Talk:London School of Theology

Scandal
Any mention of the scandal involving the outgoing principal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.14.80 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 5 November 2007

Recent edits on "academic reputation"
I am concerned that the recent edits by Hi-Teach are verging on advertising again and seem to indicate a conflict of interest regarding this institution and the article. There is no need to keep adding to the "academic reputation" section - especially when one person's opinions about this are being presented as the "truth". Such editing isn't acceptable. Afterwriting (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Just saw this post again: I only corrected the quote at that time because your citation of the "one person's" study on LST's influence was wrong. I am okay with your version though the quote is still wrong today.--Hi-Teach (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Full list of faculty
I don't think it's proportionate to list all faculty. I've removed this twce but it's been reverted by the same IP - I commented on their talk page last time and am now bringing it her for the community. Tacyarg (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, there is no need for the list. Notable staff of course can be mentioned. DuncanHill (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

History section too long
The newly added section on the college's history is much too long compared to the overall article size. Further, it is nearly a cut-and-paste job from a book. And that single book forms the only significant source for the section. I propose significantly shortening it, perhaps a week or so from now (so mid-March 2019) unless there is majority consensus to preserve it all. Feline Hymnic (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * OK. Done. Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)