Talk:University of Kent/Archive 1

Link to KUNT mag
Has more university news p.c.i. as KRED, possibly more cover-to-cover readers too. Likely to be interesting to any student who hasn't heard of it. Seems niggardly to remove it - have you an agenda AverageEarthman? shroth.

I am not AverageEarthman, but am a Kent student (part-time, mature, hence focussed on the degree rather than social activities or union politics on campus). I have nothing to do with Kred, Kent Union, or any other anti-KUNT forces. Nevertheless, I see no point in a link to a non-official University paper, which has less claim to representation than the Kent societies, which - in my opinion - should not be listed individually (too many of them), and which seems largely aimed at presenting the personal agenda of a very few people. Mind you, I think it is pretty daft that KRED has a wikipedia entry all to itself as well. KRED shouldn't have more than a link in the University entry, if that. If KUNT belongs anywhere, then, it belongs in the KRED entry (which itself should be considered for deletion) not on the main University entry. Otherwise all other student websites and societies will want to jump on the same bandwagon and post their link. ThomasL 21:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly my sentiments. Average Earthman 23:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I see that "Conversation Among the Ruins", the other link added to the page, is not even a University of Kent related (or even student produced?) site, but just vaguely about everything including a section about Canterbury (but not specifically the University), with a few articles about the University of Kent by students if you look really hard for them. This is not remotely the sort of thing that should be linked to by an encyclopedia entry, and it doesn't really have anything much to do with the University at all. ThomasL 22:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There is, surely, a difference between links to societies (eg Catholic Society) and to student media. Kunt and CATR are sources of further information about the University. And what harm is done by their inclusion? From a student's point of view, at least, they are more interesting than some of the other stuff in the article. Moreover, the links section is stationed at the foot of the page and no-one need scroll further if they don't want to! Conversation among the ruins is run by UKC students, and (I think) all of its contributors are UKC students. As with KUNT, most UKC students who were unaware of its existence would probably be interested to know about it (as interested, at least, as they would be in the university motto, for example...). shroth

Shroth seems to be under the misapprehension that the Wikipedia entry on "University of Kent" is intended as a place to put things that might vaguely interest Kent students. It is, instead, actually an encyclopedia article, intended for readers from the entire world. Conversation Among the Ruins is, at best, an excuse to publish random student writings (and it doesn't say anywhere that it is particularly for students). KUNT is a mouthpiece for a few people's bile about the Kent Union and KRED (I have no opinion on whether that bile is justified). Neither one is of any interest to the sort of person who might pick up a real encyclopedia and look up "the University of Kent", and that is - after all - Wikipedia's purpose (duplicating and replacing print and prestigious electronic encyclopedias). I would add that in my own personal opinion both KUNT and CATR contain writings that serve mostly for the distribution of fairly insignificant personal bile and gossip. Mottos and coats of arms appear on most of the University pages in Wikipedia, and are information of the kind that appears in most encyclopedia entries (the religious motto says something about the branding and ethos of Kent at the time that it was formed, and thus about the University's history). Links to personal student websites like KUNT and CATR would hopefully be deleted by vigilent Wikipedians in all instances. You may be personally deeply involved in these projects, whether as a reader or writer, but vanity postings are not supposed to appear in Wikipedia. ThomasL 08:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I should add that I support KUNT and "Conversation Among the Ruins" right to exist, and I can understand why Kent students might find them interesting or useful. They just do not belong in an encyclopedia entry. If they did, then every single personal website and blog that happens to exist (not to mention every University publication - Kent's "Logos", for example, is similar to the Creative Writing parts of CATR, but official) would have to be added to every entry. ThomasL 09:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

OK well I'm not going to get into a delete-revert war. However if it's merely that you hold Wikipedian values dear - and you have no personal view on the "bile" in KUNT and CATR - you could usefully head off and clear up a few more university websites. Suggest you start with Oxford, which could benefit from the deletion of at least six student media links (and one to its Catholic Society!). Shroth.

Thanks for accepting the apparent consensus. This is my first revert, and I did it because I agree with another Wikipedian (thereby supporting the "consensus" method of working that Wikipedia supports). I'm not quite bold enough (yet) to go deleting large sections of pages that are outside my personal knowledge and experience without that outside support. I do think there are also quality issues with KUNT and the University-related sections of CATR (they are effectively no more authoratative or official than individual student blogs, and we surely wouldn't link to those?). Wikipedia is clear that there should be no original research in Wikipedia, and no use of unreliable or unauthoratative sources. It says (paraphrasing from memory) that subjects should not be covered until they have been validated as real and significant by discussion in, for example, published books, refereed publications or newspapers (with the suggestion that the official media acts as a quality control). Personal websites are too easy to set up, and have none of that authoritiy or official nature. Wikipedia explicitly states that it is not about "personal essays or blogs", "personal opinions", "opinions on current affairs" (such as student union activities and elections, a major part of KUNT), "propoganda or advocacy of any kind", or "self-promotion" (I don't know if that last applies in this case). It says "Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day", which I feel applies to unofficial, non-refereed blogs and personal websites. Having said all this, KRED is rather more official than KUNT, which is the only reason that I have not (yet) started lobbying officially for a deletion of the KRED article, and if a KRED article exists then KUNT has a place in it in order to establish a NPOV, which is one of the occasions on which Wikipedia allows (varied) opinions. I realise that I have given a rather over-lengthy justification of my point of view in this case, but as I say I am new to Wikipedia, and want to do things the right way. ThomasL 15:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

As one of the editors of CATR, I feel that it is necessary to clear up a few points. CATR is run by university students, and all articles are written by students (with the exception of one I think). Although there is not necessarily a particular rule to state that only students can write for the site, it was initially set up as an alternative to other Union backed publications such as KRED, and represents what we hope to be a more independent media outlet for students who feel disgruntled or lack confidence in KRED/the Union, etc. I think it is unfair to describe CATR as being a "blog" or "personal website", and I would hardly describe all of the writing on CATR's Canterbury/UKC section as being "bile" - I think this suggests a great deal more about the writer's opinion on the subject than on what the site actually represents (a quick peruse in our "About Us" section would have made this clear).

At the risk of sounding arrogant, both KUNT and CATR are popular and are growing in popularity, and have recently been described as two of the three media outlets on campus by KRED's production editor. Whilst I understand that personal opinions are not to be published on Wikipedia, and I agree with this, linking to CATR and KUNT is useful as it provides an idea of Kent life, and I do not see what problem other such groups (Catholic Society) etc adding themselves as well.

There are opinions stated in CATR, but no more than is stated in KRED. I am aware that KRED has official status, but I'll warrant CATR and KUNT have more readers than KRED does, despite the latter's Union backing and funds. Perhaps it is worth including a UKC Unofficial Student Media section, as it is without a doubt an increasingly important part of Kent life, and has created a great number of discussion both on and off campus.


 * KRED shouldn't really have a wikipedia entry, and KUNT and CATR certainly shouldn't. None of them seem to fit the Wikipedia criteria for an entry, nor as sources for articles.  Where have you been mentioned in newspapers or published (non-vanity) books, or similar independent and authoritative sources?  You haven't, I'm guessing.  KRED might warrant an inclusion on the University of Kent entry, as it is mentioned in Kent's own website - which Wikipedia does recognise as a source (the subject's own website) - but is not worthy as a subject in itself, and neither KUNT nor CATR even reach this level of mention in an authoritative source.  Again, you may interest students, but you're not worthy of mention in an encyclopedia.  Would you really expect to appear in one?  Just because this is Wikipedia, not the Encyclopedia Brittanica, doesn't mean that everything should be entered without quality control. ThomasL 20:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

No claim was made that CATR deserves an entry in any Encyclopedia, Wiki or otherwise. Nor would anyone associated with the site "expect" one. The point was simply made that it is a part of Kent life. Feel free to disagree with the presence of the link but there's really no need to mis-read stuff and get indignant. Just in general I'd also suggest that you moderate your tone bit - relax, it really doesn't matter. j


 * I'm not being particularly immoderate in tone as far as I can tell. I did assume that "section" meant an independent entry like KRED's.  Looking again, it probably means a section in the original University of Kent article, but as I say neither KUNT nor CATR warrant a "mention in an encyclopedia" either, which - in Wikipedia - would include links.  As far as I can see KUNT and CATR don't fit the criteria for any sort of presence in Wikipedia.  The only answers to this so far have been that the sites might interest Kent students (who aren't the primary audience of a Wikipedia entry), and that it is informative about the University, but in this second case the Wikipedia policies fairly explicitly state that these sites would not be regarded as sources that Wikipedians can reference in articles (too unreliable), and if they are so unreliable that we can't reference them in articles, why should we link to them?  If anybody wants to see the chapter and verse of Wikipedia policies on sources, no original research, and notability, I'm happy to cite it here. ThomasL 21:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thomas L - I cannot help but feel that you perhaps your own personal opinions play more of a part than you would like to wish - I genuinely wasn't expecting such an agressive response. I was attempting to clear up a few misconceptions published here, and also state the reasons why I guess some people have felt the need to link to CATR and KUNT. I am relatively indifferent to whether or not a link is published, but if others see cause, so be it.

I think it is also worth pointing out that while Wikipedia may recognise UKC as a source, UKC surely isn't going to recognise KUNT or CATR which have on occasion criticised their actions. I was merely suggesting that perhaps because there seems to be such a major group of people of appear disgruntled with UKC life, that such a subject should be brought up. I must state that I am not a regular Wiki user, and I do not necessarily know the rules off by heart, I was merely throwing a few suggestions up into the air as to ideas and compromises. I have only just stumbled across this page in the last hour, and it seemed worth at least explaining our role/motivations so that it would be fairer for others to make a judgement.


 * You're misinterpreting me if you think I'm being aggressive. I'm not.  I'm just trying to keep the Wikipedia entry to Wikipedia standards.  I don't have anything much invested in denying KUNT or CATR a mouthpiece, I just don't think they should be included in this article.  The Wikipedia regulations make it fairly clear that KUNT and CATR would not be recognised as reputable sources, and cannot be cited in articles.  There seems no reason to make links to what Wikipedia would regard as unreliable sources.  ThomasL 21:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think perhaps this discussion has gone far enough, so I will be leaving this at this point. Whether you meant to or not, you came across as aggressive/immoderate and I was clearly not the only one who felt so. I have never stated that CATR or KUNT should be linked to or be a Wiki entry - I suggest you actually make an attempt to read what I have written, you will see that I do not necessarily disagree with you, and as I have previously stated I was trying to clear up some misconceptions that you had written. As I have said, I am not entirely familiar with Wiki rules, but I felt it was necessary for others to understand properly what our site was about if a judgement such as the inclusion of it on this web page was being debated. If you and others feel it does not match Wiki criteria, I have no problem with that, we are not about shameless self promotion (indeed I have no idea who the person was who originally added our web address), but I did feel that your response showed a lack of reading my comment and an eagerness to launch a quite frankly unnecessary attack. As the other poster suggested - relax, it really doesn't matter.


 * I don't think there was an "attack" in my comments, but I certainly didn't intend them to be aggressive or offensive, and if they came across that way, then I apologise. ThomasL 12:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Coat of Arms and Motto
I see that the University has a coat of arms (which is included for most other Universities on their Wikipedia pages) and a motto, that are displayed on page 7 of this PDF file (http://www.kent.ac.uk/cdo/publications/corporate/Kent%20guide.pdf). I'm going to try to add the Motto to the page, but don't know the Wikipedia rules for adding images well enough (plus I think the Kent arms are probably copyrighted by Kent). I have a JPG of the coat of arms, extracted from the PDF. Does anybody more familiar with Wikipedia / PDF know whether I can add this, and if so how? ThomasL 05:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You can add the coat of arms, as it qualifies as fair use, so it can be uploaded as long as the author (which will be the College of Arms for coats of arms), source, fair use rationale and licence are included.


 * To upload the file, go to Special:Upload. Browse for the JPEG on your computer and select it. Put the following in the summary box (you can copy-and-paste it):

The coat of arms of the University of Kent

==Information==

* Author: The College of Arms (1965) (copyright gifted to the University of Kent)

* Source: http://www.kent.ac.uk/cdo/publications/corporate/Kent%20guide.pdf (converted to JPEG by uploader)

==Fair use rationale==

* The image is fair use in the University of Kent article as it shows the university's coat of arms, which is considered to be an important part of a university's identity and history - ~

* The image is fair use in the list of academic coats of arms article as it is of heraldic interest - ~

Use of the image does not harm the institution in any way.


 * Finally, select 'Logo' from the drop-down list and hit upload.


 * You can then add it to the University of Kent page (in the history section, perhaps) and the list of academic coats of arms page. - Green Tentacle 17:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. Done. ThomasL 19:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

New University / Glass Plate University
It may be a Robbins Report uni, but to many nowadays, "New University" generally means a post 92 former polytechnic - a nearly 40 year old institution has less call on this. Anyone got a better term to describe it? Timrollpickering 11:29, 31 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Glass Plate universities?, see British university. Djegan 18:08, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tyler Court
In addition to these college accomdations there is also Tyler Court, a new block catering mainly for final year and postgrad students...

When did Tyler Court admit undergrads? And how new is it? It was established back in the early 1990s. Timrollpickering 13:42, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tyler court was only completed and opened in 1997. The first batch of students to reside in it moved in in my final year (1997-1998)

Chancellors
According to the University of Kent web site the Chancellor from 1990-95 was DR Robert Horton, not Robert Horton. Ben W Bell 08:00, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Doctor Rober Horton perhaps? Is it clear that those are his initials? Timrollpickering 17:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry shouldn't have capitalised that. On the UKC site he is listed as Dr Robert Horton (as in Doctor). It's just IceAxeJuggler removed the Dr in this article for some reason. Ben W Bell 19:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

dominant political force
The Conservatives the dominant political force on a UK campus? Really? Can we have some proof of that? Average Earthman 14:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Not sure where the Union President is now, but in my last years there, when he was a fresher, he most certainly was a Conservative. Timrollpickering 16:09, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think you are referring to David Budd. He may have been a Conservative when he was fresher, but he certainly wasn’t when he ran for Activities Sabb and then President. Also his strong ties to the 'Fletcherite' faction in the NUS undermines that assertion somewhat. If you want to measure how "dominant" a political force is by it's members elected to Kent Union positions, then Kent Labour Students has members elected at every level of union representation; it always has and always will. KUCA doesn’t have a single one. It is wildly unfair to claim KUCA leads politics at UKC, pretending it does for the sake of Wikipedia is either blatant partisan hackery or simple ignorance of the facts. Therefore, I am not going to claim that KLS is more "dominant" than KUCA because that would be blatant partisan hackery on my part. The fact is, those two societies lead the political scene at UKC equally and together. Anyone that says otherwise is simply wrong or is trying to skew the facts for some hilariously minor political gain. Markleach


 * In the four years I was there the Labour students were the dominant political force on campus, however this information is only to 1998. Since Labour has been in power for a while since then things may well have changed. Ben W Bell 18:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The Labour Club pretty much collapsed by the end of 2001 due to a combination of disillusionment with New Labour, multiple graduations of key people at the same time, disorganisation and some key members realising they were socialists rather than Labour. The current Kent Labour Students is a new organisation formed since. Timrollpickering 19:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * KUCA currently has a larger and more active membership than KLS, however KLS has more people in the Union- I don't think KUCA has any, come to think of it.KLS styles itself the "Number One Political Force on Campus", KUCA styles itself "The Dominant Political Force on Campus" 129.12.234.51 03:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * When I was at UKC, the dominant groups were the International Marxists and the International Socialists, with the Communists holding the ring. Labour was barely tolerated (the Clause IV group were respectable), the Liberals described, in print, as "fascists" and the Conservatives (in Government) were way beyond the pale. Things have changed. 82.152.198.192 00:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC) Paul

Hall Closure
A recent controversial move? They closed down Elliot Dining Hall about 7 years ago, it was closed the finaly year I was there and I left in 1998. Maybe it should be reworded? Ben W Bell 08:07, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Not quite as Elliot was reopened in 2000 when they closed Keynes Dining Hall, although there wasn't as full a service, and with Rutherford as the "main" hall. This was because Keynes's design made it suitable for conversion to something else, whereas Elliot's was dead space. Timrollpickering 08:52, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An anonymous login, looking like someone on the Kent network, deleted the section on dining halls. If they want to explain why (and get a login) then please speak up. In the meantime here is the text:

Dining Hall closure
A recent controversial move, affecting a large proportion of the college-resident population, was to close Eliot Colleges' dining hall, and have the entire college serviced by the dining hall in Rutherford. Much resistance has been planned to this closure, mostly due to the fact that now around 3000 campus-residing students now only have a room the size of half a football field to be fed in. This problem is exacerbated in the evenings, when that hall is frequently overcrowded and runs out of food. However, currently no provision to cope with even more over-use has been announced by the University, and several student groups from Darwin, Eliot, Beckett and Parkwood are planning protests of their own on the issue.

Tyler Court
Just to note, in the last year Tyler Court has extended itself with two more blocks namely B and C, behind the original Tyler Court (Block A). I have heard that they were only just finished in time for the 2004/2005 year, and already I know (as I am here) that there has been a burst water pipe, which resulted in an evacuation of part of Tyler Court C. Like A the rooms in B and C blocks are en-suite, and self catered.

Ambiguity: Kent State University
I was looking for information about Kent State University and it took me a while to realize I was on the wrong track with this page.

I think disambiguation info belongs into the first paragraph here. .~.


 * Sorry but I don't think it's needed. This article is called University of Kent, not Kent State University, the two are quite differently named. It's close to saying you need a disambiguation page on United States of America in case someone was looking for United States of Mexico. A disambiguation page is more for things with the same name like Firefly (insect), Firefly (TV Series), Firefly (locomotive). Ben W Bell 13:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with that, if people are looking for Kent State University, they might type Kent State, they might even type Kent University, but they are not going to type in University of Kent. We shouldn't cover every article with disambigs for the benefit of the seriously confused. Average Earthman 14:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Edit wars on the trivia section
I've removed this point on the trivia section after some minor edit wars:
 * The student political scene is made up of the Kent University Conservative Association and, to a lesser extent, the Kent Labour Students. There are also the smaller Liberal Democrats and Respect Party.

There doesn't seem to be any need for this information; all universities have representatives of the main political parties. And there seems to be some petty warring between the two groups - an obviously Conservative-inclined Wikipedian added 'to a lesser extent', referring to their rival party. Regardless of a lack of citation, it is in danger of losing a NPOV and so I have deleted it. Please discuss here before reverting. Thenugga 13:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. The edit wars regarding that section have gone on long enough and it is causing trouble for the article. A university sees people of every political leaning and therefore we don't need specifics on what groups call themselves. Ben W Bell 15:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would certainly like to see the links included, as I feel the more information via links, the better (too much information on Wikipedia itself and it gets clogged and leads to edit wars), and if both are there it shouldn't be a problem. Perhaps an inclusion that KLS of their members elected into the Union, but KUCA has a larger active membership? I'm not saying put back that bit exactly, but in the links section it would be appropriate. 129.12.234.51 19:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Just click on the Societies Directory link, then on the Political Societies section, there you'll find all political societies listed.

Disagreements over naming
There's been a few reverts over the titles of some of the notable people connected with the University, it's time we settled this. I'm justifying my edits by referring to the Manual of Style, and, more specifically, this section of the Manual, which states that:
 * (1) Styles and honorifics which are derived from noble title, including The Most Noble, The Most Honourable, The Right Honourable, and The Honourable, shall not be included in the text inline but may be legitimately discussed in the article proper.
 * (2) Styles and honorifics which are derived from political activities, including but not limited to The Right Honourable for being a Member of the Privy Council, shall not be included in the text inline but may be legitimately discussed in the article proper.

Accordingly, I have made the following changes.


 * John Maynard Keynes, Lord Keynes of Tilton to simply John Maynard Keynes, as per (2), and because he is not referred to by economists as 'Lord Keynes'
 * Ernest Rutherford, Lord Rutherford of Nelson to simply Ernest Rutherford, as per (2), and also because this title is now defunct.
 * Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell to simply Bertrand Russell, as per (1).

A compromise could be met by referring to Keynes and Rutherford as 'Lord Keynes' and 'Lord Rutherford', but I don't see the point, to be honest. Less so for Russell, whose title was essentially ceremonial and inherited.

Please discuss here before making any further changes. Thenugga 17:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Thenugga. These individuals are simply not known for their Lordly titles, and including them is unnecessary, and looks pompous.  Their full titles are listed in their own Wikipedia pages, which are all linked to, and nothing else seems necessary.  ThomasL 19:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You are both wrong, and your use of the Manual of Style only proves you're in error. Non of the above nobles derived their peerages from political activities. Lord Keynes recieved it as an honour for his work in the Breton Woods agreement; Lord Rutherford was enobled for his work in the scientific community; and Lord Russell was an hereditary peer who inhereted his peerage from his father. No where on this page has the prefix "The Right Honourable" or "The Most Honourable" been used as this has been deemed inappropriate by the MoS, it is therefore not possible to use it as a reason for the removal of certain peoples peerage titles from this article. I am therefore going to revert the styles and titles of the aforementioned to their correct form. Toryboy 10.21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You just used the phrase "none of the above nobles", which makes fairly clear that the titles that you keep reimposing fit under the rubric "styles and honorifics that are derived from noble title". So it seems fairly clear that it is you who are wrong, and that Wikipedia has a policy against doing what you are doing. "Lord" or "Earl" are themselves honorifics, even if they are not the exact ones listed in the Manual of Style. I will leave it to thenugga or somebody else to revert, but I think the current form is pointless and confusing. There are presumably people out there who would know Earnest Rutherford or John Maynard Keynes by their given names who might not know immediately who "Lord Rutherford" and "Lord Keynes" were. These men are not normally referred to by their titles. ThomasL 12:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are showing your ignorance to the British peerage. "Lord" and "Earl" are titles of nobility, they are not styles or honorifics. "The Right Honourable" is a style and an honorific which is why it is not used in this context. Are you suggesting that all titles such as Lord, Viscount, Earl, Marquess and Duke are removed from Wikipedia? So we would then refer to the Duke of Norfolk, for example, as "Edward Fitzalan-Howard"? Please leave your misinformed point of view out of Wikipedia. Toryboy 13.37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The Manual may not specifically refer to the titles that we are discussing, but surely it can be safely assumed that the same applies to all titles of nobility or honorifics. By persisting with this line you are showing yourself to be pompous and petty. No one is suggesting that all titles should be removed from Wikipedia; indeed it is important to include them on the articles of such people, but to include them in every mention of such persons throughout WP is ridiculous, and makes WP less appealing to read for many readers. Thenugga 13:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody actually agree with Toryboy about this? So far he seems to be in a minority of one, while at least three people have reverted or spoken against his actions. This being Wikipedia, the rule is supposed to be by consensus, and here the consensus is clearly against Toryboy. If the current Wikipedia regulations do not provide an answer in this instance, we should perhaps look at altering them (by consensus, of course). My own feeling is that people should be referred to by Lordly titles only when those Lordly titles are the way to which they are commonly referred. The Duke of Wellington, for example, is usually known as the Duke of Wellington, but anybody who altered every reference to Margaret Thatcher to Baronness Thatcher would be considered rather eccentric. Rutherford and Keynes are famous for their actions before receiving their titles, and are best known by their own names. Bertrand Russell is normally referred to by his name without title. ThomasL 13:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

For precedent, I would suggest that Tory boy examine the archives of the Times Newspaper online (hardly the most socialistic, radical, and anti-hierarchical source) The Times Newspaper Archives. Here these three men are routinely referred to by their names without Lordly title or mention of Earldom. There are possibly one or two exceptions, normally where the nobility is significant to the reference, but on a very cursory glance I'm not sure in most cases whether these are even references to the same men (most of the references to Earl Russell, for example, are apparently to forebears or descendants of Bertrand Russell). In any case, references to the men by name massively outnumber references to their Lordly titles, even if all the references to any men with these titles are collected together. Is Toryboy suggesting that he knows better than the Times newspaper how these men should be referred to? I find it hard to believe. ThomasL 14:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

To save people the trouble of running the searches themselves, here is the list of results from Google searches for each of these names, restricted to "site:timesonline.co.uk" - the Times site.
 * "Earl Russell" - 12 (apparently none of these references are to Bertrand Russell).
 * "Lord Keynes" - 2.
 * "Lord Rutherford" - 0.
 * "Bertrand Russell" - 50.
 * "John Maynard Keynes" - 27.
 * "Ernest Rutherford" - 4.

ThomasL 14:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I may be risking overkill here, but perhaps Toryboy would consider the Telegraph (not so fondly known as "The Torygraph" by Private Eye) more sympathetic to his political views. So here's the Google results for "site:telegraph.co.uk". Perhaps Toryboy should write to these great and respected Tory newspapers and tell them that they are "misinformed" and not suitably respectful to the nobility? I think this proves however that Toryboys view of how these men should be referred to is not reflected by the rest of the world, and should not be used in Wikipedia. ThomasL 15:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "Earl Russell" - 10 (none refer to Bertrand Russell).
 * "Lord Keynes" - 4.
 * "Lord Rutherford" - 0.
 * "Bertrand Russell" - 49.
 * "John Maynard Keynes" - 31.
 * "Ernest Rutherford" - 7.

I think I've already proved my point beyond a reasonable doubt, but going back to Toryboy's claims that "you are showing your ignorance to the British peerage. "Lord" and "Earl" are titles of nobility, they are not styles or honorifics", I'm afraid the Oxford English Dictionary apparently disagrees. Here's the full definition of "Style" in the relevant meaning.
 * 18. a. A legal, official, or honorific title; the proper name or recognized appellation of a person, family, trading firm, etc.; the ceremonial designation of a sovereign, including his various titles and the enumeration of his dominions.

... and here are two of the relevant references given as examples of the use of the phrase: "He at noble is of blode, and a lorde In stile" and "A Grant..of the dignity of an Earl of the said kingdom, by the name, stile and title of Earl of Wandesford, in the county of Kilkenny".

This seems to prove beyond reasonable doubt that "Earl" and "Lord" as titles are "styles" under the OED definition of "A legal, official, or honorific title", and therefore that the Wikipedia regulation against using "styles or honorifics which are derived from noble title" is relevant here. Toryboy seems simply to be wrong, and his usage does not reflect any newspaper or encyclopedia that I have ever come across. I think we must continue to oppose his alterations. ThomasL 18:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

May I point out to you, ThomasL, that Lord Rutherford died almost 70 years ago, Lord Keynes 60 years ago and Lord Russell 36 years ago. The online records of both the Times and the Telegraph do not extend as far back as even the death of Lord Russell. Therefore, the small sample of references you refer to are hardly definative proof that these distinguished nobles are refered to in everyday writings only by their previous styles, especially as they only cover the years decades after their deaths. I, as an economics student have plenty of text books that refer to Lord Keynes as exactly that, "Lord Keynes", or simply "Keynes". It is also a pretty well known and established custom that deceased peers are refered to by their titles in works of reference, regardless of how they may have been refered to in person during their lifetime. It is blatantly obvious that your left wing urges to rid the world of all percieved social strata are interfering with the factual accuracy of Wikipedia. "Ernest Rutherford, 1st Baron Rutherford of Nelson", "John Maynard Keynes, 1st Baron Keynes" and "Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell" are, and were, the legal names of these peers. It is by their legal names that they should be known.

Your ability to misread and quote the Oxford English Dictionary amazes me. You even said it "by the name, stile and title of Earl of Wandesford". The name and title being "Earl of Wandesford", the style being "The Right Honourable". I will not revert them back to their correct style until a consensus emerges (that means more than just 3 people, two of which are more than likely the same person, ganging up against another). Toryboy 18.14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Toryboy, you should really check to make sure that you are right before accusing others of ignorance, or you do not make yourself look good. Notice "the style of lord" in the quotation above, and the OED's definition of "legal, official, or honorific title" which clearly includes "Earl" and "Lord". If these are not enough to convince you, then do a Google search for "style of Earl". You will find such references as these: "Lord Hertford's heir uses the style Earl of Yarmouth", "Henry Douglas (1723-1754), known by the style of Earl of Drumlanrig", "Richard, who bore the style of earl of Cambridge", "Richard adopted the style, Earl of Devonshire and Lord of the Isle of Wight". You will note that none of these references is referring to the phrase "The Right Honourable" (which they don't use), but simply state that the style is the title of "Earl of ...".

As for your ridiculous suggestions that this has anything to do with my political views (which you do not even know - as it happens I'm a moderate left-winger), I might point out that I am a Renaissance enthusiast and am used to historical references using Lordly titles, and use them happily when necessary. There is a huge difference between Renaissance usage and 20th/21st Century usage, however. I agree with the Times and the Telegraph, and - from what I can see using their partial free search - the Encyclopedia of Brittanica, which almost always use the names "Bertrand Russell", "John Maynard Keynes", and "Ernest Rutherford" except when they have especial reason to record their noble titles (such as in the title of an encylopedia entry about these individuals). I am afraid that you are merely wrong to claim that any other form of usage is more correct or more usual.

As for your suggestion that two of the Wikipedia users who oppose you are the same person, Wikipedia bans using several accounts. By all means report such abuse if you see it. In this case, however, there seems nothing except paranoia to account for your claims. TheNugga and I are conversing with each other in this thread, and Timrollpickering identifies himself as a Unionist on his Userpage, which might suggest right-of centre views (apologies if this is too much of a presumption on my part, I don't want to turn into Toryboy in this respect).

You are quite right, of course, that these men are all dead. They will remain so, and Wikipedia is supposed to be using modern ways of referring to dead individuals, not necessarily the form that was appropriate when they were alive. The Times, The Telegraph, the Encylopedia Brittanica, and the Wikipedia style guide apparently all agree that these men (despite their status as "deceased peers") should normally be referred to by their names without Lordly title. We only know of one person, so far, who disagrees. Are you such an authority as to overbear all others? ThomasL 18:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"It is also a pretty well known and established custom that deceased peers are refered to by their titles in works of reference, regardless of how they may have been refered to in person during their lifetime." Sorry, but this also seems to be unsupported and untrue. As I say, a search of the free portion of the Encyclopedia Brittanica shows repeated references to John Maynard Keynes, Ernest Rutherford, and Bertrand Russell by their names without title. A search of the complete "Dictionary of National Biography" (the most recent version) shows the same tendency. Here are the number of articles that use the names without titles, and the number that use the titles:


 * Earl Russell: 34 (including all Earl Russells, the majority of references are clearly not to Bertrand Russell).
 * Lord Keynes: 12
 * Lord Rutherford:18 (including some references to another Lord Rutherford from the 17th century).


 * Bertrand Russell: 135.
 * John Maynard Keynes: 66.
 * Ernest Rutherford: 44.

As you can see, your claim about how Reference works use the names and titles is simply incorrect.

You are currently setting yourself up as the sole reliable authority on this matter, and are claiming to know better than The Times, The Telegraph, The Encyclopedia Brittanica, The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and the Wikipedia style guide. How many more authoritative sources must I cite? ThomasL 19:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to add to an already lengthy debate about a relatively trivial matter, but...in response to this:

"May I point out to you, ThomasL, that Lord Rutherford died almost 70 years ago, Lord Keynes 60 years ago and Lord Russell 36 years ago. The online records of both the Times and the Telegraph do not extend as far back as even the death of Lord Russell. Therefore, the small sample of references you refer to are hardly definative proof that these distinguished nobles are refered to in everyday writings only by their previous styles, especially as they only cover the years decades after their deaths."

Well, yes. These are examples of modern sources which do not use the titles. But Wikipedia is a modern source. It is irrelevant how they were referred to whilst they were alive; we are contributing to a contemporary encylopedia which deems overuse of titles unecessary. I hope to God this debate is over now, and Toryboy will swallow his pride. Thenugga


 * Timrollpickering identifies himself as a Unionist on his Userpage, which might suggest right-of centre views (apologies if this is too much of a presumption on my part, I don't want to turn into Toryboy in this respect)


 * I do indeed have centre-right views, and am a former member of Kent University Conservative Association, though I'd dispute that Unionist views are inherently right wing - indeed the weakness of left-wing Unionism is one of the underlying problems the UK currently faces. Timrollpickering 20:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Explaining my revert
Just wanted to explain why I reverted this edit to the 'Scandals' section. For a start, it was completely unsourced and unreferenced. Second, it may not be true at all. A quick Google of '"university of kent" paedophile', brings up very little of substance, as does '"university of kent" priest', '"university of kent" priest scandal', or '"Richard Thomas" paedophile'. No news sources reported on the events (as a search on Google News will confirm).

However one site did keep coming up - and was the only result for a search of '"Michael Epps" paedophile'. 'An Open Letter to the Interpol Pedophile Unit matched most of my search terms, and appeared to be written by the same person as the anonymous contributor whose edit I reverted. The open letter is written by William H. Kennedy who runs a site called SphinxRadio.com, a conspiracy theory site.

Curious, I went to check what other contributions our anonymous friend had left. The contributions page was telling...As well as attempting to add the same passage of unsourced material into the scandal section, the IP address has logged several edits to, er, William H. Kennedy.

Anyway, the passage added by 24.147.34.149 should not be included in the article, due to lack of references, speculative, original material, and a failure to pass the Google test. I'll also be paying close attention to William H. Kennedy for any possible violations of the autobiography policy. Nuge talk 18:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Can someone explain just why the Sion Jenkins affair merits a mention here? From what I can see the only connection is that he was claiming a UKC degree. People make false claims about their education all the time and few other pages have this kind of detail on them. Timrollpickering 09:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am deleting the Jenkins reference. I added the two news stories (Gunn and Jenkins) together, just on the basis that they had been widely circulated and dealt with Kent.  Now that you mention it, you are almost certainly right that the Jenkins story has only limited relevance, and since Oxford - for example - doesn't mention Jeffrey Archer or the like - it is probably not right to mention Jenkins in the Kent article.  ThomasL 17:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ben, 1) I did not write that Wikipedia article on myself and challenge you to prove that I did. I would also like the word "sepulative" removed from your above statement.  The word speculative does not appear on my page and I am an established scholar (Huston Smith published one of my articles).  Who are you to say what is speculative? That is liabel and I want it off asap.   I sue people all the time.

I also question the quality of your research skills. For example:

2) Here are some articles on Rev Richard Thomas which you claim you could not find on Google:

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/print.php?storyid=3352

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/oxfordshire/4501382.stm

3) Here are some articles on Msgr John Ward:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/263542.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/979886.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/983804.stm

4) Rev Richard Thomas was on the UKC Lambeth Conference with the Bishop of Oxford in 1998 and was subsequently on campus many other times:

http://www.oxford.anglican.org/press/richard_thomas.html

5) Msgr John Ward is a Franciscan and regularly stayed at the Franciscan College at UKC which issues UKC degrees: http://www.kent.ac.uk/registry/quality/validation/profiles/FISC/profile.htm

6) You can confirm that the Kent Police investigated pedophilia at UKC by calling Michael Epps at  

I don't beleive u\you googled anything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.147.37.116 (talk • contribs).


 * I'll answer your response point by point.


 * First off, may I recommend you register an account, for your own benefit, as well as for clarity reasons when entering into a discussion such as this. And please remember on talk pages to sign your posts with four tildes (~).


 * Secondly, I must point out that it is against Wikipedia policy to make legal threats, and doing so can result in temporary blocking or even banning from editing Wikipedia. In the interest of civility I have removed my first use of 'speculative' (referring to your site); however I maintain that the passage you added to this article was speculative, original research.


 * I assure you that I did Google the terms I mentioned, and the links you provide I fully accept as valid references. However, with the exception of the last link, none of the links you provide mention 'kent' or 'ukc' at all.  Therefore, to me, they seem pretty irrelevant to this article.  The final link, from the UKC website, mentions none of the accused priests.


 * The kind of accusations you have made must be backed up with direct references from reliable sources. As of yet, no references backing up what you claim have been provided.  (The phone number of someone involved in the incident does not count as a reference.)  If no verifiable connection can be made between the people you mention and UKC, then any mention of them on this article should be removed, and any discussion considered irrelevant.


 * Finally, I never claimed that you started the article about yourself. What I said was that your IP address "logged several edits" to William H. Kennedy.  I fully accept that another user started the article; however you have edited it eight times, and Wikipedia policy discourages any form of autobiographical editing.


 * I hope you are beginning to understand why the passage that I removed does not belong on Wikipedia. Nuge talk 23:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ben, I did edit mistakes on the Wikipedia page with my name on it and am in violation of the offences and will remove myself from Wikpedia altogether. I attempted to remove the entry with my name on it (William H. Kennedy) but was unable to do so and strongly request you remove it asap. You have the justification that I admitted to policy violations. I do not want a replacement article on me in Wikipedia and will take legal action if you post one or allow others to post one.

I do not want a Wikipedia entry with my name on it because I feel you are a pro-pedophile creep for the following reasons:

I originially had referenced material with footnotes which someone kept removing. You check the Wikipedia log for that page and don't claim you do not have it. You will see my posts and someone elses removal - you can't deny it. I left the references out to see what would happen. I suspected Wikipedia would contact me.

I suspect it was you who removed the posts I made with the references and are now playing some sick game. I would need to see the log of the page myself. All of the articles I sent you were on the UKC posts I originally made including others like this with the following article where Michael Epps admitts to knowledge of the illegal drug trade:

http://www.geocities.com/mattdebald/hash.htm

Someone removed them and I think it was you. Someone also removed the link to the sound recording of Michael Epps admitting to being investigated by the Kent Police and other sources placing Ward and Thomas on the campus. You can hear the rest of what I think of you on The Byte Radio Show Tuesday 6/6/06 (go to http://www.thebyteshow.com/Library.html to hear the show. I will also go on many other shows to complain about your pro-Pedophile actions.  Here is an archive of the shows I have been on and will go back on all of them to expose you:

http://www.williamhkennedy.com/radio.html

I can reach about 30 million people in a month. No Wikpedia policy can stop me as I am no longer affilated with this site and do not want anything to do with you except to expose you as pro-pedophile creep. Be Sure to Listen in! Bill —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.147.37.116 (talk • contribs).


 * Comment: Can you stop leaving your comments address to Ben when you are responding to someone who was not me, those comments are accusing me (I'm presuming you used my name simply because I spoke with you on your talk page and you remember the name) of things I have not done. I'm sorry but I still fail to see how the edits of Michael Epps and possible paedophilia is in anyway connected to UKC. UKC as an institution had no involvement whatsoever in any of this and thus it is irrelevant to this page. The only connection to UKC is that Michael Epps works there and some priests visited there, that does not bring ill-repute on UKC itself and thus I cannot personally see why those comments need to be on the University of Kent article. Sure if Michael Epps had an article himself then fine, but putting it on the UKC article is not right as it has nothing to do with it as an institution. Ben W Bell   talk  07:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Bill: I resent the outrageous (and a little ridiculous) suggestion that I am a "pro-pedophile [sic] creep" and that I am playing a "sick game". You appear to be able to make this charge on the basis of an edit to a website...It seems rather bitter to take a seemingly minor dispute to a (claimed) crowd of 30 million, but I can't stop you.  However, whilst you are on Wikipedia you must adhere to policy and your name-calling constitutes a personal attack - please read No personal attacks.


 * The edit log for every article is publically available for every article and talk page under the 'history' tab (next to the edit tab at the top of the page). If you looked at the bottom of the first history page you would find that I did not remove your links.  But a page hosted at Geocities is not nearly as reliable a source as one from BBC News, so if I saw it on the article, I probably would have removed it, as per Reliable sources, where it says: "Wikipedia articles should use reliable published sources...bear in mind that edits for which no reliable references are provided may be removed by any editor."


 * Please do not make the mistake of thinking I am personally interested or invested in you or the content of your contributions. You seem to be under the impression that I am on some sort of vendetta, a grand battle even; I am actually only concerned in removing unreferenced material to uphold the policies of this website.


 * If you want the article about you deleted, then you must list it at Articles for Deletion - follow the steps at AfD in 3 steps and include valid reasons for deletion.


 * I look forward to listening to your radio show tomorrow. ;) Nuge talk 22:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This reply is to Ben: You are a graduate of UKC and are bias and have no business editing and article about them. Are you on their payroll? Your own web profile says you are a graduate of UKC so you are BIAS!

This reply is to Nudge If you add up the bigger shows I am a guest on "X" Zone, Rick Barber Show, Michael Holliday Show - I can actually reach an audience of over 30 million in about a month - all added up. Take a look at my radio page:

http://www.williamhkennedy.com/radio.html

What shows are you on and what are your stats? How many millions do you reach?

I will not even mention you on these shows - I am going to focus on Ben W. Bell the UKC PLANT! Check out Ben's profile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ben_W_Bell

Is there an ombudsmen I can report this abuse to? Forget that question. I will address this matter on The Byte Show.


 * Yes I attended UKC. So what, what does that have to do with the price of eggs? No I'm not employed by UKC and wouldn't want to be as I honestly think that as a university it isn't that good, but that's my opinion. If you bothered to look at my edits (and every single one of my edits is publically available) you'll find I'm doing nothing malicious. Each and every edit I have made to this and every article can be viewed and you'll find that all I have done was roll back edits from the IP address 24.147.37.116 that put up unreferenced claims. If firm evidence is available to support those claims then I have no problems with them, and in fact I care not for the claims either way other than as a possible source of libel against Wikipedia if they are unreferenced which they were in each and every instance that I removed. In fact every comment I have made to you (which can be checked through my contributions and history) was solely to request references to these matters. So, bearing that in mind and the fact that any person in the world can see exactly what I have done to this article I will be very interested to listen to your show tomorrow. Ben W Bell   talk  06:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Bill, I think you'll find (if you looked closely at my user page) that I am currently a 19-year-old undergraduate student at UKC myself, but this doesn't change anything. There are no policies or guidelines against writing about the institution you attend; if anything Ben and I are more qualified than most to edit the UKC article. What's more, I'm unlikely to be biased in favour of a University that has plunged me into several years of thousands of pounds of debt and is currently not marking my exams.


 * Of course I don't have even a shred of the listenership you claim to have - I'm a student. I don't even own a working radio.  Your continued efforts to comment on the contributor as opposed to the content means I am considering taking this to WP:RFC.  Nuge talk 12:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC

Hi All, Kennedy has a point. Some of his referenced postings were removed - I read them. The fact that you are a graduate of the school and another is a student does suggest bias but does not prove it. Another point is whether any of those priests were at the University of Kent. If they were and the university knew it, that makes it a whole different ball game. Perhaps mediation is need here. Has anyone appealed to Wikipedia mediation? Just some thoughts, L. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.61.58.198 (talk • contribs).


 * I'm a little suspicious of your comment, because you have added the passage in question a couple of times, after it was reverted with discussion on the talk page. Also, I checked on IP Address locator and your IP address matches the same US state as William Kennedy, leading me to believe you are either a sockpuppet of his or a mate helping out.


 * Nonetheless, as I've tried to explain, the passage I removed was totally unreferenced. The passage others removed used unreliable sources, and even then, Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation.


 * I have not seen one shred of reliable, verifiable evidence that any of the priests mentioned were on the campus at any point, therefore there is no reason that the article should mention them. Nuge talk 20:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey I 'm WHK'S Mate and how about this. The Bishop of Oxford was at the Lambeth Con 1998 which is held at U OF Kent. :http://justus.anglican.org/resources/Lambeth1998/lambeth.html

Richard Thomas was his communications chief and that means he would have been at U OF Kent at Lambeth 98. http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/print.php?storyid=3352

All the bishops bought their communications chiefs with them and that puts Thomas on campus for two weeks in 98.

Seeing that pedophiles molest kids weekly it is not beyond the pail to say kids at U of Kent were molested: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/163390.pdf#search='Child%20Molesters%20frequency'

These are some fair jumps. Steve


 * Um hold on. You're basing this on the fact that known paedophiles attended conferences at UKC and thus they probably molested kids while there because they molest kids weekly? That's an incredibly sweeping statement, how do you know all paedophiles molest kids on a weekly basis? Also what kids? You do know that UKC is a university and that everyone on campus is well above the age of consent, in practically every country in the world? There are no children at UKC. Ben W Bell   talk  07:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gang, The university has a child care centre at Keynes Hall which is situated directly accross from the Franciscan College.

http://www.kent.ac.uk/equalityanddiversity/worklife-balance/childstaff.htm

There were also loads of children at The Lambeth Conference who were families of bishops, reporters et al. There was also a huge fire works show in which 1000s of people especially kids were present. So your assertion that "There are no children at UKC." is a wrong. You graduated from there and you must know this which makes you a liar.

This discussion needs mediation. Ben W. Bell is bias in favor of the university and will not allow anything negative to be printed about the uni on the Wikipedia Page. For all we know BWB is Michael Epps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.61.58.198 (talk • contribs).


 * Ben is not a liar, please do not call him one (WP:NPA again) - there are, technically, no children at UKC, it being a university. The enclosed nursery at Keynes is mainly for staff and students during term time.  Yes, there may well have been children on campus at the time, but even then you're still making a hugely assumptive and conjectural leap there, which Wikipedia is not the place for.


 * I can also assure you that Ben is not Michael Epps, having met Ben in person earlier today, and that  Ben (as I do) only wants to keep things to a NPOV.  This link provides a list of every edit ever made to the UKC article; I challenge you to find one edit of Ben's that suggests a bias.


 * This discussion is not really achieving anything; I'm going to take it to WP:RFC and try to gain some kind of consensus. Nuge talk 16:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This page is now listed at Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex. Nuge talk 16:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

How about the time Ben made a personal attack against me and said my page was a "speculative conspiracy page".

First you said that there were no pedophile priests at UKC and then we proved their was one. Next you claimed that were no children at UKC - and we proved there were. I will not take your word for anything - I don't know who you are or if you met Ben. If you did meet than that means Ben is living near UKC and may be employed there or associates there. You two will not allow any negative messages about the university to be posted and I demand mediation.

I want mediators to look into this and to remove you bias people from this editing job.

P.S. I just posted this "Rev Richard Thomas - on trial for downloading child pornography - was present on the UKC campus in 1998. " If anyone removes this I will file for mediation. If it isleft up I will not.

In fact I am so busy with my new e-book (sold over 2000 copies in 3 weeks!) if "Rev Richard Thomas - on trial for downloading child pornography - was present on the UKC campus in 1998. " is left on I will drop the whole matter.

WHK, please stop adding this pointless subtrivia to Wikipedia. It will continue to be (rightly) removed and will merely serve to provoke edit warring. "Rev Richard Thomas - on trial for downloading child pornography - was present on the UKC campus in 1998." So what? He has undoubtedly been present in many places in Britain and the world over his lifetime, many of them with far more children around than a university has. Why is the fact he was at UKC eight years ago relevant to anything whatsoever? Hitler visited lots of places during his life too. So did most other criminals (not that Thomas even technically is one unless proven guilty). The fact that someone is present in a particular place is utterly uninteresting and irrelevant unless they do something significant while they are there. If you have a vendetta against the University of Kent, this is not the place to air it; if you do not have, there is no reason for you to be adding this subtrivia anyway. Please cease. This is not improving Wikipedia in any way, shape or form.

And before you make any accusations against me (as you seem wont to do to anyone who criticises you), I freely admit that I too am a UKC graduate. This too is utterly irrelevant. I should also point out that you have been in violation of the no personal attacks policy a number of times already (e.g. accusing people of being "pro-paedophiles" and liars simply because they disagree with you and threatening legal action). This is not acceptable behaviour. Please stop it immediately. -- Necrothesp 13:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi I called Ben W Bell a liar not WHK - read your post signatures more closily. That's poor Wikipedia standards. You are accusing WHK of something he did not do and that is flaming!

The very word trivia suggests "pointlessness". The fact that the university was built on top of a train tunnel and that Bertrand Russell had sex with some official constitutes "pointless subtrivia." So why not the fact that Rev Richard Thomas was there for two weeks not be posted - that is unfair. I put the post back in and will continue to do so no matter what WHK does. It does not say Thomas molested any kids there it just says he was there which is a fact. Another UKC affiliated blogger is not needed here - neutral third party mediation is needed as I have said! Who died and made UKC people boss? Lisa H.


 * Russell's activity deserves mention, not least because it meant that meant the college was not named after him (which would have given a better balance to the names - only one scientist, a writer, an economist and philosopher rather than having two scientists). Here it is a relevant side point about the University because it determined the naming. The train tunnel is even more relevant both for obscure "facts about the campus" and that it did cause fairly major problems for the university. Both are notable for the University - the criteria for inclusion. Pretty much all the trivia relates firstly to the University.


 * By contrast Richard Thomas (who wasn't really "at the University" - that implies he was enrolled or at the very least studying - but rather happened to attend a conference held on site due more to the availability of facilities than anything else) once being around on the site is in no way a notable fact about UKC. It has no place on the article and people will continue to remove it because of that. Timrollpickering 14:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see, so it's ok if you call someone a liar is it? Glad I know that now! As Timrollpickering says, the fact that the university was built over a railway tunnel and that Darwin College was originally going to be named after Bertrand Russell (since you've just misrepresented what the article actually says) are interesting facts. However, many thousands of people have visited UKC, yet you (and/or WHK - let's for the sake of fairness assume you're not a sockpuppet for the time being) choose to single out one person who hasn't been proved to have done anything interesting there whatsoever. Why is it any more relevant to the article than saying any of us were there? Answer: It isn't! It is indeed pointless subtrivia and you haven't provided any reason why it is anything else.


 * Blogger? No, you've lost me. I'm not a blogger. I think you must be confusing me with someone else. You seem to also have the bizarre belief that we are in some way biased because we're UKC graduates. Or are we biased because we don't agree with you? Somehow I suspect that's closer to the truth. As far as mediation is concerned, fine. I don't think you'll find it will bother anyone else here for obvious reasons. -- Necrothesp 14:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

University of Kent Sockpuppets should not be allowed to dominate the UofK Wukipedia listing - its not right! WHK put back the things about Michael Epps


 * Note: If you do not know what the term "sock puppet" means, do not use it. We are all blatantly different people, we have all gone to the trouble of registering and have user pages and contributions lists showing very different interests, two of us are admininstrators, we are therefore obviously not sockpuppets. -- Necrothesp 15:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Fans, I guess there is no more I can do. You people are pro-pedophile tin gods. To be honest this little page is nothing really. I reach huge numbers of people on radio and will continue to expose Epps and the UKC pedophiles. I can even do this on Wikipedia on different pages over time. There are so many pages here that the odds of you guys finding my posts are astronomical. I have already exposed Epps on other pages under a different moniker and ISP address.

I suppose the sad loosers here will actually look for them! Really pathetic lot here! You Got Ben who has nothing better to do than correct geographical references pathetic! You got that other kid who is about to be ousted from UKC - drop out looser! You guys are not even worth mentioning on the radio. Here is a link to the Jan 6, 2006 interview I did on this subject:

http://www.4acloserlook.com/january%202006.html

So long you little nobodies - I got books to sell and radio to do. 24.147.37.116 00:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)WHK

Dear Friends,

I have been trying to edit this page for sometime but a Police Officer who goes under the moniker of Necrothesp keeps deleting my posts. I feel this is in retaliation for my article on Operation Ore: http://www.geocities.com/truthseekerfinder/operation_ore.htm which exposes police pedophilia.

He did not directly identify himself as a police man and I will be pressing harassment charges with the internal affairs officer of his division in England. This is a blatant case of police harassment. 24.147.37.116 01:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC) William H. Kennedy

Anyone Else who wishes to complain can do so. Here is the contact info in the UK:

Call Centre: 9.00am - 5.00pm 08453 002 002 (press 1 at prompt)

Mincom: 0207 404 0431

or email us enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk

I thought you had to go elsewhere, make radio shows and sell books but you're still coming back here to harass people. I'm sorry but I am aware of no British law that requires a person to reveal themselves as a police officer when talking with someone in a matter not pertaining to their job. Necrothesp may be a police officer, so what has that got to do with anything? I'm 100% certain that any article you wrote on the police, and any fact that he may or not be a police officer, had no influence on his comments in this thread or his reverts to the article. In fact with the public evidence that is available for all to see within the Wikipedia history files I'm fairly certain that if you were to try and raise harassment charges against him (a person you have never met and have never had any dealings with in police capacity) that they will in fact charge you with wasting police time and resources. In the UK we have this little things called "innocent until proven guilty", it really is an interesting concept, and it is under that that people have been reverted your edits that seem to be there simply to harass individuals and stir up trouble. Michael Epps was never charged with anything, under UK law that means he's innocent and the edits you put up about him could very easily have been construed as libel. You have brought threats of legal action into Wikipedia just because the consensus of the community didn't agree with you, you have threatened individuals on no basis and attacked their personal characters and chosen to attack people through their jobs that are completely irrelevant to the editing of this as a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW encyclopaedia. Ben W Bell  talk  07:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have little idea of the purposes and aims of Wikipedia. Once again you are violating policies on personal attacks and threats of legal action. Naturally, since I have no interest in your work, I was not aware of and have not read anything you've written about Operation Ore or anything else (you do seem to have rather a high opinion of yourself and your fame - trust me that most people in Britain have never heard of you). However, since the opening line of the article you provide a link to begins "Britain's famous detective unit Scotland Yard launched an effort to track down Internet pedophiles...", it would appear that your investigative skills need a little honing. Try looking at our article on Scotland Yard for starters! Yes, that's right, it's not a detective unit. I've always believed that factual accuracy is important in serious writing. But back to your claims, how could I possibly be harassing you by doing everything publicly and providing reasons as to why I've done it, and in a personal capacity as well? You seem to be just a little bit of a fantasist. You also obviously can't stand people disagreeing with you. -- Necrothesp 08:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You may also want to read this disclaimer, which appears every time you edit Wikipedia: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Fairly unequivocal that. If you want to write exactly what you want without others changing it, then Wikipedia is not the place to do it. We have standards. -- Necrothesp 09:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC) _______________________________________________________________

Hi, The British Police have no business editing articles which are critical of actions they take. WHK stated that the Kent Police cleared Epps of complicity in pedeophilia and then demonstrated that there were pedophiles on the Kent Campus. For Necrothesp to say anything is a conflict of interest and violates Wikipedia policy on neutrality because he is bias in favor of the police. I will send a complaint to the above e mail address. This transcends Wikipedia policy and is a case of the British Police harassing someone into submission. Say anything against the British Police and "Necrothesp" comes after you. Necro meaning death in Latin -- an implied death threat.

God Bless WHK! Power to the People! Stop the Orwellian Tactics of the Bristish Police! 24.61.58.198 13:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Lisa

Necrothesp doesn't work for Kent Police, and even if he did his opinions are the official opinions of the police. You are saying that just because Necrothesp works for the police he shouldn't have any dealings in any article which could even remotely involve any criminal comment. I've never heard such nonsense, his external commitments and job has no bearing on the editing of a neutral encyclopaedia as long as he can remain neutral, which he has proven himself able to do on numerous occassions. You on the other hand seem to be on some sort of crusade against Michael Epps, the aforementioned priests (none of which have been found guilty of any crime) and the University of Kent (because someone once set foot there). If, as you above stated, Michael Epps was cleared by Kent Police then why bring it up, the man is innocent under British law. Oh and incidentally Necro is of Greek origin, not Latin. Ben W Bell  talk  14:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, first of all, if you knew anything about the British police, you would know there is no such thing as the British Police. There are a number of entirely independent forces. Since I do not belong to Kent Police, I could not possibly have a conflict of interests (even if this were an issue, which it isn't). It's as ridiculous as saying I can't edit anything at all about Britain because I'm British and might be biased. Second, I am not harassing anyone. I am deleting your edits and providing clear reasons why I am doing so. Other editors are doing the same. Third, the police were not an issue here at all until you and your friend made them an issue, presumably because you spotted that I was a police officer (something that is clear for all to see on my user page). It was only then that your friend (who is so adult that he resorted to vandalising my user page) started providing links to the external article about the police. This Wikipedia article makes no mention of the police, so how do you work out "The British Police have no business editing articles which are critical of actions they take"? Fourth, why on earth do you think the IPCC would be interested in a dispute on Wikipedia? Another example of your inflated sense of self-importance, I fear. Fifth, your new addition "The British Police protect the University of Kent from criticism of their handling of pedophile accusations" is what is known as a wild and unsourced allegation. Why do you think Wikipedia is a soapbox for your weird theories? My user name is a death threat? Don't make me laugh (actually, do make me laugh, since under all the unpleasant posturing you are actually pretty amusing). Get your facts straight before you make ludicrous and childish accusations. -- Necrothesp 14:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What happens when 100rds of William H. Kennedy's followers bombard the Unviversity of Warwick's phone lines demanding to know the true identity of Necro? Will this constitute a personal attack? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.61.58.198 (talk • contribs).


 * What will happen is the University of Warwick will ask the callers "Who?" Ben W Bell   talk  14:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) - CobaltBlueTony 20:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)