User talk:LondonMan

August 2015
Hello, I'm George8211. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to UCL School of Management seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. &mdash;George8211 / T 15:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Please feel free to edit it. I was attempting to make the latest edit neutral. This is a new article with new content being added. Feel free to contribute, and help me make the article more neutral.LondonMan (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi LondonMan! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 16:57, Tuesday, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

Imperial's lead
I admit that Imperial is a leading science-based institution but the lead there should follow the flow of the whole page (where history is the first section) as a precise and concise summary. Of course, the first few sentences can be a broad description including prestige but only when supported by sufficient robust sources (see Harvard or Stanford page). Using present perfect tense to describe the recognition sounds more fluent to be an integral part of the history and sticks to what exactly the source says. Current reputation and rankings are well retained in the third paragraph and such pieces of information don't deserve much space or otherwise violating the neutrality. In dialogue with Biomedicinal 11:28 on 07 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The lead paragraph usually is the one that pops up when somebody searches for a topic on wikipedia. Hence, I feel the lead paragraph should not only describe the history but also the present status. If you look at a good article say London you will find that while the lead paragraph does describe briefly the history, otherwise it mostly sticks to the present description. So, my intention for Imperial has been to highlight its history and its position. While the source talks about past century, I feel there isn't much controversy over the fact (supported by current range of rankings etc) that Imperial is a leading science based institution. Hence I feel the statement "leading" (not "prestigious") in present tense is objective. However I agree that writing the lead para of Imperial has been difficult as the flow breaks and a past perfect tense looks more reasonable. So maybe a reasonable agreement can be to change "is recognised" to "has been recognised" without adding the statement "over the past century". LondonMan (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

All top uk UNIVERSTIES
The LSE article needs work. It is below neutral for the public outside of the UK. It's true that a janitor in Peoria will know what Harvard is and not know what the LSE is. On the other hand the LSE enjoys a stellar reputation and is very well known in the States among academic, political, and business leaders. From Economics/Finance/Financial Mathematics The LSE is feeding every major bulge bracket investment bank in the City, and the top financial employers worldwide in general, with top talent. Talent having graduated with distinction from certainly one of the most selective pools anywhere, including that of Harvard-Stanford-University of Chicago. One would have a better chance of getting into HBS than into the MSc Finance at LSE. There are plenty of Ivy League BA graduates doing their graduate work at LSE. I will do my best over the next month to find citations to correct this. In 2015 LSE is without question one of the most selective and prestigious universities in the world. If the FT, WSJ, The Fed, The Bank of England, and Goldman know this, then so should the general public. I would seek transparency more than anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Adams 2496 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. Why did you move down and changed entirely all sentences which says that UCL, KINGS, LSE, IMPERIAL etc. are prestigious universities? Also, WORLD LEADING is not better than PRESTIGIOUS. Why shouldn't have like the American Universities? Why have you made these strange changes? Thanks. --78.149.126.236 (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. (i) "Prestigious" is a peacock term (see WP:PEACOCK) not recommended to be used in Wikipedia articles. (ii) Wikipedia's lead paragraph should provide a comprehensive introduction to the subject (see WP:LEAD). Just as good articles like London and several other universities provide a brief overview of the subject's past and present in the lead paragraph, the same way these university lead paras should also provide a comprehensive introduction. There is an elaborate style guide on how to write wikipedia articles, and all articles should adhere to these guidelines (see WP:STYLE). Thanks. LondonMan (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean by peacock, but in this case is acceptable. Will you be able to do the same thing on all others USA universities? For instance, have a look at Harvard. --2.96.183.241 (talk) 10:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Moreover, what do you think about Queen Mary? It has been recognised as one of the leading in Europe. Could you add something there? --2.96.183.241 (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Harvard University and Stanford University are special cases that get specifically cited as "prestigious" across the main stream media. So "prestigious" is not a peacock term for them. Harvard and Stanford are not reasonable templates for London universities. Other American universities do not talk of prestige and if they do I would not be possibly be able to make all these style edits. Wikipedia is not a place for deciding the reputation of universities. If there are ample robust citations that state something about a university, that can go in. That which is not stated should not. Are there citations that state that Queen Mary is "considered to be one the leading European universities"? If so then anyone can make that edit. But without a proper citation, it is not encyclopaedic to add own value judgements in articles. Just because one Wiki editor believes a university is leading, it does not mean "it is considered to be" a leading university. The world "one of the leading" is also quiet vague. How many universities make this "one of the" list. 2, 5, 1%, 10%. There can be several metrics. So, it is preferred that only if there are citations that make statements such as ABC is one of the leading university, should such a statement go in Wikipedia.LondonMan (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Then it is same for Oxbridge, UCL, LSE, KING'S and Imperial. Even they are prestigious. Don't support these Americans. 2.96.181.144 (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read carefully my comment. "If there are ample robust citations that state something about a university, that can go in. That which is not stated should not.... without a proper citation, it is not encyclopaedic to add own value judgements in articles.., it is preferred that only if there are citations that make statements such as ABC is one of the leading (or prestigious) university, should such a statement go in Wikipedia." Are there ample sources that state King's UCL Imperial UCL or LSE are one of the most "prestigious" universities in the world just as in case of Harvard or Stanford or possibly Oxford and Cambridge? If so please post it in the talk pages, so other editors can look into.LondonMan (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi London Man. Hi hope that you are fine. As you can see above, I asked you whether you can add that phrase on Queen Mary. I have found many sources that state that it is one of the world's leading universities, not only in Europe. You can ad them. 1,2,

3, 4, 5,6 and many others as well. Thanks.2.96.181.144 (talk)

UCL School of Management
Thank you for creating UCL School of Management.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

UCL
Hi LondonMan, I can probably agree that the lead is now better for this article. I'm hopeful that this article can be nominated for good article status soon, some more cleanup is required I think on shorting the history section and splitting parts to the history subpage. Thanks Aloneinthewild (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)