Talk:Kingston University/Archive 1

Attempt at making the TOC come back
is this what David Martland was on about in lecture ? Does anyone really know, cause i am just as lost when i leave that lecture as when i went in...

Yes it is what I mentioned in the lecture, and I'm glad to see that you have found out how to edit the text.

I'd be grateful if you (or whoever) could restrain yourself/ves from putting the graffiti on the Kingston page, but otherwise I'm glad you have managed to get it to work.

You may have noticed other things about this work - such as the list of Recent changes, and the notion of watchlist - these are quite powerful.

Enjoy your week DaveM

Correct name
The correct name of this institution is "Kingston University", not "Kingston University, London". The latter, as well as being incorrect, could wrongly give the impression that Kingston University is part of the University of London, which it isn't (cf "Kings College, London", which is part of the University of London, and whose membership is denoted by the ", London" on the end).

I have changed the name of the institution within the page, but the name of the page still needs to be changed, and links to the page changed, to reflect the correct name (ie the redirect needs to go the other way, so that the actual page exists at the URL Kingston University, and Kingston University, London redirects through to it. I'm not sure how to do this, I'm afraid.

It may even be sensible not to have the "Kingston University, London" page at all, even as a redirect, because otherwise it could be argued that all the Universities in London that don't have London in their title should also have one (eg Middlesex, Birkbeck, Brunel, Roehampton etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.240.66 (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2004 (UTC)

Not happy with the article
I'm not keen on the article at all as it stands, the list of courses needs to go, but I've got nothing right now to replace it with. If I get some time I'll do some research and see if I can find something more substantial and more informative to bring it more in line with other University articles, but if other people are at a loose end, this could be a nice project... --Lawlore 02:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've tried to sort out this page and give it a better layout. I don't have time to pull together enough information for all the sections, so I've made them stubs that other people are more than welcome to add to! Jonks 15:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

University ratings
(I'm posting this to all articles on UK universities as so far discussion hasn't really taken off on 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. Timrollpickering 23:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Protected
Given the sheer number of reverts on both sides, I have had to protect this article. Given that I had to create the first discussion on this matter, it does not bode well. Please discuss the problems here and come to a consensus. I removed those statements that were not sourced because they breach the WP:BLP policy as well as being potentially libelous. Discuss it please. Woody (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would cautiously endorse the protected version. The removed material is potentially libellous; the sources supplied for the material   are obviously POV-pushing. A brief search turned up no relevant press reports. — mholland (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Documents don't lie. The sites referred to above show all sorts of examples of supporting evidence to back up the information that was removed.  Included in the why-diana.org site are links to press reports in the Guardian and Times Higher Education Supplement, among others.  The www.sirpeterscott.com site includes reports in Indymedia.org as well as copies of court documents.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.51.176 (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then provide a sample here then. The direct links themselves need to be included and it needs to be vociferously cited. It is best to try it out here. As it is, it is libelous to accuse them without any sources. Woody (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: comments in removed version regarding Diana Winstanley are referenced in the following links referred to on why-diana.org:


 * http://www.thes.co.uk/current_edition/story.aspx?story_id=2032396
 * http://www.tuc.org.uk/h_and_s/tuc-12326-f0.cfm
 * http://icsurreyonline.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200surreyheadlines/tm_objectid=17609187&method=full&siteid=50101&headline=pressure-of-work-drove-mother-of-two-to-kill-herself-name_page.html
 * http://business.kingston.ac.uk/diana.pdf
 * http://www.thisishertfordshire.co.uk/search/display.var.901541.0.pressure_of_work_leads_lecturer_to_kill_herself.php
 * http://education.guardian.co.uk/further/story/0,,1876675,00.html

Court document supporting comments regarding criminal charges against Donald Beaton is referenced at: http://www.sirpeterscott.com/images/beatonsummons.jpg

Numerous other documents provided on www.sirpeterscott.com to support factual reporting in Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.51.176 (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Guardian, which is a reliable source, says "According to reports of the inquest into her death, Prof Winstanley had been suffering from stress at work." I would accept the statement:"Following her experience with workplace-related stress, Professor Diana Winstanley committed suicide in July 2006." being readded into the article. The other comments have not been backed up by sources as of yet. Woody (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Witness intimidation
I have removed the reference to the "witness intimidation" and "employment tribunal" sections. The latest source for this data is an apparently autobiographical posting to a site that anybody can post news to, so apparently little more than a blog by the very person this incident is all about. I have nothing to do with Kingston, and therefore have no worries about their reputation, but judging from the information that has been posted here, the employment tribunal found for the University, the Crown Prosecution Service found for the University, and the ongoing case has yet to be decided and has failed to interest anybody in the media except the plaintiff himself. The postings here come close to breaching the Wikipedia rules against autobiography, have little notability (person takes University to court and loses is hardly news), and are all based on self-penned sources that are certainly not from a neutral point of view. Even the legal document is carefully edited so that the names of those involved, except for those against whom the action is taken, have been deleted. If the University loses the case and this is published in neutral media (as I'm sure it would be), then this could be added to the Wikipedia article. At the moment, however, I don't think it should be here. ThomasL (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, I had edited down the section from the original diatribe whilst I was looking for sources. As it is, the information was in breach of our WP:BLP criteria which is a very important polcy. Until the information can be sourced to a reliable source, ie not blogs, it should not be re-added. More to the point, it has little relevance to the University until the University is found guilty in an employment tribunal. Woody (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The employment tribunal case is ongoing -- no finding has been made...YET. Vera Baird, MP, QC has found that the CPS was wrong to drop charges because it is illegal to intimidate witnesses to an Employment Tribunal. Victims to crimes, as listed in the summons, have had their names removed to protect their status as victims. The way the entry is written is now clearly from a neutral point of view (Thanks, Woody for your assistance in editing it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.51.176 (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it still breaches the WP:BLP policy which is a non-negotiable policy. It is clearly intended to disparage its subject without evidence. No charges have been brought and as such, it has no relevance here. It is also not sourced properly, it is sourced to a blog, which is not verifiable. I am removing it again, if it is re-added I will have to request a block. Woody (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence is a court indictment/summons. Source is public record available through any request to the court. I have no connection to the subjects of this article except that I have read the court documents myself, having requested copies of all documents. The evidence is compelling and the Magistrates' court would not have charged the defendant if there was not a prima facie case. Also, There is a documented source -- a letter from Ms Baird, that is publically available online at the website www.sirpeterscott.com. Do you dispute the veracity/authenticity of this letter, which is signed by Ms Baird? You yourself quite fairly edited the text earlier today and found no problem with it. Why did you suddenly do a 180 degree turnaround? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.51.176 (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I edited it whilst looking into the substance and looking for sources. In retrospect I should have removed it completely, but I didn't. The accusation is still unproven, it is still an accusation. I could accuse someone and file court papers, it does not make them accurate. This has little to do with the University in any case, it is related to the individual in question. There aren't any verifiable, third party sources available. The information has to go. Woody (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The third part sources include a letter from Vera Baird, QC, MP. Who is more reliable than the solicitor general of the UK on such matters? The evidence itself is available online -- letters from Donald Beaton to the victims are on www.sirpeterscott.com. Are you saying that this is not sufficient to constitute a verifiable source? We are talking about the words of the defendant here in black and white. The article does NOT state that the accusations have been proven, however -- it merely says that the allegations were made and that a court found substance to issue an indictment, with a further finding by the Solicitor General. These are facts. The information is highly relevant, as this is a matter of high public interest. There are many examples of entries on Wikipedia where allegations are referred to, even when a case has been decided in favour of the accused. One such example is the entry for Michael Jackson. Clearly the case of Kingston University and accusations of witness intimidation have far more credible substance than those lodged against Michael Jackson. This is why I disagree with your decision to remove the information. I would like to avoid a formal appeal, and would hope that your earlier balanced and neutral edits would be a fair and reasonable compromise solution to our disagreement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.51.176 (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, sirpeterscott is an advocacy organisation that is in a vendetta against the University. It is not an impartial source. I repeat that this is not the right place for this as well. An article on the case would be the right place for it, but as there are no reliable sources, it would be deleted. The WP:BLP state that: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles. It is poorly sourced. Woody (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement that sirpeterscott is in "a vendetta" against the University. It appears to me to be posting neutral factual information, primarily documentary evidence, to be interpreted as the reader sees fit. I disagree that the entry is poorly sourced. Furthermore, I offer the following additional source of information/reference for consideration, consisting of court documents and case law references. Please restore the entry or I will have no choice but to launch a formal request for third party mediation or other similar method of resolution. 87.194.51.176 (talk —Preceding comment was added at 01:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read http://www.sirpeterscott.com/#threats if you think it is not in a vendetta with the University. Please read WP:Verifiability. I have already asked for third opinions and am open to any mediation that you think appropriate. Woody (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read the passage you cite. That doesn't sound like a vendetta with the University.  Sounds more like the University has unreasonably threatened the web hosting company and the author of the site is responding, quite reasonably to threats against freedom of speech.  I interpret the "harm" referred to by the author as harm to the principles of free speech caused by threats against the web hosting company, who by the way, refused to cave into the threats, consistent with academic principles of free speech and expression.  In any event, i refer back to my additional source listing provided above, which supports the accuracy of the information in the entry.  If you would like this additional source added, I woudl be happy to agree to that.  I would, otherwise, like third party mediation of this dispute.  How should we begin?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.51.176 (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Woody is right in that there is no wiggle room here. Court documents are unacceptable sources when secondary coverage from reliable sources is absent. Similar to how Woody explained, anyone can create a court document, and they can make it say whatever they want. A court document in its pure form contains only the opinions of its creator, without any review or fact-checking. When there is no coverage of this document in a reliable, secondary source, it necessarily presents an unweightable point of view. Such information is absolutely unacceptable where living persons are inmplicated. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This site WILL remain until Kingston University agrees to change its behavior and makes amends to those whom it has harmed Sounds like a disagreement of opinions to me. Anyway, the other source merely confirms that there is a disagreement. We don't list every disagreement on Wikipedia between Universities and their employees. That is not our job. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia to hold verifiable information. This is not the place for this until more sources cover this. In terms of mediation, I have already asked for third party opinions, we wait for them to arrive. Informal third-party mediation is the first step, after that it see Dispute resolution. Woody (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't get the lack of a TOC. Anyone know? I'll comment on the issue here in a sec. Avruch talk 01:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Just looking through the argumentation above, I have to agree with Woody. It is debatable whether the information should be included, but what is not debatable is that it must be sourced to a reliable secondary source. Blogs, parties to the case and other generally unreliable sources are not sufficient to include something that could be considered contentious or controversial in an article (with reference to a living person, since this is not technically a BLP article). Avruch talk 01:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with woody as well ,that anything from that site is suspect. The most obvious reason is that it purports to be the man's own site, but the way it talks about him hardly seems to be how one would write about themselves. It goes after people using unfounded, specious allegations and innuendo about their behaviors, and relies on primary sources, when it uses any at all. Those it does use it uses with it's own framing of the context, which casts doubts on the neutrality of the presentations. ThuranX (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that Wikipedia should hold verifiable information. The information in the article (irrespective of Woody's (et al) views on the sirpeterscott website) is verifiable. The article does not draw conclusions -- it states that accusations were made and that charges were leveled by the Magistrates Court with further support for criminal charges being put forth in an opinion by Vera Baird written to MP, Vincent Cable.

As for mediation, I would ask that we go with a MedCab approach at this point. I am concerned that "contributors" who are, in fact, either employees of or contracted "reputation managers" of Kingston University would chime into other forms of informal third party mediation, as they have already done. In case you are wondering whether or not I have evidence of the identity of those who have already repeatedly undone parts of this article, I can tell you that your own IP address begins with 130 (I have the complete address, but won't publish it here in order to preserve your privacy). I have a system of checking IP addresses of Wikipedia Users and have linked a number of posters in this article with the university employees and contractors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.51.176 (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You can make a request for comment if you still disagree. There's little point opening a mediation case when there's merely one user disagreeing with many. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And with those accusations that people opposing you are all secret employees of Kingston, you're certainly going to be seen as a credible complaintant. That you're grabbing up editors' IPs to determine that we're all kingston employees is probably a violation of some Wiki-POlicy or other; certainly the threat to use it against us constitutes a breach of WP:CIVIL if not WP:NLT. ThuranX (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wouldnt it be more appropriate to list it as accusations of witness intimidation and therefore it can explore both sides of the argument- Matt_world2004 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt world2004 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, beacause Wikipedia is not the place to list arguments and accusations that are unsourced. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for verifiable information, not a place for arguments between two parties to be "aired". Woody (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

These points ARE sourced. You just don't happen to agree that a copy of a summons issued after a four hour hearing before three magistrates to determine whether or not there was a prima facie case to be answered is a valid source. I disagree. Is there really any doubt that the court did issue that summons after hearing preliminary evidence? There is no issue of "arguments" being aired here -- rather this is a neutral reporting of facts -- Mr Beaton was, in fact, charged with witness intimidation. Mr Beaton, in fact, sent a series of threatening letters (the source provides actual copies of the letters). The source says that the CPS dropped the case on a technicality. The source says that the Solicitor General wrote that the acts described would be a crime under another statute (supported by a copy of the letter from the Solicitor General). What more proof could one possibly want? There is no assertion of guilt here, mind you. There is only an assertion of facts about what has happened.

Again, I must insist on a MedCab review of the article, especially now that someone (matt_world2004) has chimed in in support of including the information as original posted.87.194.51.176 (talk) 11:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You have no third party, reliable sources. Medcab is for disputes between two editors, the only person who is in a dispute here is you, versus four other editors. We can open a request for comments (article) if you really think it neccessary. The trouble is, there isn't much wiggle room here, BLP and V are core policies. Woody (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you miss the point of needing third-party sources. We're not so much asking for verification that the allegations were made (as I don't think anyone here doubts it), but verification that the allegations are worth noting. It is generally the case that if no reliable sources have taken note of something, than neither should we. This is especially important in the case of negative information, and extraordinarily important in the case of biographies of living persons, or any article in which living persons are implicated. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Vera Baird MP,QC is a reliable third party source, as is Vince Cable, MP, both of whom have "noted" the issues at hand. I think when the Solicitor General of Great Britain and the acting Lib Dem Party Leader bother to acknowledge something, THAT is "noteworthy."87.194.51.176 (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, no, they really have no choice. It's drama surrounding the allegations. It's like saying everything the US supreme court has ever taken the slightest notice of, which should certainly not be the case since anyone can file an appeal with them. The absence of any reliable sources (if you read the link that keeps getting posted, you'll notice that individuals are not reliable or notability-establishing sources) that mention this continues to call the noteworthiness into doubt. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid the point you've missed is that the individuals allegedly involved here are high-level public officials, including the Vice-Chancellor and University Secretary of a public, government controlled university. The apparent criminal involvement (by their own words and admissions -- see the documentary evidence contained on the website www.sirpeterscott.com) in the sending of threatening letters to witnesses to an Employment Tribunal makes this information highly noteworthy, regardless of where the primary source materials are posted, that is unless you doubt their authenticity Perhaps you have a different view towards university officials as important public figures, in this case made more so by virtue of the fact that the Vice Chancellor is recently knighted.87.194.51.176 (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you are missing the point. We have guidelines and policies for a reason, they need to be followed or don't write at all. The policies have been shown to you, yet you continue to push your agenda. They are personal accusations that aren't noteworthy at the moment. If we had an article on those individuals, and you had third party sources, then you would be able to add the information there. They are allegations made against a person, not the University. The fact that you are resorting to using peoples IP addresses show that you are clutching at straws. You clearly have an agenda, given that you run the sirpeterscott website. Wikipedia is not the place for POV pushers or people with a conflict of interest. Woody (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no connection to the sirpeterscott website. I simply came across the site by chance.  I have no conflict of interest.  I merely seek to prevent those with a conflict of interest from silencing the documented truth, which any reasonable person can plainly see by looking at the available evidence.  As stated previously, these accusations are, at the least, no different than accusations lodged against Michael Jackson, which were fully explored on the Wikipedia page for him, notwithstanding the fact that documentary evidence was not presented of such allegations, and notwithstanding the fact that such allegations were later proven untrue by a jury.  You appear to have a double standard here, which is quite puzzling to me.  I simply ask that the facts as they are be put forward.  As the story unfolds, of course, further support will be provided, including mainstream press articles, which I understand are in progress.87.194.51.176 (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To be frank, I am highly disbelieving of your first statement. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you have concerns regarding the Michael Jackson article, take it to that talk page. Those allegations were covered in third party reliable sources and form a key-part in understanding Michael Jackson and his profile. That cannot be said for your allegations, coupled with the point that they haven't been proven or disproven. Until you have the reliable sources, the information cannot be reinserted into the article. I am being reasonable and there is no double standard; everyone has to provide sources. This argument has become circular now. Until sources are forthcoming, the information simply cannot be added under wikipedia policy. Woody (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with you, Woody on this. I would refer you to the following link which seems like pretty strong evidence of the veracity of claims being made by the previous editor - .  It sure looks like threats against a witness to me.Catface1965 (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is the sirpeterscott website which has been discussed ad nauseaum before. It is not reliable, nor is it third party. Please read all of the guidelines stated above. Woody (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It certainly appears that these letters did come from Donald Beaton and were written to employees involved in an Employment Tribunal. One of the letters has the signature of Mr Beaton on the bottom.  From my reading of the letters, it sure looks like witness intimidation, as Mr Beaton clearly demands that all copies, not just a copy, of the evidence be turned over under penalty of criminal prosecution and civil costs.  Sounds like an attempt to bury important damaging and embarrasing evidence in a court case to me.  Surely, that can't be legal.  It would seem to me that if a letter(s) come from one of the parties (Beaton) and there is no contentiousness over whether or not the letters are authentic, then there is no problem with reliability of information.  So to summarize, we do have a situation where someone has been charged with witness intimidation by a court (a third party), albeit ultimately the case was dismissed on a technicality.  Then we have a situation where a higher legal authority (the solicitor general, another reliable third party) has offerred a dissenting view of the criminality of the alleged offence.  I don't see any problem with the spirit of Wikipedia policy, despite the fact that no mainstream newspaper has yet reported on this story.  The origin of the letters and solicitor general opinion, which is signed, seems to me to be immaterial in this particular circumstance.  I'd say let the entry in.Catface1965 (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if the use of partisan non-verifiable sources (such as the so-called 'Sir Peter Scott' website) was permitted on Wikipedia, there are actually two views expressed on that website. Donald Beaton's letter makes it clear that the ex-employee recorded private conversations without permission (there are extracts from this recording on the 'Sir Peter Scott' website, so this much is obviously true) and that the University regarded this as illegal (a reading of the law supported by third-party non-partisan sites such as http://www.gla.ac.uk/services/dpfoioffice/a-ztopics/taperecordingconversations/ ). If or when a third-party source reports on this conflict and court case, it would seem likely that they would name both sides, and mention both arguments. The 'Sir Peter Scott' website, obviously written by the complainant or somebody very close to him, does not do this - except by accident - and its partisan and unreliable nature precludes its use as a source on Wikipedia. Once again, I would suggest that we wait for the court case to reach its conclusion. If the court rules against the University then that would almost certainly be reported by the mainstream media, and that would provide neutral, verifiable, third-party sources that could be used in a Wikipedia article. ThomasL (talk) 10:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Another Third-Party source disputes any notion of illegality of such a recording, when it is made in the public interest. See http://www.lawreports.co.uk/ICRE/2006/nov.0.3.htm. In this case, which was different from the one involving Kingston University in that in the latter, there were no deliberations taking place -- it was an informal tea break, hence matters of following agreed procedure covered in Amwell v Dogherty do not apply. In any event, there was clearly no criminal conduct by the employees in either case and Mr Beaton, as confirmed by the Magistrates' Court, was not acting to prevent or in response to a criminal act. Else the Court would not have found a basis to charge Beaton with a crime. Glasgow's interpretation of the law does not apply in this instance and Kingston's attempts at doing so are patently misconceived. Furthermore, by virtue of the fact that the University's letters are included in the site, the issue at hand is presented even handedly (both side's points of view are expressed quite openly)87.194.51.176 (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I really don't want to turn this into a detailed debate as to who is right or wrong as far as the court case or employment tribunal is concerned. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball, and the courts will make their own decisions.  My case is simply that a personal website and blog-like postings to open-access media do not represent a third-party, reliable, verifiable source (even if it includes some very carefully selected aspects of the other side's position) and neither does it prove notability.  Others may disagree with me, but my own position is that  media report(s) of a court case that went against the University would justify inclusion of this information (in measured terms) on this Wikipedia page, but only after the court has made a decision against the University and reliable third-party sources have reported this (as I'm sure they would).


 * I would briefly point you towards http://www.employmentappeals.gov.uk/Public/Upload/06_0243ResfhMLNDA.doc, which is apparently the officially published and full conclusions of the Employment Tribunal Appeal that you cite. The conclusion of the tribunal is that "75. In our judgment (by a majority) the Employment Tribunal in the present case was right to permit Mrs Dogherty to put in evidence her transcriptions of the “open hearing” parts of the proceedings she attended but (in our unanimous view) it erred in law in not debarring Mrs Dogherty from making use of her recording and transcription of the Panel’s private deliberations (as appearing, for example, at pages 181 – 201 of the Supplementary Appeal Bundle placed before us). Accordingly, we allow the appeal only to the extent of making that direction which the Tribunal should itself have made namely that: “Mrs Dogherty may not adduce in evidence in support of her claim the transcripts of the private deliberations of the panel members or any evidence derived from them.”  The difference between a tea-break and official deliberations may produce different results, but that will be decided by the tribunal and the courts.  Once it has been decided, and the results independently reported, then this may become something that could justifiably be posted on a Wikipedia page. ThomasL (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Kingston's credibility has just taken a hit. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7397979.stm. And many more, such as http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7526061.stm where they are actually removed from the League Tables for their fraudulent activities. Perhaps when taken together, folks will start to pay attention to the supposedly biased entries on Wikepedia? And any denials to the contrary by Kingston University and their reputation managers will be taken with a grain of salt.

``` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.51.176 (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Halls of residence claim
Why was the 45% of first years can only get halls of residence claim removed, It is a perfectly valid claim based on the numbers of students? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt world2004 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, we need verifiable, third party sources before we can add it in. It was removed a long time ago I believe. It sounds to me like you have calculated the figures yourself, which is frowned upon per the original research policies. Please provide the source and the sentence you want added in here, and we can discuss it. Woody (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section removed
Why was the Controversy section removed it appeared to used independant verifyable sources (such as the BBC)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.23.212 (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It's back now. So called 'reputation managers' are hired by Kingston University to whitewash its image by removing true and accurate info from this site from time to time. Vigilance in restoring the facts is the only solution.87.194.51.176 (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Notable Alumni
The "Notable Alumni" section looks pretty vandalised to me. Most of the people listed (John Smith, the plumber, anyone?) look far from notable. It may be better to delete the section than let it get into this state in the future. (Apologies to John Smith- he may be very notable in his own way). Awernham (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've pruned and formatted the list. It still requires referencing. — mholland (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The following notable alumni are so notable that they don't actually have their own articles: -- Hoary (talk) 10:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Russell Cousins, Chief Editor - CBA Weekly
 * Christian Hrabalek, automotive designer
 * Paul Oakley, Illustrator (Graphically Clean)
 * Daisy Steiner, writer and slacker

Removal of suicide bomber from Alumni list?
Why was the suicide bomber removed from the notable Alumni list, Notable does not have to mean positive, the article was fully referenced and there can be no claim that a suicide bomber is an regular, normal action.

Reads like an advertisement
Does anyone think multiple sections of this article read like an advertisement for Kingston University, particularly the building, student union and faculties section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt world2004 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Francois Greeff
On 3 March 2009, User:GoodGreeff (contributions) added a lot of material about Francois Greeff, much of which seems irrelevant to an article about Kingston University. I'm amazed that the latter lasted half a year; today I removed it. (Incidentally, GoodGreeff says at the end of this addition that he is Francois Greeff.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge
I've just found the brief article, Kingston University National Student Survey controversy; I propose that it be merged into the 'Controversies' section of this one, as it doesn't seem to merit an article in its own right. However, as this article is fully-protected, I cannot add the mergefrom template. Could an admin please do so? (Also, please discuss this merge below.) Robofish (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree to merge. The information is already included in Kingston University.  It really doesn't merit an article in its own right.  Note that the Kingston University National Student Survey controversy is an orphan article - nothing useful links to it.  Canthusus (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree to merge, after radical shortening. Or just deletion. The article fails even to show that there was any flap of more than ephemeral interest. A recording was published of two teachers saying things they shouldn't, the university said straightforwardly that it was genuine and regretted the incident; nobody has alleged covert institutional backing for the teachers' message or dissembling by the university; and for that matter nobody has supported the teachers. Hardly a "controversy" and, though regrettable, entirely humdrum. When I think of a university "controversy", I think of stuff like this (for substance) or this (for newsiness). -- Hoary (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Protected again
Please stop edit warring and discuss your issues here. Given the sheer number of reverts on both sides, I have had to protect this article. Given that I have had to create the first discussion on this matter, it does not bode well. Please discuss the problems here and come to a consensus.

Do not add statements that discuss controversial material about living people if they are not rigorously sourced to verfiable sources. Woody (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The main issue here is that individual academics at Kingston University are named without any independent verifiable sources that they in any way influenced or contacted the External Examiner in question. It is simply an attempt to discredit the individuals concerned in what appears to be a petty and vindictive manner. The only possible source for this information appears to be the exceedingly dubious website sirpeterscott.com - the prepetrator of which has already been convicted of harassment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Laker (talk • contribs) 13:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Documentary evidence, irrespective of source exists in form of original emails sent by named individuals. Please see the following links:- http://www.sirpeterscott.com/images/extexaminer.jpg and http://www.sirpeterscott.com/images/cgextex.jpg and http://www.sirpeterscott.com/images/gtextex1.jpg. In addition there is a BBC article confirming the authenticity of the aforementioned e-mail evidence at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7470125.stm. I believe this should resolve any question of reliability of sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.177.67 (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The first two of these three are jpegs that anybody could construct in a few minutes, and they appear on an overtly partisan website. That article on the BBC website does indeed assume that they are genuine. It talks of: An internal e-mail, forwarded by readers of the BBC News website, [...] The e-mails surrounding a report into Kingston University's music degree were forwarded in the wake of academic whistleblowers claiming that degree standards were being lowered. However, there's no suggestion that any effort went into confirming their genuineness. -- Hoary (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The BBC article referenced above goes on to state, "Subsequent e-mails, accepted as AUTHENTIC by the university, then set out a process of finding a replacement external examiner.

'Constructive feedback'

These indicate the type of examiner that was needed. 'I think that it is important that the Examiner is sympathetic to and familiar with the challenges we face... and would be constructive in their feedback.'"

Also, are some users suggesting that the document posted on the site, sirpeterscott.com, containing the QAA's full and unabridged report is a forgery? That report is extremely clear in its determination that the allegations made were fully investigated and verified to be true and accurate, and that the External Examiner, herself, was contacted to verify the account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.177.67 (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

All of the above sources are from the sirpeterscott.com website which is not an independent, neutral or reliable source. The BBC article is pretty vague in its discussion of the emails and does not name individuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Laker (talk • contribs) 16:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The above mentioned QAA report is available on the QAA site in abridged form at http://www.qaa.ac.uk/causesforconcern/kingston09.asp. Could an administrator please add this to the references on this article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.177.67 (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is already there as reference number 33. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to bring it to the attention of the moderators and admins here that a lot of the content in the "Controversies" section has been lifted from this sirpeterscott.com site. For anyone who doesn't know already, the operator of sirpeterscott.com (Howard Fredrics) was recently found guilty of harassment at Kingston Magistrates’ Court of using this site to harass the Kingston University Vice-Chancellor Sir Peter Scott. Please see the following two links: http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/4816963.Sacked_Kingston_University_lecturer_guilty_of_harassment/ and http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=409989. Also as you can see from the second link, Howard Fredrics' claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, public-interest disclosure and disability discrimination against his former employer were all rejected by the London South Employment Tribunal on 6 January 2010. Pandabearcollective (talk) 09:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Fredrics has his own article in English-language Wikipedia -- an article that I think is problematic in terms of "WP:ONEEVENT". -- Hoary (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Pandabearcollective is a reputation manager hired by Kingston University. In fact,  ALL  of his/her entries/edits on Wikipedia pertain to Kingston University. ... posted at 16:13, 26 April 2010 by 67.84.177.67
 * This is fascinating stuff, IP. I note that all but one of your contributions pertain to Kingston University. Why do almost all your contributions pertain to Kingston University? I don't know. By contrast, you do claim to know why Pandabearcollective's contributions pertain to Kingston University, and you are alleging a conflict of interest. So present the evidence for this conflict of interest on this noticeboard. -- Hoary (talk) 09:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

reputation managers and other folks
This IP 67.84.177.67 (together with his/her predecessor 87.194.51.176) is starting to fascinate me. Let's look at some quotations. All but the first three are from this very talk page.


 * If you work for Kingston University and/or a reputation management company hired by Kingston University, you should not be involved in whitewashing factual information referenced from external sources. this edit by 87.194.51.176 to User talk:Mattalex, 21:09, 7 January 2008 (my emphasis)
 * If you work for Kingston University and/or a reputation management company hired by Kingston University, you should not be involved in whitewashing factual information referenced from external sources. this edit by 87.194.51.176 to User talk:Pandabearcollective, 21:16, 7 January 2008 (my emphasis)
 * You appear to be a reputation management worker. Are you commercially employed to "correct" true but unflattering material about Universities and other institutions? this edit by 87.194.51.176 to User talk:Mholland, 15 January 2008 (my emphasis)
 * I am concerned that "contributors" who are, in fact, either employees of or contracted "reputation managers" of Kingston University would chime into other forms of informal third party mediation, as they have already done. In case you are wondering whether or not I have evidence of the identity of those who have already repeatedly undone parts of this article, I can tell you that your own IP address begins with 130 (I have the complete address, but won't publish it here in order to preserve your privacy). I have a system of checking IP addresses of Wikipedia Users and have linked a number of posters in this article with the university employees and contractors. 87.194.51.176, 01:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC); my emphases
 * Perhaps when taken together, folks will start to pay attention to the supposedly biased entries on Wikepedia? And any denials to the contrary by Kingston University and their reputation managers will be taken with a grain of salt. 87.194.51.176, 14:50, 13 May 2008; my emphases
 * So called 'reputation managers' are hired by Kingston University to whitewash its image by removing true and accurate info from this site from time to time. Vigilance in restoring the facts is the only solution. 87.194.51.176 (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2008; my emphasis
 * Pandabearcollective is a reputation manager hired by Kingston University. In fact, ALL of his/her entries/edits on Wikipedia pertain to Kingston University. 67.84.177.67, 16:13, 26 April 2010; my emphasis
 * You are a reputation manager hired by Kingston University and therefore do not have a neutral point of view. 67.84.177.67, 12:09, 4 May 2010.

Now, the editing history of 87.194.51.176 is most interesting. It's mostly about Kingston University, but there's a fair amount about music and Jews. Indeed, it's curiously close to the interests of Howard Fredrics. And aside from the harping on "reputation manager", there's that curious Americanism, "folks". The surprise among the IP's edits is this extraordinary edit, perhaps made when the IP was "tired and emotional".

Meanwhile, the contributions of 67.84.177.67 are more single-mindedly devoted to Kingston University. There's only a single edit that isn't obviously about Kingston (it's about music), but if we look in his list of deleted contributions we see activity to Howard Fredrics.

All of this sets me wondering: Could 67.84.177.67 and Howard Fredrics possibly be related? -- Hoary (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard
I have opened a section on Conflict of interest/Noticeboard please have a look at - Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. Codf1977 (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of some paras
I removed two paragraphs today in a wider attempt to clean up this article of some of the more egregious violations of the various Manuals of style and policies that govern Wikipedia. The paragraph relating to the independent investigator who had links to a banned group does not pertain to the university, it pertains to the individual involved. If he has an article then it should go there, not on this page. The second paragraph related to tribunal fees is not neccessary in this article for a number of reasons: 1: it is synthesising sources; by placing this text straight after a paragraph about a stress you are claiming that the two are, linked. We have no way of knowing if this is true and it is therefore not acceptable in this article. Another issue is that it smacks of recentism. In the grand scheme of things the fact that they spent a large amount of money on tribunal fees is not important given the wider history of the university.

The whole article itself needs a lot of cleanup work, removing the advertising/fluff regarding the university as well as integrating the criticisms into the article itself per our guidelines on criticism sections. Woody (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The section on Anti-Semitic activity includes information about Hizb ut Tahrir's activity at the University. The independent investigator's high-level involvement with this org is a further example of the University's connection with this anti-Semitic organization, and is therefore relevant.  The paragraph on tribunal fees is not suggesting relationship between workplace stress and tribunal legal fees. Since the same paragraph discusses prior Tribunal cases, it is sensible to locate this paragraph on legal fees in the same place. If there is a separate section on Employment Tribunal Cases, where all materials related to such cases could be placed, including the matter of legal fees(i.e. separate from the section on workplace stress), that might solve this issue.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.177.67 (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You are not responding to my concerns linked to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, namely synthesis of sources and recentism (an essay but a pertinent one nonetheless).
 * "The independent investigator's high-level involvement with this org is a further example of the University's connection with this anti-Semitic organization, and is therefore relevant." This person is only tangentially linked to the university as he was once employed as an investigator on another issue. This has no link (backed by reliable sources) to the paragraph in question. The only source that is used to link the two cases is an interview with Howard Fredrics, definitely not reliable when it comes to Kingston given his disagreements with the university. We have to stick with Neutral point of view not your opinions.
 * There is no need for the trivia regarding how much they spent on tribunal fees, it is simply recentism and the way it currently reads, we are infering that there is a link. That is completely unacceptable. This article is not the place for every greivance against the university to be aired, nor for the annual budget of the University to be dissected. It is an encylopedia article. Woody (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, while the latter is dubious at best, the former is laughable. Quote: However, Zafar Ali a university-appointed independent investigator in an unrelated 2005 grievance case against a Jewish academic [20] was found to be the Chair of the Board of Governors of the Iqra Islamic School, Slough[21]which subsequently had its funding suspended following the Daily Telegraph uncovering links at the school with Hizb ut Tahrir [22] (my emphasis). -- Hoary (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Kingston University watcher 67.84.177.67. Please explain how the material you repeatedly add about an "unrelated" case is required in that section, other than perhaps via some synthesis of your own, of Fredrics, or of the grandly named Islam-obsessed website "Westminster Journal". -- Hoary (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Westminster Journal verifies all information before publication, else they would be subject to defamation action. Publication of an interview on their site is therefore a reliable source.  The information about the investigator is directly related to the normative practice by Kingston University of allowing anti-Semitic extremists to operate on campus -- i.e. the investigator is a proven high level operative within Hizb ut Tahrir.  The fact of his having been hired by the University belies the disclaimers made by the University in response to the Newsnight report on Hizb ut Tahrir's activities on campus and is presented in the interest of providing a balanced viewpoint.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.177.67 (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Westminster Journal verifies all information before publication, else they would be subject to defamation action. Publication of an interview on their site is therefore a reliable source. Is this truer of "Westminster Journal" than of any other website? If it is, then how? If it is not, then are you not merely saying that any website is a reliable source?


 * As it is, I have no reason to think that "Westminster Journal" is any more credible than hizb.org.uk. Here we see its investigation into "Vigil", some (Man from Uncle-inspired?) group to which the head of "Westminster Journal" appears to belong.


 * The passage that you are so insistent should be retained within this article says that somebody appointed by the university was the Chair of the Board of Governors of the Iqra Islamic School, Slough[21]which subsequently had its funding suspended following the Daily Telegraph uncovering links at the school with Hizb ut Tahrir. You now say that he is a proven high level operative within Hizb ut Tahrir. Which is it, IP?


 * Well, whoever he is, The fact of his having been hired by the University belies the disclaimers made by the University in response to the Newsnight report on Hizb ut Tahrir's activities on campus. Belies it in whose eyes, IP? Which reliable source describes it in this way, or is this merely your own original synthesis? -- Hoary (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the sentance :

In 2010, it emerged that between 2007-2009, Kingston University spent £635,165 in legal fees for six Employment Tribunal cases, the most of any UK university, with nearly £500,000 of it spent on a single case.

With the ref of "Legal fees keep on rising for university, Surrey Comet-Newsquest", because despite searching the Surrey Comet website (which is quite extensive) and Google, I cant find an on-line copy and given other NPOV edits (such as this one) from the same editor without seeing the whole article I am unsure about the the POV of this claim. Codf1977 (talk)

.If you go to the page, http://www.sirpeterscott.com/images/legalfees.jpg, you will find a scanned copy of the Surrey Comet article from a print edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.177.67 (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2010


 * so the number is based on an estimate by academicfoi.com ? Codf1977 (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I am also questioning the relevance and NPOV of

In October, 2008, data were published by the University College Union (UCU) showing that Kingston University had scored second worst of UK universities surveyed in the UK in staff bullying. It was claimed 15.9% of staff were either 'always' or 'often' bullied

as reported in UCU names universities with biggest bullying problems, only 61 (or 3%) members of staff responded. So simple maths would say that about 11 out of a total of over 2000 staff said they had been 'always' or 'often' bullied, this I don't think is significant. The UCU names universities with biggest bullying problems states at the end of the report

In its survey UCU used the questions from the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) Management Standards Indicator Tool questionnaire. In its Management Standards Analysis Tool User Manual the HSE sets a minimum of 10 people for a group that is being analysed. UCU chose to triple the minimum number of respondents required from an institution to 30 to give a more reliable response rate.

However if you read the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) Management Standards Indicator Tool - User Manual it clearly states on page 3 :

As a crude rule of thumb, for a survey of this nature, a response rate of over 50% could be considered adequate; over 60% desirable, over 70% good and more than 80% very good. With a response rate of less than 50%, the data cannot be considered representative, and should be treated with extreme caution

So in the HSE own words this result "should be treated with extreme caution" and the sentence I think should be removed. Codf1977 (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

.Whether or not you agree with the conclusions of the survey, it is a published report and is therefore appropriate for a wikipedia entry. You are a reputation manager hired by Kingston University and therefore do not have a neutral point of view. You have been previously cited for NPOV violations -- "Please STOP malicious deleting and disruptive edit. Your personal doubts don't qualify for the reason for deletion." -- as per your USER talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.177.67 (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2010
 * No It is not appropriate for a WP article it is misleading.
 * I have no connection at all with Kingston University, I was alerted to the problems on this page by this edit.
 * The notice you quote was put there by an editor who is blocked indf for his disruptive editing and was his attempt to assert ownership over articles and divert attention from his own actions(see Revws Block Log vs Codf1977 Block Log). Codf1977 (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to resolve this disagreement by restoring NPOV to disputed sections while also restoring the content of these sections and reorganizing them in a more logical fashion.Dbasmgr69 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC).
 * With all due respect you have not, you have reverted some of the sections that are contested and that there is no support for other than the IP editors with a clear WP:COI, please do not restore them until a consensus has been reached about what should be here. Codf1977 (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"the anti-Semitic Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir"
The article flatly speaks of "the anti-Semitic Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir". My impression from the article about it in Wikipedia (not a reliable source, of course) was that this group is openly against Israel and its policies but that its alleged antisemitism is a matter of dispute. Should this not be "the allegedly anti-Semitic Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir"? -- Hoary (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * With due respect, Hoary, Hizb ut Tahrir is widely accepted by the international community as anti-Semitic and is banned from operating in many countries, including Germany and Denmark, because of their anti-Semitic positions. For example, if you read the article that states, "Hizb ut-Tahrir is banned in Germany for anti-Semitism and covered by the National Union of Students’ policy of “no platform” for racist and fascist views.", you will see confirmation of this as a matter of fact.Dbasemgr69 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 17:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC).


 * Hello new editor! Yes, I'm well aware of several of the facts that you cite. But I'm also aware of claims from arguably disinterested sources that the group is not antisemitic. -- Hoary (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is all moot - the para has no place in this article. Codf1977 (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify - puting aside the fact that section should be removed - I would have to agree with Hoary in that there must be some doubt as to the "anti-Semitic status" - sufficient to warrant a reliable source cite. Codf1977 (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, the section doesn't belong here. If this is a controversy worth the name, then somebody here will be able to come up with articles in the "quality press" on the subject. Till then, this doesn't hack it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the Report on the Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism qualifies as a "quality" source. Please see my further comments in the section below on the removal of the section on anti-Semtism. Dbasemgr69 (talk) 03:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Biases from University/ detractors.
Several sections read like a prospectus and not an encyclopedic article, Infact I would say that the majority of the article reads like this, Sneaky marketing weasel words are included for example this section in relation to the campuses;

"The Roehampton Vale campus is based on Friars Avenue, on the outskirts of Kingston. Students studying all Engineering courses (except for Civil Engineering) are based here. Extensive facilities on site such as a wind tunnel, engineering workshops, flight simulator, a flying condition Learjet-200 plus automotive and aeronautical learning resources. Recent development at this site has seen the opening of the Hawker Wing, providing further teaching space."

The term extensive is a weasel subjective marketing word. Several sections of the article has such weasel words and lacks an NPOV

Look at this section;

''"Research The faculty has a number of specialist research units which cover the principal business disciplines. It achieved the highest grade point average of all post-1992 University Business Schools in the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise. These research units include: Asia Business Research Centre, Business-to-Business Marketing Research Centre, Centre for Insolvency Law and Policy, Centre for Working Life Research, Consumer Research Unit, Marketing in New Contexts Group, Small Business Research Centre, Centre for Research in Employment, Skills & Society, Institute of Leadership & Management in Health.

Kingston with its Business School excels while graduating top Business students.[citation needed] A particular course being Business Management, Kingston's turnover of students studying this module is vast and continues a popular subject. Credited as one of the best Business School in UK.[citation needed]

"''

There is also a seperate controversies section which would be better to either being subsumed into the main article (to prevent it being a grevance outlet)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattyjroberts (talk • contribs) 19:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * While I would have no problem with keeping a separate controversies section, it does strike me from reviewing the edit history of this page that the edit warring began and escalated when the elements contained in the controversies section were, in fact, separated from the main body of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbasemgr69 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Marketing speak is a typical problem of university articles. Any editor can simply take out peacock terms like "excels". Often there is genuine information hidden behind the waffle. Kingston Business School is actually quite well known and it will be possible to find an independent source for that. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"Anti Semitic and Radical Islamic Groups on Campus"
Here is the section that Dbasemgr69 (contributions) added and seems keen to retain (unchanged other than for the addition of NOWIKI tags:

===Anti Semitic and Radical Islamic Groups on Campus===

In 2003, BBC Television’s Newsnight uncovered the fact that the anti-Semitic Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir had been operating on the university’s campus. The university released a statement in response to this story stating that:

"Kingston University does not tolerate any illegal activity on campus, including the propagation of racial hatred. Until the Newsnight report we had no knowledge of Rizwan Khaliq's alleged activities. We will examine the allegations made by Newsnight, and consider whether any action needs to be taken by the University."

British-born Asif Hanif, who killed three people in a suicide attack on a bar in Tel Aviv, Israel, in 2003, had shortly before that, attended Kingston University. In 2006, Shakeel Begg, a radical cleric, urged students to wage jihad in Palestine. In a tape-recorded speech obtained by The Sunday Times, Begg, who is a Muslim chaplain at Goldsmiths College, part of London University, said: "“You want to make jihad? Very good . . . Take some money and go to Palestine and fight, fight the terrorists, fight the Zionists.”" Referring to Begg’s lecture at Kingston, Professor Peter Scott, the university’s vice-chancellor, said: "“Should the university be made aware of any concerns about the views expressed at such events, it has the protocols in place to investigate.”"

In 2009, Zafar Ali a university-appointed, allegedly independent investigator in a 2005-2006 staff grievance case against a Jewish academic was found to be the Chair of the Board of Governors of the Iqra Islamic School, Slough which subsequently  had its funding suspended following the Daily Telegraph uncovering links at the school with Hizb ut Tahrir

It's divided into four parts. Let's look at them.

First, In 2003, BBC Television’s Newsnight uncovered the fact that the anti-Semitic Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir had been operating on the university’s campus. Note that this does not say something along the lines of "Hizb ut-Tahrir, which it described as anti-Semitic". Instead, there's a clear implication that Hizb ut-Tahrir is anti-Semitic. Certainly Hizb ut-Tahrir is widely regarded as anti-Semitic. It's also widely regarded as not anti-Semitic. The Newsnight program doesn't directly call it anti-Semitic but it clearly implies as much. (It does say that Kingston University regards it, or an earlier version of it, as spouting racism.) It does single out Kingston University for investigation but does not hint that Hizb ut-Tahrir is more active or salient there than anywhere else.

But yes, it's clear that one BBC program alleged that an anti-Semitic group was active at Kingston U.

Now, if this were a controversy, the "quality press" (and I don't mean the Daily Mail) would write it up. Did they?
 * Yes, they certainly did. Please see additional references supplied on this talk page.Dbasemgr69 (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Secondly, British-born Asif Hanif, who killed three people in a suicide attack on a bar in Tel Aviv, Israel, in 2003, had shortly before that, attended Kingston University. Not obviously sourced, but it's verifiable (see below). So? This says nothing about any group on campus.
 * This section of the article is not merely limited to extremist group activity. It includes extremist individuals.  I see nothing problematic with that.Dbasemgr69 (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I should have added that perhaps the title of the section could be changed to "Anti Semitic and Radical Islamic Activity on Campus" in order to clarify the content.Dbasemgr69 (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thirdly (after reformatting), ''In 2006, Shakeel Begg, a radical cleric, urged students to wage jihad in Palestine. In a tape-recorded speech obtained by The Sunday Times, Begg, who is a Muslim chaplain at Goldsmiths College, part of London University, said: “You want to make jihad? Very good. . . Take some money and go to Palestine and fight, fight the terrorists, fight the Zionists.” The source cited says that a relevant charity has received reports from students about fundamentalists operating in at least four UK institutions: Brunel University, west London, Bedfordshire University, Luton, Sheffield Hallam University and Manchester Metropolitan University.'' (Note the absence from this of Kingston.) The source does go on to say that Begg made this speech at Kingston. However, it fails to link the speech to anything else at Kingston (certainly not to any group), just pointing out that Hanif killed three other people and himself three years previously.
 * This section of the article is not merely limited to extremist group activity. It includes extremist individuals.  I see nothing problematic with that.Dbasemgr69 (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Fourthly, In 2009, Zafar Ali a university-appointed, allegedly independent investigator in a 2005-2006 staff grievance case against a Jewish academic [sourced to an Islam-obsessed blog] was found to be the Chair of  the Board of Governors of the Iqra Islamic School, Slough [sourced to a Slough newspaper] which subsequently  had its funding suspended following the Daily Telegraph uncovering links at the school with Hizb ut Tahrir [sourced to the Telegraph]. Uh-huh. And so? Perhaps we're supposed to think that, being Jewish, the academic (Howard Fredrics) couldn't possibly have obtained justice as the result of an investigation by any such person, or perhaps that Ali can't have been independent or perhaps all sorts of things. Has any disinterested, independent source (and I discount Fredrics' website and the "Westminster Journal") said as much? If so, where?
 * Any such possible conclusions you've reached have not be stated in the article. That would be editor synthesis, in contravention of WP policy.  The reader is free to interpret for him/herself.Dbasemgr69 (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

All mere dribs and drabs designed to give an impression of Islamic evil at Kingston, nothing substantial. And therefore all eminently deletable. -- Hoary (talk) 10:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt agreed. Codf1977 (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also agreed. It's known that Hizb ut Tahrir tried to organise in a number of UK universities and the university authorities (and usually the students unions too) acted to stop them as soon as they were able to. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently, Kingston University failed to act to stop Hizb ut Tahrir and other extremist activities following the 2003 Newsnight report, having hired an official with apparent ties to Hizb ut Tahrir to perform an investigation and having permitted the Goldsmiths chaplain to call for killing of Jews in the streets during his on campus speech.Dbasemgr69 (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

''Shakeel Begg, a radical cleric [. . .] Begg, who is a Muslim chaplain at Goldsmith's College'' No he isn't. Googling reveals that he's at Redbridge. He's so radical that he's invited to speak in various places (notably a documentary titled Outside the Law: Stories from Guantanamo). -- Hoary (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be the case that he was at Goldsmiths at the time of the 2006 article. I have no idea where he is at this time, and you may be correct that he is now at Redbridge.  I would have no objection to adding a passage to reflect his new place of employment.Dbasemgr69 (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If the passage above is not the one that you want, perhaps you would write below the passage that you do want. -- Hoary (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)