Talk:Kingston University/Archive 2

Charles Ingram, novellist really
Surely while Charles Ingram is a novelist; he is more noted for his conviction in attempting to defraud who wants to be a Millionaire? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattyjroberts (talk • contribs) 14:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * So the article on him suggests. Neither that article nor this one gives any evidence for the claim that he studied at Kingston. -- Hoary (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The WP entry for Charles Ingram refers to his having attended Kingston Polytechnic (the original name of Kingston University, which means that either the entry is wrong or else there's evidence to support the claim. I don't know if that's enough, but here is another reference. Charles Ingram's Deep Siege.  Presumably, the Amazon bio is correct, and probably relates to what appears in the book jacket or the publisher's release.Dbasemgr69 (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's very likely that the Amazon bio comes from the publisher and that the publisher is correct. This is feeble sourcing indeed, but I suppose it's OK in the short term as long as the articles make it explicit. -- Hoary (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Controversies Section
Now that the page is semi-protected for a week, it gives us a chance to reach a consensus as to what should be included in this section. I will start the ball rolling with the proposal that I made to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities. I do not think it is appropriate to list anything in this section that does not directly effect the education offered as that is the primary purpose for a University after all.

So with that in mind I think the following should not be listed and should be removed :


 * Anti Semitic Group on Campus - Not notable, no evidence that Kingston University either new about or supported it.
 * Workplace stress - Again, not notable, every company of this size has personnel issues, no evidence that this effects the university any more than any other similar size university.

I think


 * National Student Survey exaggeration and
 * External examiner controversy

Should stay, however I think that thy should be edited down a bit in accordance with WP:UNDUE.

That leaves Injunction to stop harassment of student I think the bit about the locks being changed and water being turned off should be removed as it is not clear as to what happened and why it happened. But I think that the rest should probably stay as it goes to show actions of the University towards it's students.

The section on the domain name (which I have removed) should likewise not return.

Comments please. Codf1977 (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Codf1977, you say of the "controversies" section: I do not think it is appropriate to list anything in this section that does not directly effect the education offered as that is the primary purpose for a University after all. I have a lot of sympathy with this view. However, a contrary one would hold that one of universities' main purposes (and possibly their main purpose) is to socialize and to provide opportunities for socializing. Certainly a FA on a university such as Dartmouth College has entire sections on "Athletics", "Athletic facilities", "Motto and song", "Nickname, symbol, and mascot" and suchlike, stuff that doesn't seem to me to "directly effect the education offered" (other perhaps than by reducing the time jocks can spend participating in that education). So perhaps you're overly demanding here. -- Hoary (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a valid point, and I may not have made my self totality clear, I am not saying that same principle should be applied to the whole article, just to a section which by it's very nature is going to be negative. WP is not a place to list every little detail of the University and to risk unbalancing the whole article, it is no coincidence that main stream media tend to report more on stories that reflect negatively on organisations than they do on items that reflect positivity. The reasoning behind my suggestion was to try and find a way to decide what should go here (if anything) - for example Itsmejudith writing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities said "One thing it raises for this [WikiProject Universities] project is whether we think it is ever appropriate for a university article to have a "Controversies" section". But back to my point, it is clear that this section has been crafted by a number of IP editors (that may be one in the same actual editor) at least one, if not all, have a clear conflict of intrest. Codf1977 (talk) 10:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind, for our purposes, for something to be controversial, it's not enough that something has simply happened, it has to be reported on by multiple media sources and noted as controversies. The HR stuff should go to start with. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Cameron Scott, you are right. &para; Going back a bit: I don't like "controversies" sections in any article; at the same time, I think that significant controversies should be written up. The "controversies" written up in this article do indeed seem minor. Of course, it could be said that although individually they are indeed minor they add up to something significant. However, it is not for a Wikipedia article or editor to make this synthesis, and neither should a Wikipedia article depend for such a synthesis on a personal or fringe website, or even some newspaper notorious for its tut-tutting over dubious stories of alleged wrongdoing in education. Yet as long as WP articles on universities write up trivia such as mottoes and mascots, putative controversy shouldn't be excluded merely because it has no direct bearing on education proper. (After all the controversies surrounding cover-ups by the Roman Catholic church of sex abuse by its employees don't self-evidently have a direct bearing on the core work of the church, but they are thought to be encyclopedic all the same.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again very valid points, particular the one about the Roman Catholic church, which probably fatally wounds my proposed line. So given that, how would you like to see the Controversies Section on this article ? Codf1977 (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Zap the section that vaguely talks of activity by an allegedly antisemitic group, and the resulting content would I think be acceptable, though it ought to be moved around. -- Hoary (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously happy with that and will remove. Codf1977 (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed a number of university wikipedia entries and have found that there are quite a few with controversy sections not at all dissimilar from the one found in the present entry. The type of controversies, e.g. involving personnel, workplace stress, academic misconduct, race relations, are frequently documented using similar sources. For example, the entry for Wolverhampton University is a good case study.Wolverhampton University On the basis of the way in which other universities are treated, which appears to have formed a model of how the Kingston University page developed, I think that the content of the controversies section in this article should be restored in its entirety to the status of my edit i.e. with the various issues of workplace stress, employment tribunal cases, legal expenses and anti-semitism, etc. restored.Dbasemgr69 —Preceding undated comment added 01:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC).
 * I cordially invite you to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or more succintly: Don't add sewage to the already polluted pond. Citing other examples of poor editing does not mean the editing on this article should be poor; it simply means other articles need to be cleared up as well. Woody (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Have done. But in this case, the preponderance of similar articles include similar controversies sections.  Unless you're prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater, then I respectfully submit that this comparison bears consideration.  It seems strange to me that there has been so much vitriolic focus on the Kingston University controversies section, with no attempt to delete any of the similar sections about other universities.  This suggests to me a NPOV bias on the part of some editors.Dbasemgr69  —Preceding undated comment added 02:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC).


 * I have no problem with editing down the section on National Student Survey and External Examiner in accordance with WP:UNDUE, however, I would submit that there has not been much, if any, coverage of these subjects that could be described as 'favourable' to Kingston University's position. Obviously, I would totally support including any quotes by University officials to rebut the now widely accepted as proven allegations in order to meet the requirements for WP:UNDUE.  Would anyone have a problem with my drafting an edited version for all to consider?67.84.177.67 (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Anti-Semetic Group on Campus
Why has this section of the article been removed? Codfl1997 claims that it is because it shows no evidence of intent on behalf of the university;

Under wikipedia's definition of controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy there is no evidence that intent is required to cause the controversy;

"Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of opinion. The word was coined from the Latin controversia, as a composite of controversus - "turned in an opposite direction," from contra - "against" - and vertere - to turn, or versus (see verse), hence, "to turn against.""

So I dont see why the Anti-Semetic group on campus section was removed;

Further more in the section that I contributed to this controversy section it tried its best to be balanced and fair, including Kingstons statement from what happened when they where found to be operating on the campus.

--Mattyjroberts (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason for it's removal is not as simple as you make out. If you have a read of some of the other comments, you will see that as well as there is no evidence that Kingston University either new about or supported it, there is no indication that other than Newsnight anyone else reported the story or that it was reported as a controversy. Also there is doubt as to the "Anti-Semetic" vs "Anti-Israel" status of the group. Codf1977 (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I have highlighted that in my above question that controversy doesnt require Intent Yet your claiming it does? According to the wikipedia article on Hizib Ut Tahir http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizb_ut-Tahrir#The_anti-semitism_controversy claims that the group and individuals related to the groups where prosecuted for "Hate Crimes" in Denmark and in Germany the group is banned from being anti-semetic.

Furthermore it is claimed by you; that only issues related to Kingstons provision of education are in the public interest and therefore should only be covered by Wikipedia. I would argue that the provision of the environment to work and study for students and potential students is in the public interest. Im an former student, although atheist and I would certainly be interested in knowing if Hizib Ut Tahir had operated on the campus.

We have to be careful from two elements here; that the Kingston University Article doesnt become an outlet for people to air their unsourced grievances in relation to the university, but also so it doesnt become a marketing outlet for the university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattyjroberts (talk • contribs) 19:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I would add that in the Universities and Antisemitism Wikipedia article, there is an interesting reference to the activities of Hizb ut Tahrir on the Kingston University campus sourced in the Report of the Parliamentary All-Party Inquiry into Anti-Semitism. It seems that this would constitute compliance with Wikipedia's multiple sourcing policy.Dbasemgr69 (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason for the attention on this page, and for me adding it to my watch list, is that it was clear to other editors that one or more editiors were editing the section against WP:NPOV and WP:COI thoes editors raised this and others have reviewed it. Can you povide links to other sources claiming that the actions of Hizb ut Tahrir at this Uni were called a 'Controversy' or was it just Newsnight - and did they use that word ? You mention below Also any links to any UK reports to any Hizb ut Tahrir anti-semitism would also be helpful to un-involved editors. Codf1977 (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It would have been helpful to have posted a link to that report - what it says on the top of Page 39 is

"A 2003 BBC Newsnight documentary exposed their activity at Kingston University and they have also been active at UCE Birmingham and Queen Mary, University of London amongst others
 * so that does not add much to the debate.Codf1977 (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hizb ut Tahrir has been convicted of criminal acts involving anti-semitism in Denmark and elsewhere. As further evidence of the legitimacy of this assertion, I refer you to the following article appearing in the Times The wrong voice for Muslim Britain.Clearly this is but one of literally hundreds of articles documenting the anti-semitic views and acts of this organisation.Dbasemgr69 (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You say that "Hizb ut Tahrir has been convicted of criminal acts" - all I see is that some people in Denmark who are also members of Hizb ut Tahrir have been convicted. Is there any evidence that the reps of Hizb ut Tahrir at Kingston Uni have been convicted of anything ? Codf1977 (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

According to the same report quoted above Hizib Ut Tahir is listed under the NUS no platform policy so would therefore be considered a controversy for them to be present at an NUS affiliated university. I dont think the BBC would have a particular axe to grind with the reporting of the presence of Hizib on the campus. and should be considered a neutral, reliable source--Mattyjroberts (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you can not come to that conculsion, if the WP article is to call it a controversy, others must have called it so before. So with out reliable sources showing others think it is a controversy it should not be called one by a WP article.Codf1977 (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

But by virtue of it appearing on a current affairs program such as Newsnight it is by definition a 'controversy' they dont dont show non events on the news, The BBC is a reliable source and their appearance on the university campus is a violation of the NUS's no platform policy, Your being woefully inconsistant and have a pretty fluid definition of reliable source. First you argue that there is insufficent evidence to judge anti-semetism and then when they appear on the NUS no platform list; negating any requirement for the article to prove anti-semetism you change that argument to say the BBC is not a reliable source. If the BBC, parlamentary reports or wikipedia itself does not constitute a reliable source; What would, in your eyes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattyjroberts (talk • contribs) 23:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but again you are wrong, something being reported does not may it a 'controversy'. You are correct that the BBC is normaly a reliable source and I never said that it was not. I would on the other hand say that the NUS is NOT one and so you can't use them to 'prove' anything. I have not changed my argument, it still remains, that no one has ever called this a 'controversy', the BBC may have reported it but there is no evidence to say they or anyone else called it a 'controversy'. The Parliamentary report, just mentioned the Newsnight report, and did not call it a 'controversy'. If you wish to list this as a 'controversy' please provide reliable sources that refer to it as a 'controversy' is what I am saying. Codf1977 (talk) 03:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I Wasn't calling the NUS a reliable source; far from it, I was saying that Hizibs appearance at an NUS affiliated institution contrary to the NUS's no platform policy is in itself a controversy. Thus negating any need to prove 'anti-semetic' attitudes on coming from Hizib. Their apperance on a 'no platform' list im not using to suggest that Hizib is 'anti semitic' but that their appearance on a university campus contrary to a 'no platform' policy that the universities student union is party to through their NUS affiliation is in itself controvercial. Hizib ut tahir could be replaced with Barney the Dinosaur and if Barney the Dinosaur was on an NUS No Platform list his appearance on a university would still be controvercial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattyjroberts (talk • contribs) 11:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if you agree that the NUS is not a reliable source, how can you infer anything from a list they produce. The list as I understand it is one born out of the NUS as a political organisation and nothing more. However that is moot as you have ignored my point - to call it a 'controversy' you need to demonstrate others are calling that, and not just you. Codf1977 (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I will break down the argument into more simple language

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattyjroberts (talk • contribs) 21:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Kingston University Student Union is affiliated with the NUS
 * 2) The NUS has a 'No Platform' policy meaning that there is a list of organisations banned from appearing with the student union or at a student union function.
 * 3) Hizib ut Tahir is on that list
 * 4) Hizib ut Tahir was found to be operating within KUSU's islamic society contrary to the 'no platform' policy that KUSU is a party to and has signed up to.
 * 5) The appearance on newsnight shows that it did cause a controversy, they do not report people walking their dog on Newsnight because walking ones dog is not a controvercial act only news-worthy events appear on the news
 * I fully agree with Mattyjroberts on this one for the reasons he cites. WP's controversy policy does NOT mandate that a topic is specifically referred to by that term.  Any subject involving matters of religion or politics that deals with matters of opinion can be considered to be a controversy.  As long as the subject itself is properly sourced, that is sufficient.  In this case, the BBC Newsnight source is more than adequate, as is the supplementary source of the Report on Parliamentary Committee on Anti-Semitism, which would not have referenced the BBC Newsnight programme, unless it considered it a reliable source, albeit one that is controversial, rather than entirely agreed upon by all members of society (i.e. Hizb ut Tahrir members might not agree that their organisation is anti-semitic).  I must further add that by having a number of members convicted of criminal offences and by having been banned by a variety of governments (i.e. Germany, Denmark, etc), that would suffice to qualify the organisation as 'criminal' in nature -- to be a member in these countries is to commit a criminal offence, therefore, members are not likely to openly admit to membership.  The reasons for this banning is precisely because the organisation advocates anti-semitic positions, including violence towards Jews.   The highly respected Indian think tank, South Asia Analysis Groupspecifically refers to the reasons for this banning when it states that Hizb ut Tahrir has been banned because of its anti-semitic propaganda. A recent article in the Times also refers to the opinion of the then Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Grayling, who points out that their Bangladeshi sister organisation calls for the mobilisation of armed forces to get rid of the Jewish entity, and the article itself refers to the fact that Hizb ut Tahrir is banned in German for anti-semitic activity.  This is clearly highly notable, highly significant and definitely controversial.Dbasemgr69 (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The pair (?) of you do not get this - who other than the BBC ran with the story ? - the whole NUS thing is just a red herring. Simply put at this time nothing has been provided to show that this item is either notable or a controversy. A news item on any news report or in any publication does not equate to a controversy. WP is not a place to list EVERY news report on every organisation, so you need to show that it was a notable event reported by a number of sources and to call it a controversy it must be shown others have called it one or that by the amount of coverage it is clear it is one. Codf1977 (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Codf1977, you don't seem to get it. There have been a number of examples of reliable sourcing of coverage on Hizb ut Tahrir's anti-semitic activity and on its activity at Kingston University.  There have.  On this basis it is a controversy worthy of inclusion.  I'm not prepared to argue this further with you, as you clearly have such biases against identifying Hizb ut Tahrir as anti-semitic, and against considering its presence on university campuses as noteworthy, that no amount of reliable sourcing will be able to convince you.  I submit that other editors will support a different view.Dbasemgr69 (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, please list the "examples of reliable sourcing of coverage on Hizb ut Tahrir's anti-semitic activity and on its activity at Kingston University." Codf1977 (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now that we've beaten to death this subject of Hizb ut Tahrir and its presence and activity on the campus, as well as through a university-hired consultant, who was hired AFTER the BBC Newsnight debacle, thereby suggesting that Kingston University didn't learn from its prior mistakes, I suggest we come to a consensus view that restores these issues to the article, since they are all properly sourced, they are clearly relevant to the educational experience/lifestyle at the university, and are definitely controversial.
 * No, I see nothing here to change the consensus view that is should be removed Codf1977 (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Secondly, I think we should come to a consensus that the issue of workplace stress/bullying are significant. There are separate Wikipedia entries on the subjects of workplace stress and Workplace Bullying, thereby indicating that the subjects are sufficiently important and noteworthy. Clearly when a staff member commits a widely publicized suicide specifically because of workplace stress, as was the case with Prof Diana Winstanley, there is a noteworthy problem at the institution that warrants devoting a section of an article to it.

Thirdly, the matters of the National Student Survey and External Examiner fraud is not a short term or insignificant problem. In fact, for example, this issue of the Survey has found quite recent mainstream press coverage more than two years after it first emerged, as a result of new published findings that single out Kingston University, along with several UK universities for having engaged in such irregularities. I can't see how we could not build a consensus for including such a widely publicized series of events.

As far as the Employment Tribunal spending, clearly, the issue of public spending continues to be noteworthy, and with Kingston University having spent the most of any UK university in the past three years, with a most unusual dispute with a single employee taking up approximately 3/4 of the money, and with a judicial finding of 'underhand' behavior by its management in its industrial relations, it seems to me that such matters are quite important to the university's history, one which only began as such in 1992. On this basis I think that we can come to a consensus whereby this section can be restored in some form.

Absent a consensus on any of these matters, I suggest we move to some form of mediation or arbitration in line with Wikipedia's policy for doing soDbasemgr69 (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Feel free to. Codf1977 (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Dbasemgr69. But let's make any decision reflect the educated opinions of people whose editing histories are longer and wider than yours. -- Hoary (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Im not even arguing that Hizib ut tahir is anti-semetic anymore, I can accept without proper knowlege on the subject that that maybe a rather subjective opinion, What I am saying is much simpler. Kingston Students Union in its agreements with the NUS, Agreed to not give a platform to Hizib ut tahir (as well as other organisations, such as the BNP) Hizib ut tahir was found to be operating within Kingston Students Union Islamic society that in itself is controvercial.
 * But you may feel that, but you need to show others do as well. Codf1977 (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

-   - Before, you go around intimating that i'm a sock puppet with the line 'The pair (?)', I suggest you read the wikipedia's policy on Sockpuppetary and assume good faith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith I have declared any potential conflict of interest on this discussion page and on my profile, I used to edit on an matt_world account but I forgot the password and it was done on an E-mail address I know longer had access to.
 * You should then declare on your User page that account name so that others can see the link, I am assuming good faith, however two WP:SPA accounts that turn up just after it becomes clear that an IP editor has a WP:COI and has been editing in a WP:POV way - you must admit it looks odd. Codf1977 (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

-   - The article swings from two polar extremes one where the main body of the article has been written like a perspectus of the university there is an excessive amount of unsourced, statements; biased language and marketing weazel words and the controversies section that has been influenced by someone with a clear grevance. But considerabally less attention has been paid to the main body of the article than the controvercies section which leads me to question is there any potential conflict of interest between the other article editors as well as from Dbasemanger69  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattyjroberts (talk • contribs) 00:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No WP:COI here. Codf1977 (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Dont edit controversies section until dispute has been resolved
Now the article has been unprotected it would be appropriate for none of us involved in the dispute to make further edits to the controvercies section until some sort of conscensus has been achieved.

I think the controvercies section should be more broadly named criticism's and controvercies.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattyjroberts (talk • contribs) 00:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with chnageing it's name, except that, if it was used as a way of adding minor WP:POV stories . Codf1977 (talk) 04:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Would adding such a story about Hizib's presence on campus fall under your definition of a minor Criticism or controversy? I have an idea on how the controversy section could be reworked if I drafted it here and then it could be approved by another editor to check that there is no COI's?

--Mattyjroberts (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes it would, as dispite requests for more sources, it seems only one source ran the story, and therefore one would have to say that it was minor. As for your idea for how to rework the section, that is indeed the correct way forward i.e for anyone with a WP:COI to propose a change on the Talk Page and let an other editor without any WP:COI to make it (you may wish to make use of Template:Request edit). Codf1977 (talk) 07:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Having located additional reliable sources on Hizb ut Tahrir and other radical Islamic activity, I have restored and expanded this section. I trust this will resolve this issue once and for all.Dbasemgr69 (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry but that does not resolve it, one extra ref does not make this "issue" notable. As you have a WP:COI (see here) you should refrain from editing the article and instead propose changes on the talk page for others to view first. Codf1977 (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no conflict of interest. Your accusation is entirely unfounded and will, therefore, be disregarded.  Wikipedia is not the place to list many, many, sources, as you would have me do. The multiple reliable sources I have provided are more than adequate by any reasonable editor's standard. As I have stated previously, you, on the other hand, would not be satisfied no matter how many reliable sources were listed, so I shall not attempt to do so, even though I have them at hand.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbasemgr69 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it is not only my accusation, but that of another editors, that you do have a WP:COI - There is nothing to show that the event is notiable and besides there was consensus to remove it and no consensus to put it back.Codf1977 (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you and Hoary have been the only editors to make WP:COI accusations, and these are unsupported and unproven, as well as transparently lacking in NPOV. The coverage in multiple major mainstream press sources is adequate to ensure that the entries are notable, however you have not specified which of the entries you object to.  Is it the entire section on Issues, the section on Extremist Groups on Campus or what?

Every effort has been made by at least two different editors to respond positively to meet your demands for further sourcing and proof of notability and accuracy. Each time, you expand your requirements. What is your axe to grind against mainstream press reports that are critical of Islamic extremist groups? Please declare any conflicts of interest. Now, you've chosen to engage in an edit war when an editor tries to move the article forward. Your efforts have amounted to Vandalism in the sense that you have unreasonably blocked the proper development of the article. This is why I have now submitted a request for protection of the article till this dispute can be resolved by proper administrative authority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbasemgr69 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My requirements are simple, show that the "Extremist Groups on Campus" issue is notable, if you read back you will notice not only Hoary and I have made that point. Your contention that my edits are Vandalism, shows that you do not understand WP:Vandalism. As for any WP:COI I think the evidence is there as per WP:DUCK to conclude there is one. Codf1977 (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected on the use of the term "Vandalism" -- what you have done falls more correctly into the WP:TEND or WP:DIS domain. I consider that I've shown that the Extremist Groups on Campus issue is notable, as have other editors (e.g. Mattyjroberts). I realize you thin there is evidence for a WP:COI, but just because you have a suspicion doesn't make it so.Dbasemgr69 (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You have not shown that it is, and as for Mattyjroberts, he (as he admits) has a WP:COI here.Codf1977 (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the request for protection. -- Hoary (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed the recent history of this section, and it seems that there is a rather vitriolic exchange of views taking place among editors, with personal attacks launched from various directions. In looking at the substance of the disagreement, however, I would tend to come down on the side of finding the reasons for inclusion of content about the incidence of Antisemitic groups or individuals to be a compelling basis for retaining this section, albeit with some relabeling possibly in order. The citations are very much mainstream and reliable press sources, and those that are viewed by some editors as more controversial sources, are nonetheless notable. For example, the Westminster Journal reference is, upon examination linked to an internet security expert and journalist with his own WP entry, Dominic Whiteman, which suggests both reliability and notability. The other topics in the 'Issues' section seem entirely appropriate and consistent with what is seen as notable with respect to other UK universities. It would seem that some editors have an axe to grind in wanting to protect at all costs the positive image of Kingston University, whereas, it would be better to have the article reflect a more even-handed view of this institution's positive and negative attributes.Catface1965 (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It is nice some even handed-ness has been brought back to the page. My opinion was that there seemed to be some kind personal vendetta against Kingston University from certain editors with the massive controversy section. My last check at the University of East Anglia page had no mention of the controversial climate change report so why there was a vendetta website against the University's Vice-chancellor is anyone's guess.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.163.138 (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

EP
Editprotected

Please make the protection notice less obtrusive by changing Pp-dispute ->   Fei noh a   Talk, My master 18:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That template is there for information- people will likely want to know why they can;t edit it. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Issues/Injunction to stop harassment of student
This section currently reads (only change - converted ref's into links):

In 2004, the Kingston-upon-Thames County Court issued an injunction barring Kingston University from continuing to harass a disabled postgraduate student, Francois Greeff. The University first expelled Greeff for alleged health and safety breaches, then allegedly turned off water in his residence hall and twice changed the locks leading to his room.(same ref) On 11 October 2005 Ruth Deech, acting for the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, ruled that Greeff had been wrongfully expelled.(ref : Office for the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, Case Number OIA/01547/05)

Four issues with this, firstly it is not clear that Kingston Uni was in court when the injunction was granted and therefore may not have had a chance to defend itself at that time. Secondly the injunction was lifted a soon after see and that is not reported. Thirdly there appears to be some doubt surrounding how and why the water was turned off and why his locks were changed. Finally a quick check finds nothing on this other than the two T.H.E articles and Howard Fredrics website.

Recommendations ? Codf1977 (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Its a weight thing. I would say that it is not now a current or notable issue. Times Higher Education is a reliable source, but this is not exactly one of the most important stories it has ever carried. Deech's ruling is a primary source. Were we to cover this item then we must use both the THE reports, not just the earlier one. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I Agree it is a weight issue, given the lack of coverage outside the Times Higher Education, I would have to agree that it is not, and does not appear to have ever been, notable. There could be issues regarding the issuing of the injunction given how quickly it was lifted, and a student being expelled and wining a subsequent appeal again does not to me seem notable especially given the lack of any coverage of that. Obviously I am prepared to reconsider if someone can show coverage else ware.Codf1977 (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Following the expiry of the the protection - any objections to removal of this then on the grounds of lack of notability of the issue. Codf1977 (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed this section, though happy for it to be replaced if it can be shown to have been notable and is reworded in a more balanced way. Codf1977 (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Archiving this Talk page
This page is now over the 100 k mark and it is now recommended that it is archived - see Help:Archiving a talk page.

Unless any one objects, I am planning to set up MiszaBot to archive this page as follows :



which will move threads older than 90 days to the archive, leaving atleast 2 behind.

Codf1977 (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Go for it. -- Hoary (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ - will add once the bot does the first archive. Codf1977 (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Notable alumni
I removed Carme Chacon from the list because she studied a postgraduate course in Kingston University (Canada), not the one in Kingston upon Thames —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.221.44 (talk) 08:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"Coat of arms"
I'm puzzled by the coat of arms. I don't see this image on the University's website. It was added to commons by someone who claims to license it as his/her "own work". Is this for real? Does anyone recognize this image? I wouldn't be surprised if it is straight out of Harry Potter. Amusing, perhaps. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

another controversy (or, it seems, not)
Lorifredrics -- a name that perhaps not coincidentally resembles that of the wife of Howard Fredrics -- is keen to add a section about a "controversy".

Any "controversy" worth the name will generate newspaper articles, etc. None has been proffered.

The latest readdition adds two new "sources" to what Itsmejudith and I had previously deleted. One is an unspecified article in a 1998 issue of the Times (which might be relevant to the doctor in question, but whose placement is odd at best) and the other is a PDF that merely lists the doctor's name for unspecified reasons.

As I see it, Lorifredrics is merely dumping material that might possibly lead to a controversy under a title labeling it a controversy. Well, let's see the controversy. If there's a controversy (and not merely in blogs and so forth, but in newspapers or the THES or similar) then let's look at it. -- Hoary (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Article in the Times is referenced and quoted extensively in other source provided from the FOI request site. Kingston University and the GMC have acknowledged the veracity of the information contained in this section via a source that is well established and reliable - http://www.whatdotheyknow.com, which provides a forum for requesters and responders to FOI requests.  A  controversy does not have to have received note in MSM, but simply has to be a subject that would create a controversy were it to become widely known.  Clearly, hiring a professor with a record of serious sexual misconduct with teenage girls to teach teenage students at a large university would be considered a "controversial" decision on the part of Kingston University or any university for that matter.  The source showing the "Professor"'s name contains specific information relating to his being among the doctors struck off of the register of accepted BUPA consultants (there is obviously a reason he was struck off), a fact that supports the controversial nature of his appointment as "visiting professor."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorifredrics (talk • contribs) 03:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * A controversy does not have to have received note in MSM, but simply has to be a subject that would create a controversy were it to become widely known. So a controversy simply has to be a subject that would create what simply has to be a subject that would create what simply has to be a subject etc etc etc.


 * The small matter of recursion aside: No. There may be "no smoke without fire", but there's no controversy without smoke. So where's the smoke? If there isn't any and you feel the need to generate some, then please do so on some other website.


 * Exciting news! Lorifredrics has kindly divulged that
 * There is now evidence that has been gathered of payments made to you [i.e. me, Hoary] for your Wikipedia editing services. This evidence will shortly be released in a public forum.
 * Although some mention of "reputation manager" would have made the prospect even more mysterious and thrilling. -- Hoary (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Legal Controversies section
It is clear that is a user with a very big WP:COI is trying to add a section about Dr. Fredrics that is not of encyclopaedic note and I Oppose it's addition. Mtking (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Obviously, I disagree, as this matter has appeared in many news publications, and most recently has been raised by a member of Parliament. I'd say that anything that is part of Hansard is sufficiently noteworthy.  It appears that  has an overly strong view in opposition to anything remotely negative being published about Kingston University, no matter how noteworthy.  I suggest that this be resolved by more reasonable people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorifredrics (talk • contribs) 00:32, July 14, 2011


 * The quantity of text that Lorifredrics is trying to add certainly strikes me as grossly excessive for what seems to have been a pretty trivial incident and only indirectly connected to the university, albeit a senior member of staff. No more than a single sentence on this is reasonable in my view, and even that is borderline. The COI issue is of course also a problem, particularly for something like this which is contentious.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The University funded the entire set of cases, to the tune of some £500,000 of public money on behalf of the University's chief executive. A reading of the speech by David Burrowes, MP clearly demonstrates involvement of the University itself in this matter.  Calling a matter that reaches the floor of Parliament "trivial" in an extended speech and questions to a Minister is inverse hyperbole.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorifredrics (talk • contribs) 01:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that we should not have a section "Controversies" anyway, per WP:Uni style. This information should be incorporated into Academic profile or Academic life. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've screened the aforementioned contribution, and corrected it for proper inclusion, and as I have no conflict of interest here, that should no longer be a factor.  BE  TA  22:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, I'm troubled by (talk)'s edit history in the context of his/her objections to this edit. Most of this user's edits concern a university, a law firms and large corporations, suggesting the possibility that this person tends to act on behalf of the reputations and other interests of such organizations rather than as an impartial contributor.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorifredrics (talk • contribs) 02:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please comment on edits, not editors. If you have a problem with an editor's contributions, feel free to open up an request for comment on them. Merely saying you're "troubled" by their edits doesn't allow you to ignore the discussion, or impugn their contributions here. Dayewalker (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've most certainly not ignored the discussion, as is plain from my comments. Their background is, nevertheless, quite relevant to the discussion.  Indeed other editors have repeatedly commented about my background.  Fair is fair.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorifredrics (talk • contribs) 15:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Unsubstantiated assertions about editors, based on nothing other than you feeling 'troubled', are not 'fair' full stop. Given your chosen username, it is entirely reasonable to assume a conflict of interest on your part. I suggest that you stick to the subject of this talk page - how our article on Kingston University can be improved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * With due respect, AndyTheGrump, my assertions are based on a review of the editors previous edits for possible COI. That review is what I find troubling.--Lorifredrics (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You have already been told that if you have actual evidence of such things, you must bring them up in the appropriate place - not just keep repeating them here. If you persist in making such assertions here, I will ask that appropriate action be taken - this is likely to result in you being blocked from editing. Article talk pages are not a forum for maligning other contributors, and Wikipedia has policy requirements regarding their use.
 * Now, do you have anything you wish to discuss with regard to article content? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The user [Rangoon11] has a history of being the largest editor of two prominent media law firms and of two UK universities. This suggests a possible undeclared COI.  Why is he/she suddenly so interested in preventing editing of Kingston University's entry?  And if editors believe it's acceptable to bring up assertions about me in this section, then there is no reason for me not to raise similar concerns (read: not assertions).
 * http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/articleinfo/index.php?article=clifford+chance&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&begin=&end=
 * http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/articleinfo/index.php?article=DLA+Piper&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&begin=&end=
 * http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/articleinfo/index.php?article=Warwick+University&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&begin=&end=
 * http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/articleinfo/index.php?article=University+College+London&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&begin=&end=--Lorifredrics (talk) 04:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(OD) As I told you earlier, if you have a problem with an editor open an request for comment. Rangoon11's edit counter shows him having edited 3714 different pages. Cherry picking four of those articles makes no case at all, and even if it did, this isn't the place. Dayewalker (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've opened a COI Noticeboard entry for this editor, so hopefully this will address my concerns. --Lorifredrics (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Lori, you've shown no substantial evidence of a COI between Rangoon11 and Wikipedia. All "evidence" you have provided has been circumstantial at best.  I do however, see a clear conflict of interest between you and anything on WP regarding your husband which is further proven by your attacks on others who oppose your edits.  I strongly suggest finding another area of WP to edit.  Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 18:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My opinion doesn't appear to matter at this point. A topic ban at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents seem inevitable.  Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 18:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that consensus exists for the section on the domain name exists for it inclusion, it is covered at Scott's page. Mt king  (edits)  22:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree - it is only marginally relevant to the University. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * First, in reference to Rangoon's concerns, It should be pointed out that lengthy does not indicate that a subject is more prominent than another. In this case, it means that the subject is simply more complicated than others to explain. Second, it is not simply the fact that it involves the vice chancellor, but that his actions impacted the reputation of the university in a negative way, hence the controversy. To the point where a member of parliament was aware of it, and let's face it, politicians are fairly miopic, it would take a lot for him to take note of it.


 * David Burrows makes a good point as well when he remarks on how easily someone could gain control of this particular institution and further his own ends, to the detriment of taxpayers. That's why they call it a controversy, because people don't know who or what to blame and everyone involved winds up "wearing it" in the end. Whether or not it is logically relevant to the university itself, it is undeniable that the controversy affected the university's reputation in a negative way.  BE  TA  23:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Whether Burrows' point is a good one is by the way. You say that it is undeniable that the controversy affected the university's reputation in a negative way. It's deniable. &para; For one thing, was there even a controversy of any note? The passage you're keen to add reads: This incident ultimately resulted in some minor negative publicity for the University when cited as an example by Member of Parliament David Burrows. But the only news coverage cited is an article in the local newspaper Surrey Comet. Oh, redlinked. Well, here is the paper. As I write, its top story is "Yes We Can-Can: Kingston orchestra to inspire in tonight's concert". Very, very small potatoes. -- Hoary (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You keep talking about news coverage as if it were the only source imaginable. The fact that this particular case was debated in the house of commons, makes it clearly relevant. Anyways, notability isn't the standard here, it's reliable sources. Certainly a representative of the people can speak to the people's belief that the university is part of a conflict in this matter.  BE  TA  11:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not questioning the MP's right to speak in the House. But just what do you mean by the word "controversy"? (And do you have any idea of the number of matters that are brought up in Parliament?) -- Hoary (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
Considering the policies WP:DRNC, WP:BRD, WP:REVEXP, WP:BRDWRONG, what are we doing wrong, and how do we get back to proper discussion?  BE  TA  12:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sign your posts, perhaps? In any event: the edit has been rejected on the grounds that it is insufficiently important to warrant inclusion on the university's page (thus WP:UNDUE); it is already present on Peter Scott's page, where it belongs.  So let's drop the bit about "no explanation" (you just overlooked it).  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomoskedasticity sums just as well as I could. But I would like to add that this is an encyclopaedia least we forget, not an arena to either promote or discredit anyone or anything. The bar for adding anything that is designed to show the subject of an article in a negative way (such as this) has to be set high, yes it was covered in the local paper, yes a MP mentioned it in parliamentary proceedings, buy only to make his point in a debate unrelated to either Scott or the university and most of his information appears to be sourced from Fredrics in an unprompted e-mail, and given parliamentary protection he does not need to check the facts before he says anything. Mt  king  (edits)  12:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Considering the policies WP:DRNC, WP:BRD, WP:REVEXP, WP:BRDWRONG,.... Not only is none of these a policy, none is even a guideline. (Three are essays, and one is part of an essay.) &para; So much for the "wikilawyering". Googling reveals that Howard Fredrics does not like Peter Scott or Kingston University. Either his dislike of Kingston University or the tussle with Scott over a domain name or both conceivably tell(s) us something significant about Kingston University. And maybe there is a "controversy" worth the name. But we haven't been given evidence for either. -- Hoary (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact that the university itself considers this damaging to their reputation ("and are damaging to the reputation of both the university and the named individuals") indicates that this really is a controversy that is linked to the university. The way in which they dealt with it may have been by pretending it was about using his name, but it really originates with the university proper.  BE  TA  13:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In answer to the cited policy WP:UNDUE, the policy indicates that the points of view about the subject would be in question, not the subject itself. There are no points of view discussed in the contribution, simply facts about the controversy. Whether anyone believes the university is involved or not is not commented on.  BE  TA  13:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I find it hard to understand what you're saying, but it seems to assume that there was a "controversy". The Guardian deals with British university affairs in some depth. It shows no sign of there ever having been any controversy. -- Hoary (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Lastly, The question of The MPs remarks in commons. If the information he was given, was in fact false, this would still constitute a controversy because of the potential for others to believe in the information, and the fact that the MP himself believed it was veracitous enough to use it in a commons debate.  BE  TA  13:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope. If it is a controversy, evidence for this will be available - your opinion about what would have happened is utterly irrelevant: we base articles on evidence from reliable sources, not on the psychic powers of contributors. The only coverage this supposed 'controversy' has had is apparently an article in the Surrey Comet. Unless you can find other WP:RS (not scanned documents - RS is published), attempts to portray it as more notable (i.e. actually noticed!) than it is, including it in the KU article constitutes undue weight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Is "veracitous" the British answer to "truthy"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoary (talk • contribs) 14:08, 17 July 2011


 * Apart from the undue weight and manufactured "controversy", the material added was factually wrong in at least two three places and would need to be changed if restored (1) "The website, which is owned by a senior lecturer at the University" The owner of the website was not a lecturer at Kingston at the time of the case, having lost his job two years earlier. (2) "a subsequent criminal charge for harassment... was promptly dismissed as well". It was not "promptly dismissed". The former lecturer was convicted of the charge. The case was overturned and a year later he was acquitted at a retrial, although the conviction on a charge of public order offence was upheld.. (3) " [the WIPO decision] highlighted the fact that Scott had not accumulated sufficient goodwill under the name, "Sir Peter Scott" to qualify for an unregistered trademark". The report did not "highlight" anything. That is the view of the WP editor who added it. The out-of-context quoted phrase about the complainant not having acquired sufficient "good will" was used in the sense of the complainant not having previously used the name in commerce or received significant financial gain from the name itself. Voceditenore (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the case was not covered by the the mainstream press but was covered by Times Higher Education Supplement, a specialist publication. Voceditenore (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine I concede. These are mostly very good points. Some of them are incorrect assumptions. As an example, notability does not in fact apply to information within an article, as someone alluded to. And no, mainstream press is not a prerequisite for weight. Sorry to say, that one made me laugh.

No more additions unless and until more sources are found. However, we could have saved all this kerfuffle if someone hadn't made a low blow about conflict of interest. It's a pretty flimsy case of it. You should not do that again. Use your words, with real reasons next time, instead of attacking other well meaning editors. :o)  BE  TA  20:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What "low blow" and "flimsy case" of COI are you talking about? The confirmed one? Dayewalker (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This one, perhaps? -- Hoary (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Or this one? Voceditenore (talk) 06:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In relation to additional sources justifying further edits, demonstrating notability of events/cases/issues, and demanding inclusion of these events/cases/issues the following links may be of interest - http://www.manhattanchronicles.com/The-Dead-Sea-Scrolls-Scandal.php http://www.latinfinance.com/DailyBriefArchivePrint.aspx?ID=71778 http://www.managingip.com/Search-Results.html?Home=true&Keywords=fredrics --Lorifredrics (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The first briefly discusses Fredrics/Scott as part of a very different discussion; the second has one short sentence about the matter; the third may or may not say something but you have to pay money in order to find out. I'm not much whelmed. -- Hoary (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (Coming from ANI) I would have to agree with Hoary and others here that based on the evidence thus far, this looks like a relatively insignificant controversy affecting the university that doesn't belong in the article. Incidentally, people have already made some good points about the parliament thing, but another point is that unless there is something unusual about the UK parliament, and I don't think there is, mention in parliament isn't that big a deal. MPs say things in parliament all the time about a large variety of topics. It's their job. Unless what they said merited coverage in RSS it's largely irrelevant when it comes to determining significance. Even if you haven't been to parliament (I have) or watched coverage of parliamentary proceedings (ditto), this should be obvious from reading coverage that a lot of the stuff said in parliament is not really that interesting or significant. Nil Einne (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Third person has joined the fight.
So, it looks like the consensus is shifting to including the contribution. , this may get interesting.  BE  TA  03:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Finding it hard to take that new SPA edits to seriously given this edit. Mt  king  (edits)  03:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

And the recent discussion at AN/I makes it very clear that consensus has *not* changed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Tuition Fee Section
Two issues, first "Tuition Fee Hike" seams somewhat POV and secondly not sure that this is worthy of encyclopaedic note. Mt king  (edits)  12:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Only source for this is a Local paper. Mt  king  (edits)  12:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that it's important enough to include.  Teapot  george Talk  12:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So lets get this right :
 * it's put its prices up to the same level as one third of the the other UK universities, Two local MPs had a meeting the the University and gave a quote and the Student Union President also gave a quote all of which only makes a local paper.
 * it "featured in the bottom 10 institutions in terms of employment" sourced to national papers.
 * all of this takes over 7% of the page. I can see reasons for keeping the "featured in the bottom 10 institutions in terms of employment" bit; but the fees bit is WP:RECENT and WP:UNDUE in its current form.  Mt  king  (edits)  12:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It is however a sector wide issue so I moved it to the history section so it can see in the right context. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The edits you are trying to make are not relevant to the topic, the fact that other universities are doing this too is irrelevant. You wouldn't put "Kenny rogers is a singer, just like michael jackson is a singer" on Kenny's article would you?  BE  TA  13:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * But that's not the statement being made, the statement indicates that their move was in-line with a third of their competitors within the sector - this places the move within a sector wide context, without it, an unfamiliar reader might think that they simply one day decided to do it out of the blue. By that logic, the fact that they are amongst the top worst universities for employment should not be included because of mention of other universities. However, that paints this organisation in a negative light, so on the current pattern of your edits, I guess you are ok with including that? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your statement makes it look like some sort of peer pressure from other universities, they made their own decision based on their internal situation, and if you think it's peer pressure, then find some evidence of this.  BE  TA  13:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It says nothing of the sort, it's simply a statement of fact - they took decision X, in the content of the sector, YY number of universities also took this decision. Says nothing about motives. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I repeat, the whole section is an WP:UNDUE section aimed at trying to show the university in a bad light and should be removed unless reliable sources other than the one local paper call it one. Mt  king  (edits)  13:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well I think the raise of tutiton fees should be mentioned but not in that section and certainly not in the slanted lacking in context way that BETA wants to present it - anyone else? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "In April 2011, Kingston University joined 47 of 123 other English universities in raising its fees to the maximum allowable ₤9000 per annum" in the history section would do it for me. Mt  king  (edits)  13:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, me too!  BE  TA  13:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's good, straight to the point and also places it within a sector context. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I will do it then. Mt  king  (edits)  13:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And maybe hike has a derogatory connotation where you're from, but in most English speaking places it simply means a significant increase in a short period of time.  BE  TA  13:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm from the UK - Hike is not as NPOV as "increase" or even "raise". --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Please See definition #2 at wiktionary.  BE  TA  13:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit Protected

 * - The idea of protecting for a short while for edit warring, is not so you immediately throw in an editprotected template, but that you all take the week's break to discuss here and come up with a consensus of how the page should be edited when the protection expires.  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Since it was protected while I was making the change agreed to above :

As per above, please remove the section "Tuition fee increase:" and add under history :


 * In April 2011, Kingston University joined 47 of 123 other English universities in raising its fees to the maximum allowable ₤9000 per annum.

Mt king  (edits)  13:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd tend to agree with that. I fail to see the "controversy" here. Like  47 other UK universities it's raising its fees to £9000. The university isn't keen on it. Obviously the students aren't either, although note that the Student Union rep's quote was taken out of context. He actually said "It's not a fair level of fees, but that's not the university’s fault". This whole bit is like the "dog bites man" story. Incidentally, "hike" isn't derogatory or POV, but it's unencyclopedic style. This is (or at least is supposed to be) an encyclopedia not a badly written newspaper. I've made other copyedits to that effect, apparently the last before the article was locked. Voceditenore (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Can an admin please undo the vandalism edit made by User:Avanu, It's unwarranted, and it makes for a very unencyclopedic feel to the section. As you can see none of the bold edits made to this point amounted in removal of this magnitude. Though we were in a spirited discussion on talk (there were disputes about where the information should go, title of section etc.) there wasn't consensus to remove that much.  BE  TA  14:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Please note that we did not decide to remove the tuition fee section. we only decided to move the line about 47 of 123 to the history section. there is no mention above of removing the section under controversy. Thank you.  BE  TA  13:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think it's pretty clear that we did - the support seems to be for removing the tution fee section entirely and replacing it with the single line suggested above. If anyone besides BETA disagrees with my analysis, let me know below. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Edit Warring is unnecessary. First, what do the sources SAY?  Hike or Increase or something else or both?  If something else, use that.  If both, and you can't agree, flip a coin, or use something else.  If none of the above, flip a coin and pick something else.  But don't edit war.  Simple yes?  Lesson over.  How about "Tuition Fee Changes"?  Very neutral, yes? -- Avanu (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Tution fee changes is fine by me but still think the whole thing should be moved upto the "history" section --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, a whole section on what 1 in 3 other UK Universities are doing seems WP:UNDUE, the single line in the history section covers it about right. Mt  king  (edits)  14:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * However, the question is not just whether a lot of universities are doing it, but is it actually a 'controversy'? If so, then the stuff 99 or 200 other people do is irrelevant. -- Avanu (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No sources have been forthcoming that it is. Mt  king  (edits)  14:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Reading the discussion, I agree the section should be moved and pared down. It sounds like it's (not surprisingly) not something unique to this university and it doesn't seem that significant. This reeks of WP:Recentism to me, I doubt in 20 years it will be of any real significance. Nil Einne (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good points. Primary questions might be, what has the university done differently in response?  What have students done differently in response?  What has the community done differently in response?  Much like the Taco Bell lawsuit recently about beef content, very little actually came of it, but for a short time, Taco Bell discounted a few food items. -- Avanu (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While not an admin, I have deactivated the template as my reading is consensus is not yet sufficiently clear (at the very least on what edit is required) to edit over protection. Note that per Protection policy an admin is generally required to protect the current version even if that's the WP:Wrong version and the edit (full) protected template is only used when there is consensus on what edit is required. Nil Einne (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no evidence that there is a significant 'controversy' specifically regarding Kingston University and the tuition fees issue. The section has clearly been added as yet another attempt to slant the article. It should be removed in its entirety. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree likewise. It's silly to have that section in that subheading. Again, where is the "controversy"? Maybe there should just be a section called Bad things about this university. We could add one to every article about a university. I'm sure there are lots of "bad things" to be gleaned from local newspapers for aspiring Jimmy Olsens. And we must definitely add it to the 46 other universities who raised their fees to £9000. Just joking of course, but really... Voceditenore (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Lets start again
Propose :
 * Remove the section "Tuition fee increase:" and add under history :


 * In April 2011, Kingston University joined 47 of 123 other English universities in raising its fees to the maximum allowable ₤9000 per annum.


 * Support Mt  king  (edits)  14:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Nil Einne (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose that information is too recent in time to put in the history section, also, It should be pointed out that it isn't just that they raised their fees, but that KU was among the worst (in terms of employment) to raise their fees.  BE  TA  14:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Among' is perhaps a key point, since according to the source, 5 of the bottom 10 were 'among'. More significantly the source seems rather flawed since it says they are in the bottom 10 but then includes a list of the bottom 10 which doesn't list them.... Do we have a better source? BTW is the 47/123 thing accurate? While trying to find another source for the bottom ten/maximum fees thing I came across  which says 46/67 universities which plan to charge all students the maximum and 49/67 who intend to charge at least some students/courses the maximum. I came across further sources    suggests Kingston is one of the ones who wants to charge some but not all students/courses the maximum (although the average looks like it will be close to the maximum). Nil Einne (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. There are two different issues: Should the 'tuition fee increase' section be removed, and should we discuss the issue in the history section? In my opinion, there is little doubt that the section is a breach of NPOV (basically concocting a 'controversy' by synthesis) and should be deleted, but I see no reason why this needs to go into the 'history' section, per WP:RECENTISM and as giving undue weight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Definitely Support moving from "Controversies" to "History". Would also support leaving this non-event out completely (see my latest comment in the section above). And definitely oppose pointing out that it's among the bottom 10 in graduate employment if the only source for this completely contradicts itself. Voceditenore (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as above. Not a controversy. Dayewalker (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support as above. It's very likely that this fee increase is controversial, but (i) if it is then nobody has shown good evidence of this (unless, of course, "controversy" merely means "more or less embarrassing stuff"), and (ii) there shouldn't even be a "controversies" section. The fee increase is of some importance and worth a mention. There's nothing about "history" that excludes "contemporary history". If this is limited to one sentence there's no danger of "recentism". Nil Einne suggests that it may not be entirely accurate; it can be amended later. -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Very strong oppose any form of censorship, please remember than the First Amendment gives us the freedom of speech and any removal goes against that that right. KingsonRules (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your premises are wrong. See Free speech. -- Hoary (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ROFL... Not that one again... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "'Oppose'" too recent for history, and should be in Controversies section, as this is a controversial subject, based on the general tenor of debate both here and in the public sphere.  I would add that it is controversial because Kingston's graduate employment rate is in the bottom ten, as per a recent article in the Telegraph.Lorifredrics (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment There's is no problem with putting the fee rise in the History section. Normally, histories of insitutions go from the beginning to the present. The History section is currently very poor – 2 short sentences – and needs expansion anyway. The fact that something caused a controversy on Wikipedia is not the same as it causing a controversy in the real world. The increases in maximum UK university fees are definitely controversial as a general issue, but their implementation in a particular university does not constitute a controversy about that university, unless reliable sources can be found to support this, e.g. student uprisings, mass staff-resignations, etc. So far there has been no evidence that this is the case with Kingston or any of the other 46 universities. Note that the Telegraph article does not adequately support the idea that this was controversial at Kingston and has also made an error one way or another. It mentions it as allegedly being one of the 5 universities in the bottom 10 that are raising fees to the maximum, but then lists the bottom 10 and Kingston is not on it. Voceditenore (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Let's not waste a second more time on the current campaign against Kingston. It's essential that we have consistency across university articles. There are structure guidelines on WP:UNI. We need to stick to those and ensure that league table positions and all other indicators are given in a standard style without commentary. If someone wants to take on the donkey work of going through all the UK university articles adding the information about the new undergraduate fees, that would be great. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As it current stands, I would say that the general consensus seems to be remove the Tuition fee section entirely - the question of if any content should replace it in another section is a seperate question and not settled yet. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I was thinking would it not be a good idea just to have a filed on the infobox and list what the fees are for each university in a constant way ? Mt  king  (edits)  07:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. According to Kingston University's website the £9000 fee is only for "Single honours studio-based art and design courses and MPharm in Pharmacy". Foundation courses range from £3000 to £6000 while all other courses are £8500. Information found on this page: http://www.kingston.ac.uk/undergraduate/money-matters/fees-for-courses-starting-in-2012/#fees Pandabearcollective (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC).

Motive poll:
 BE  TA  14:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * So much for WP:AGF. I suggest we ignore this bit of nonsense, and carry on discussing the issue in the normal manner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * BETA: "I believe that Kingston is one of the worst universities in uk". This is not an advocacy site, it is an encyclopedia - your best move now would be to stop editing the article completely. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I added that as a show of good faith. I am not perfect, And I do have biases, but they aren't reflected in my edits because my edits were based on sources. Can those who have removed information say the same? Is there a source that says this information is incorrect, out of context, does not reflect the consensus of all newspapers etc. Show me a reliable source that backs up your collective opinions. Because the burden should balance out. If those who want to add have to keep their opinions out of the equation, shouldn't the same apply to those who wish to subtract? BE  TA  22:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You are asking us to find a newspaper article with the headline "No controversy at Kingston University"? Yes, there must be lots of these... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)