lead to the right place, and in addition they and others weren't formatted properly, but when I fixed them, you reverted. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * But I responded to that criticism by changing the link for the THES Reputation ranking to point directly to the ranking rather then the main page where it is one click away. You say I promote, but I say you demote without justification. Going to the original source the London Big four are included. Also all of them are regularly not referred to by name, so excluding 2 of them seems arbitrary to me. Hypatia (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also I just don't quite see how 3 rankings would be too many in the World Ranking column ? We have 5 for National, namely all the popular one, why then just two for world ? And how am I promoting if I add 3rd party rankings which if anything do not promote KCL and LSE (since especially LSE does much better nationally ) Hypatia (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also what your version referred to as recent source dates back as far as 2002 ! The sources you criticise are up to date and not by the same author. Hypatia (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * On the rankings, I think that the THE reputation ranking is too duplicative of the main THE ranking, it is purely a sub ranking of THE. I do feel that the ARWU should be added though, so that we have the main three international rankings.
 * Re the lead, I broadly share SV's concerns about the recent edits and prefer the thrust of the lead as was i.e. reflecting the fact that third party sources refer to LSE and King's rather less commonly. There is an argument for moving reference to LSE and King's out of the lead altogether into a note, but I prefer them in the lead but caveated. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Guys, it`s a geographical concept ! All of them are frequently left out, because there is no official membership, so trying to make it pseudo official will always be biased and hard to find consensus. It should be made clear that this is just a reference to a geo cluster of excellence... providing relevant info in the article will then be helpful to let people make up their own mind rather then create an illusion of official status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.255.80 (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * My preference is to include King's and LSE only in a footnote, but as a compromise I don't mind mentioning them as a minority view in the lead. But having looked through a lot of the sources, it's clear that the inclusion of those two is a very small minority position, and per WP:UNDUE we have to make that clear. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Rangoon, your edits now make it appear that Imperial is also a minority view. I added quotes to the footnotes so that it's clear what the sources say. Oxbridge and Imperial are the most commonly included, then those two with UCL. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have changed the commas to hypens to avoid confusion. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's clearer as it was. The current version splits the footnotes for one thing. Two sentences are clearer, with the correct footnote after each one, containing all the quotes. Assuming people actually read the quotes (big assumption), they'll see why the lead is written as it is. SlimVirgin (talk)


 * The footnotes have been moved so they are in the same place as before. The text as is is crisper and neater and also conveys more information since it is now clear that Kings and LSE are constitutent colleges of the University of London. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I disagree, I think the writing is now somewhat fractured. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * We will have to agree to disagree then. Let's see what Johnsopc has to say. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I know G5 is not directly related to the Golden Triangle, but that particular official association might be taken as an indicator how the situation is perceived among the leading institutions themselves. I think some of the sources that are being quoted to indicate "recent" views on who should be included/not included are quite old to say the least. I have had a quick look at some other recent views on the matter by third party institutions and media and the inclusion of LSE does not seem to be a minority view, even though KCL may be a different matter. ( I don't think we can simply dump them into the same discussion ) -see bottom of this link for a view expressed by Durham http://www.dur.ac.uk/news/newsitem/?itemno=10689 and also see this recent article for an example where none of the 3 top London institutions are referenced by name http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=421400 - Hypatia (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think recent research success should also be taken into account, and I think recent Nobel Prize affiliations are a rather visible criterion that is hard to fudge. Hypatia (talk) 02:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * John, could you stick to one account, or at least make clear when you're signed out (as above) that it's you? Also, we have to reflect what the preponderance of independent, reliable sources describe the golden triangle as, and not add our own opinions. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yet another source including all the top 3 in London: http://www.hepi.ac.uk/478-1749/Report-published-today--Oxford-and-Cambridge---how-different-are-they.html the exclusion ; I am not sure the repeated removal of LSE is justifiable on objective grounds. Hypatia (talk) 02:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, I just happen to think you are the one not reflecting the facts accurately. ( I think account usage including vandalism on my profile page whilst I cannot even fix it because you got me blocked is a matter we better discuss on our private talk pages ) Hypatia (talk) 02:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The sources are quoted in the second footnote in this version. And there are plenty more saying the same thing. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I know which sources you mean, they are exactly the ones that I was referring to when I said outdated ( as old as 10yrs ) so they do not at all support the claim about "recent" commentators, and one of them excludes UCL. I am willing to acknowledge that the inclusion of KCL may be debatable ( though I think it should be included ) but I do not think it is justified to exclude any of the G5 and I have provided multiple sources to support this claim. Also the House of Commons text is misrepresented ! I quote: "There are some very strong universities in the Golden Triangle, who have the view that ...". I see this as a reference to the G5, which is precisely the group lobbying for those strong institutions regarding funding. Moreover according to what is in my view a misrepresentation of the source NONE of the University of London institutions would be included which backs up my claim that all of the Big 4 in London are frequently just referred to by the broad London tag. Hypatia (talk) 11:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The sources that include only Oxbridge, Imperial and UCL are from 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2008 (see footnote 3). And there are plenty of others; these are just a sample. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You are misrepresenting those sources, one of them says no such thing ( see quote above ), 2 of them exclude other GT institutions as well, and I believe I have provided plenty of other sources now that DO in fact include LSE ( see above as well ). Furthermore how do those dates warrant the remark "recent commentators" ? Especially 2002, 2003 and 2005 does not qualify as recent. Hypatia (talk) 11:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that you pretend to "fix" this article without looking at the criticisms I have made and without including the new source I have provided shows quite clearly that you are not acting objectively in this matter. ALso, why do you keep changing the article before you seek consensus on the talk page, especially when I have not touched it in the mean time ? Hypatia (talk) 11:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources from over the last decade are OK as university reputations evolve over a period of time. And the most recent sources don't really contradict the earliest ones in the sense that Imperial, UCL, Oxford and Cambridge have been mentioned since the start of the period. It isn't like the newest sources add a whole new institution or exclude one of those four.
 * In my view the sources do support the analysis that Imperial, UCL, Oxford and Cambridge are the core members of the triangle, with LSE and Kings also sometimes being mentioned. Kings seems to be more likely to be mentioned when medicine is being discussed, LSE is of course not mentioned in contexts which do not include the social sciences. I will accept that there is an element of subjectivity in interpreting the sources. However that is my own analysis.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The House of Commons source is currently being quoted to support something it does not say, which leaves 4 sources 2 of which are not recent in the context of the formation of the Golden Triangle. I agree University reputation evolves slowly, but this is about recent in the context of the GT, which I think is different. In addition to the 3 current sources I have provided http://www.dur.ac.uk/news/newsitem/?itemno=10689 and http://www.hepi.ac.uk/478-1749/Report-published-today--Oxford-and-Cambridge---how-different-are-they.html  also including LSE (see bottom of each link). I think KCL may be a different matter as it is a bit harder to find many sources including it just via a quick google search. Hypatia (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * yet another source from the higher education funding council of wales: http://www.hefcw.ac.uk/documents/council_and_committees/council_papers_and_minutes/2011/11%2007%20Annex%205%20RC%20income%20by%20region.pdf Hypatia (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

World Rankings
I propose we include the US News World top 400 ranking to the world ranking overview since it is one of the more popular rankings from North America, are there any objections to this ? ( I am not sure to what extend the THES Reputation Ranking is just a subranking, I thought it was conducted independently of the general one and I think since a lot of the debate her is exactly about Reputation it might be relevant ? I will look into whether it is indeed just a subranking once I get the time and would appreciate other views ) Hypatia (talk) 11:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at the THES methodology the Reputation ranking is not just a subranking. It seems reputation does not actually factor into the general ranking Hypatia (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Reputation seems to be a part, albeit a small one, of the main ranking: . I think an argument can be made for inclusion but the line has to be drawn somewhere and I think the main THE ranking is sufficient. Note that there are also all of the subject rankings, again I think this is best dealt with in the articles of the individual institions. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The Reputation factor you refer to for the main ranking is obtained via a different methodology as far as I understand. I am not sure we would make the article much less readable by having one more column, so I think we should have it, but I do not have a very strong view as it might on the other hand give over due weight to one ranking provider. ( THES seems to be the one that is generally being taken most serious though ) Hypatia (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If you want to add it I wont revert it as I don't feel that strongly on it either, although I lean towards not including. Rangoon11 (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah its the most popular ranking indicator for the United States, so that makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.239.124 (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Map [picture] is wrong
This comment is based upon (and it is in reference to) the "01:21, 9 September 2018‎" version of the article ... which was the most recent version when this section was added (or "started").

The Map or "picture" captioned "Locations of 'golden triangle' universities."
The one I mean is is the first map [or "picture"] in the article. Each of the 3 names in that map or "picture", is out of place (some more [and more egregiously] than "Oxford"). Each should be closer to the red spot (or red star) that it serves as a label for.
 * Cambridge
 * London and
 * Oxford

The positioning of the name "London" is especially misleading
While all 3 of the names listed above are misplaced, the location of the name "London" is ... the most confusing. It is true that the name "Cambridge" is positioned too far from the red spot for Cambridge; -- and hence, at first, it might seem to a first-time visitor to (or reader of) this article, to NOT be associated with ANY of the red spots (or the red star) on this map.

But now, the name "London" -- which belongs near the red star -- is extremely close to [it is almost touching!] the red spot for Cambridge! Because of that, a first-time reader -- especially if [like me] not familiar with UK geography -- might think that the name "London" there, seems to correspond to the red spot that it is closest to. That would be wrong.

The name "London" actually corresponds to the red star. (right?) So ... it should be closer to that [closer to the red star] than it is to either of the other vertices of the triangle! (right?) This is not rocket science...!

I actually stared at this for quite a while, and even resorted to comparing the map or "picture" to this map from "Google Maps" in order to figure out what was actually intended here. Perhaps someone familiar with UK geography would not have found it so difficult. But ... please do not let that be an excuse for lazy editing (and "hard to figure out" -- or even confusing -- labeling).

Suggested Changes
I do not know how to edit, to cause these "suggested changes" to happen, but I can describe them.
 * 1) The name "London" should be much closer to the red star that it is intended as a label for. Also, it should NOT be so close to the red spot for Cambridge.
 * 2) The names "Cambridge" and "Oxford" should each be much closer to the red spot that it is intended as a label for. Ideally, they should be so close to the [correct] red spot, that they are almost touching that red spot -- (just like the name "London" is [now] almost touching the red spot for Cambridge).
 * 3) The name "London" should probably be BELOW (instead of above) the red star that it is intended as a label for. This would put that name further away from the red spot for Cambridge, which would be a step in the correct direction.

I hope this helps
Thanks for listening (reading). Any comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 06:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look at it – it certainly didn't used to look like that, so possibly it was vandalised at some point and nobody noticed… Robminchin (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Old versions of the page now look the same, so I suspect the code placing the labels changed. Fortunately this could be fixed by simply removing a lot of the cure on the page previously needed to put them in the right place! Robminchin (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you! --Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Case closed
--Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

University Arms
Hi all,

Apologies for the mistakes with the school crests. I understand now that UCL does not have a current crest, and that the crest of ICL should not be included because of fair use/gallery view.

In that case, would it be reasonable to remove all of the school crests? It seems odd that the column, which doesn't directly contribute knowledge about the Golden Triangle, to only be partially filled in.

Pinging User:Robminchin for advice here. Thanks in advance!

ChunyangD (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It does seem an odd column. It's been there since before I became active on this page, so I don't know the original rationale, but there doesn't seem any very good reason to keep it – particularly, as you say, because only 4 of the 6 actually have coats of arms that we can use there. Robminchin (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the late reply. In that case, since it doesn't provide any value to the page, I will apply WP:BOLD and go ahead and remove it. Please let me know if you have a better idea for it in the future! And thank you for your help :) ChunyangD (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the lead
An IP editor has proposed changes to the lead. The proposed changes remove information about the disputed membership of some of the institutions from the text, giving an absolute listing of the member institutions in the editorial voice rather than describing the dispute.. This presents an unbalanced view in breach of WP:NPOV, Stylistically, it also unnecessarily uses a list format for information that can be given in prose. The contentious edit had been reverted, per WP:BRD. I invite the IP editor to join this discussion rather than trying to restore their favoured version. Robminchin (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Describing differences in membership between sources.
Per WP:NPOV, this article describes that some sources omit either or both of KCL and LSE from their definition of the membership of the Golden Triangle. These include multiple reputable sources – the alternative membership lists are not "fringe theories" that can be ignored. These views must be represented in this article to comply with WP:NPOV. However, an anonymous editor has recently tried to remove the description of the views and the relevant sources, giving them impression that there is greater agreement on there membership than actually exists in reliable sources, saying that the statement that some sources give different membership lists is "an obviously false claim" and that Times Higher Education, The Guardian and Nature are "unreliable." The consensus at WP:RSP is that The Guardian is generally reliable and while neither THE not Nature is mentioned there it seems unlikely that most editors would consider them anything but unreliable. To follow Wikipedia policy, therefore, we need to describe the dispute – that some reliable sources omit some members included by others. It is possible that the wording could be further finessed, but not mentioning the differences in membership between different sources and deciding which sources we believe as editors is simply not an option under NPOV. This does mean that Wikipedia does not present a simple answer to which institutions are considered part of the Golden Triangle, but that is a consequence of the sources not agreeing on which institutions they consider part of the Golden Triangle. Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say rather than editors trying to determine which sources are correct – that's foundational to Wikipedia's philosophy of maintaining NPOV. Robminchin (talk) 07:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Robminchin, I think most sources describe the Golden triangle as a geographical concept, not a group of institutions. Reference 14 quotes a Government report, which uses a "Golden Triangle defined as the University of Cambridge, Anglia Ruskin University, University of Oxford, Oxford Brookes University and all Higher Education Institutions in the London region." Obviously we should not duplicate List of universities and higher education colleges in London here. TSventon (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * That's a good spot, we should certainly include that definition as well. I agree the term has a wider meaning as a geographical concept, but it does also seem to be used in a more limited sense referring to universities, which is the focus of this article. Possibly the article could pivot to a description of the broader geographical sense, but that should probably be a separate discussion. Robminchin (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * We could re-write the lead to say that:
 * "The golden triangle refers to the triangle formed by the cities of Cambridge, London and Oxford in the southeast of England[note 1] and, by extension, to an unofficial grouping of research-intensive universities in those cities. The triangle is occasionally referred to as the Loxbridge triangle,[7][8] a portmanteau of London and Oxbridge."


 * "The list of universities considered to be members of the golden triangle varies between sources, but typically comprises the University of Cambridge, the University of Oxford, Imperial College London, University College London, King's College London, and the London School of Economics.[9][note 2] Some sources omit either or both of King's College London[note 3] and the London School of Economics),[note 4] while definitions will occasionally include other universities, e.g. the London Business School and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine,[10] or take in all of the universities in the three cities including Anglia Ruskin University (Cambridge), Oxford Brookes University, and all of higher education institutions in the London area.[report cited above]"


 * This would address the issue of geography and make clear that there are differing definitions out there (Note 1, Note 2 and Note 3, which contain multiple references, were deleted by the anonymous editor). Robminchin (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Robminchin, What about this?
 * "The golden triangle refers to the triangle formed by the university cities of Cambridge, London and Oxford in the southeast of England[note 1] and, by extension, to an unofficial grouping of research-intensive universities in those cities. The triangle is occasionally referred to as the Loxbridge triangle,[7][8] a portmanteau of London and Oxbridge."


 * "The list of universities considered to be members of the golden triangle varies between sources, but typically comprises the University of Cambridge, the University of Oxford, Imperial College London, University College London, King's College London, and the London School of Economics.[9][note 2] Some sources omit either or both of King's College London[note 3] and the London School of Economics),[note 4] while definitions will occasionally include other universities are included, e.g. the London Business School and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine,[10] or take in all of the higher education institutions universities in the three cities including Anglia Ruskin University (Cambridge), Oxford Brookes University, and all of higher education institutions in the London area .[report cited above]"


 * I agree that the golden triangle is about universities so I have changed cities to university cities at the beginning. I have removed definitions from the lead as some of the sources are definitions, some non exhaustive lists and some can be read either way. Ideally the detail and references should be in the members section rather than the lead.
 * I couldn’t find much in depth coverage of the golden triangle in the references, though I don’t have access to THES. One exception is the New Scientist reference. I found a JSTOR paper on Elite formation and excellence in modern Britain, which argues that the triangle was formed by the establishment of the federal university of London in 1900. I also found a definition of the triangle as ICL, KCL, LSE, UCL on page 17 of a Sutton Trust paper, which quotes two academic papers I don't have access to.
 * To synthesize what I have read the golden triangle was formed by the three universities of Oxford, Cambridge and London in the twentieth century. After 1990 the university system in England became more diverse, so different definitions of the golden triangle were used in different contexts, but ICL, KCL, LSE, UCL is most common. When discussing concentration of research funding (bad) or the triangle as a cluster (good) then all HE institutions are relevant. Not surprisingly sources using a term like golden triangle are often promoting something, often a university league table, which raises NPOV issues. TSventon (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's great. I remember it referring to Oxford, Cambridge and London but have never been able to find a reference for it. I'll put your revised version in the article. Robminchin (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

C9 has been replaced by Double First Class Universities
Ffflixxx, 5a1amm60, I notice that you and others have been edit warring since at least January about whether to link C9 League or Double First Class University Plan to this and other articles about university groupings. Please can you discuss the issue on a talk page and provide references to reliable sources. See first addition, second addition, third addition, fourth addition. TSventon (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Removed short bullet point list of member institutions in lede
The short list of member institutions in the lede was removed by @Robminchin citing MOS:EMBED. However, MOS:EMBED does not prohibit short lists in article lede sections and Robminchin didn't add much of an explanation why the list should be removed. I added the list for simplification because the bulky paragraph that follows just causes confusion to the reader. A reader (or at least those readers who want to gain a quick and superficial understanding of the topic) will just want to skim the lede, get to know, in simple terms, what the golden triangle is and what the (typical or most commonly assumed) member institutions are. Again, of course this is to some extent subjective, the paragraph is just long, bulky and confusing and at the end of it, the membership institutions may not be fully clear reader to the reader if, on the one hand, the first part of the paragraph says "these are the typical members" and the second part says "although these sources say A isn't, these sources say B isn't and these sources says that sometimes C and D are members too". My suggestions are 3 options, either:

1. Insert the short list again in the lede.

or

2. Split the long and bulky paragraph in two.

or

3. change the explanation to short, concise prose of the 6 typical/most commonly assumed members and add a separate "controversies" section into the article where all the bickering and wrangling about different sources stating different members can be written about until the cows come home. 2A01:8B81:4802:E000:517C:C551:14BC:D3C (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * There doesn't seem to be any good reason to use an embedded list for this, when the information can be perfectly well presented as prose. The paragraph is not long or bulky, and clearly lists the typical members at the start. That different sources give different members is reality, and WP:NPOV means we need to reflect this. This has been discussed at length. We cannot simplify things by presenting something that is not neutral. Robminchin (talk) 04:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)