Talk:Northeastern University – London/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

University of London - International Programme

According to Binda Rai,Head of Corporate Affairs and Communication of University of London International Programmes; no agreement was ever made to award University of London Degrees and or give the NCH affiliation status to the NCH (which under the International Programme, it cannot). http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/media/press_releases/new_college_humanities.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elcor101 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Syllabus

NB: would whoever is taking down the following, verifiable information, please stop doing so: if the NCH is not proud to be offering the UoLIP History syllabus written by staff at Royal Holloway, it would be simpler to say so, rather than removing this accurate information.

The stated aim is to offer high-quality education to rival that of Oxford and Cambridge, yet it seems to be offering units via the University of London International Programmes (UoLIP). This is obvious when comparing the NCH History programme (http://www.nchum.org/courses/history) with that of UoLIP (http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/prospective_students/undergraduate/holloway/history/syllabus.shtml).

Both, for instance, reference 'Modern Times: International Economic History c.1901-1990'. This is in fact an old Royal Holloway course, which presently runs as two half units on the RHUL campus in Egham (HS2006: Globalisation Capital and HS2209: International Economic Relations - http://www.rhul.ac.uk/history/documents/pdf/grouponecourses2011-2012.pdf). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Bob Aardvark (talk • contribs)

I can't find any secondary sources, let alone ones that meet Wikipedia's sourcing requirements, that support this claim. As there are no secondary sources, the claim is not going to be included in the article, as there is a policy aginst original research of this kind. Nevard (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The history syllabus published by NCH on their own website (http://www.nchum.org/courses/history) is identical to that of the University of London International Programme, which is a course led by Royal Holloway (http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/prospective_students/undergraduate/holloway/history/syllabus.shtml). The NCH history course (especially exams) is therefore identical to that studied by Royal Holloway students on the Egham campus (http://www.rhul.ac.uk/history/prospectivestudents/undergraduate/historydepartmentcourseunits.aspx), who pay £9,000 fees. This is patently evident from the websites of both organisations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.111.43 (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If it's relevant, a media organisation might cover it, and then it could be mentioned here. Until then, no. Nevard (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That's just how it works in this case. They are teaching LU degrees from the same syllabus, but with their own lecturers. Other colleges write part of their own syllabus and have that verified. It is for students to decide whether touching Prof Grayling's cloak and the rest is worth 9k a year :-). That's from London International on the phone. The MSM haven't mentioned it yet, so Wikipedia isn't allowed to believe that it is real :-) That's also just how it works, and is an issue with Wikipedia definitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Wardman 86.152.37.47 (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This is suppression of information in the public domaine. It can be substantiated by comparison, and through the webpages of both the UoLIP and NCH, and cross referencing at RHUL (see http://personal.rhul.ac.uk/uhra/030/Courses.html, when we used to teach Modern Times face-toface). However, I am the programme director of the UoLIP BA in History, and WROTE both Modern Times, Globaling Capital and International Economic Relations, and teach them both at RHUL and for the UoLIP.

Just check: http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/prospective_students/undergraduate/holloway/history/academic.shtml

BA History Academic leadership

Founded in 1885, Royal Holloway is the third largest multidisciplinary College in the University and one of only a few colleges nationally which is allowed to use the ‘Royal’ title. The College enjoys an international reputation for the highest quality teaching and research across the sciences, arts and humanities.

The Department of History, the largest History department in the University of London, is rated in the top national assessment category for teaching and is recognised as world-leading in its research. Further details can be found on the Department of History website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Bob Aardvark (talk • contribs) 13:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be suppression of information in the public domaine. It can be substantiated by comparison, and through the webpages of both the UoLIP and NCH, and cross referencing at RHUL (see http://personal.rhul.ac.uk/uhra/030/Courses.html, when we used to teach Modern Times face-to-face). However, I am the programme director of the UoLIP BA in History, and WROTE both Modern Times, Globalizing Capital and International Economic Relations, and teach them both at RHUL and for the UoLIP.

Just check: http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/prospective_students/undergraduate/holloway/history/academic.shtml

BA History Academic leadership

Founded in 1885, Royal Holloway is the third largest multidisciplinary College in the University and one of only a few colleges nationally which is allowed to use the ‘Royal’ title. The College enjoys an international reputation for the highest quality teaching and research across the sciences, arts and humanities.

The Department of History, the largest History department in the University of London, is rated in the top national assessment category for teaching and is recognised as world-leading in its research. Further details can be found on the Department of History website.

Dr Bob Aardvark (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're the program director of the UoLIP, you may have a conflict of interest adding that material to this article, and regardless of that you ought not to be edit warring with different accounts. You're adding what we call original research, specifically this kind, which is a policy violation. Before that material can be added to the article, you would have to find a reliable secondary source that makes those points about the New College of the Humanities. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear SlimVirgin: I appreciate the explanation. Perhaps I erred by not referening the multitude of course with identical titles for both the UoLIP, RHUL & NCH, which are the RHUL course written for the UoLIP, and for which the NCH will be providing 'additional tutition'. Nevertheless, the broadsheet media in the UK are now reporting this in a verifiable, consistent and relevant way, so we'll just let this story unwind in good order. I understand the page has now been locked until 20 June: while it won't be me - and I have only edited this under my usual non de plume - we'll see the truth of the syllabus coming from Goldsmiths (English Lit), Birkbeck (Philosophy) and RHUL (History), amongst others, come out. Rare that I make additions to Wikipedia, and I will take the editing comments onboard for next time. Dr Bob Aardvark (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact that New College of the Humanities is teaching from the University of London International Syllabus in History, English, and Philosophy - courses originated by Royal Holloway, Goldsmiths, and Birkbeck (respectively), is now being reported by the Guardian. This is a reliable secondary source for the "primary research" that has been claimed above: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jun/06/ac-grayling-private-university-syllabus AC Graying is quoted as justifying this through the value add of additional course material, which comprises the separate diploma: "We offer University of London international programme degrees, so that is the syllabus we are preparing the students for. It is reductive to describe it as repackaging … There is a quarter more content, contact with some rather distinguished people, and preparation for professional life." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SouthLDN (talk • contribs) 19:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. This article is quickly developing and its unacceptable for there to be too much editing of reported fact. As long as citations are clear it is important that any controversial aspects about the new college are reported on.Totallycrazyman (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Check this out... http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/media/press_releases/new_college_humanities.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.142.89 (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

Bloomsbury, London, England, United Kingdom -- the Milky Way, the Universe? :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 08:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure If there were Galaxy and Infinity fields. Who's to say that everyone knows where London is? Baltimore? Kinshasa? If the fields are there, I'm all for using them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence says this is a new British university in London, so there's need to over-egg the pudding. Also see WP:OVERLINK. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 08:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Linking The infobox comes first when you're editing the page, so if anything, you shouldn't mention that it's British in the text. But really, an infobox's purpose is to capitulate information in the article. The infobox should contain information that is present in the body of the article as that is its purpose. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I've left London, England, but I had to remove United Kingdom because it looked a bit odd. The country (not the state) is England, and in terms of the university system there is a difference between England and Scotland so that's the parameter that would matter more than UK. I also removed British from the first sentence as you suggested. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources

To add I don't think I'm going to be editing this page, but other users might find this valuable: http://www.metafilter.com/104270/Oh-the-humanity . —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Justin. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Editing policy

Concerned that Nevard is editing far too much content off the main page by being restrictive in terms of the sources he calls legitimate. Reasons for removing sourced information should always refer to either a wiki policy or an alternative source and should not be removed due to individual preference. As such, the recently removed Blogspot source was unacceptable as it contained relevant information from an official organisation (Education Activist Network).Totallycrazyman (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

And where are the reliable sources discussing the comments of the EAN/socialist workers party/whatever on the New College of the Humanities? Anyone can set up an organisation and have an official website for that organisation. Nevard (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

ffs so much heated discussion from people with little knowledge but strong beliefs

For many years it has been possible for to gain a degree from the UoL as an external candidate. This means you take their exams, get your papers marked by their examiners, and get a certificate from the UoL. The entry requirements are very, very low, because there isn't a real limit on student numbers. The cost is something like 9k a year, I forget the exact price, and this does not include any teaching or tutorials. Instead you get given reading lists and access to some sort of online forum thing. Essentially, it is a money-making enterprise for the UoL which competes with the Open University to provide open-to-all distance-learning degrees in the UK. Course materials consist of normal university textbook reading lists, which you buy for yourself, just like almost any other humanities course at a university in the UK.

Other institutions teaching to this syllabus is entirely normal and legal and legit. Where confusion has arisen - most likely due to false marketing by the NCH, though poor journalism may also be to blame - is that in the initial raft of articles on the NCH the British national press all described it as a brand new university offering its own degrees. This has now back-fired on the NCH because the newspapers are now reporting that the NCH has scandalously "plagerised" the UoL syllabuses and course materials, and that it isn't an accredited university and is therefore a scam. This is hyperbolic reporting designed to sell newspapers - the NCH may well be guilty of underhand marketing, but teaching to the UoL external program is entirely legit. And as for course materials, almost all universities in the UK now provide reading lists of textbooks rather than providing their own special course materials (partly because a textbook with thousands of hours work put into is usually going to be better than course notes, and partly because it allows students to learn to deal for themselves with conflicting viewpoints and arguments, rather than having conclusions spoon fed to them).

As it happens I dislike almost all the academics involved and wouldn't go to the NCH if you paid me, but some of the commentary on the NCH now appearing is wildly inaccurate. Juichirotanizaki (talk) 05:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your latter point about accuracy. People seem to have misunderstood what's being said, though NCH is partly to blame, I think, because their website is a little unclear. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 11:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

well-sourced concerns about this venture

There are well-sourced concerns about this venture. For example these points have been deleted:

• The CEO Jeremy Gibbs was previously chairman of Futuretalk plc which became insolvent in 2010 and is currently Deputy Chairman of Scientific Digital Imaging plc a loss-making AIM-listed company
• There have also been allegations that the new institution is a form of profiteering in the context of public sector university cuts. and questions about the veracity of some of the financial claims

Can anyone give a valid policy-based reason why these points should not be restored to the article? NBeale (talk) 06:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Normally there needs to be a good reason to include text. Articles are not really a place for lists of claimed defects. That kind of material is more suitable for a blog. Johnuniq (talk) 07:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree about the Gibbs sentence. But there's nothing wrong with the Independent and Guardian articles (though text drawing on them might have to stick closer to what is said and avoid words like "profiteering" if it isn't used). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

UoL International Programmes and NCH

According to UoL Press Release

http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/media/press_releases/new_college_humanities.shtml

there is no special arrangement between UoL and NCH whatsoever. Students apply for UoL International Programme courses INDIVIDUALLY and enjoy relevant benefits (access ro online resources and facilities)independently of whether they are at the same time registered with NCH or not.

The following line should be removed or edited from the introductory section of the article as it is based on NCH dodgy marketing and does not accurately reflect the situation:

"The college will use the University of London's student and teaching facilities, including its library, students' union, and halls of residence.[5]"

Please, read the UoL press release; it makes everything clear. NCH is a private institution that prepares students to sit UoL External System exams. This should be clear in wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.34.178 (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed it, per WP:SELFPUB, in consideration of this press release which seems to show some contradiction with what the institution itself is claiming. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Location

The most obvious question, and one that has to be addressed in the lead, is "where is it?" I've therefore retained for now the sentence: "The college will use the University of London's student and teaching facilities," which is what Grayling said. I think he means by this that, as students registered for University of London degrees, NCH's students will use those facilities, as any other students registered for those degrees do. But I'm not certain this is what's meant, so I've emailed the college for clarification. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 11:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is what's meant, per this press release:

"No agreement has been concluded as yet regarding access to the Senate House Libraries by NCH students, but financial terms exist for the payment of fees for access by any students of University of London International Programmes and this would, of course, apply to students of NCH. The position is similar for the University of London Union, and it should be noted that all students of the University of London International Programmes are eligible for associate membership for a payment of £20 per annum, but are not eligible to compete competitively in University sports teams."

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 11:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

[copied from SV talk]

Re this: how is "David Latchman, the master of Birkbeck College, announced on June 6 that A.G. Grayling had resigned his position there, and added that there was no agreement between Birkbeck and NCH to share facilities" not to be found here? And why restore something I deleted without participating in the extant discussion about it? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. I can see it's in the source and didn't say otherwise; it's also still in the article, though not entirely relevant now. Could you elaborate? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 11:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Forget the first part -- I thought it was part of your "rmvd some material not in the sources", and I see now that you moved it. In the same edit you restored a passage I had deleted in the preceding edit, as per discussion in the section directly above, without participating (yourself) in that discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the material not in a source wasn't that. The sentence I restored about using the University of London's facilities is needed because otherwise we wouldn't be saying in the lead where it is. I posted above by way of explanation. Apologies for the confusion. It's clarified now because the University of London has confirmed what NCH said, though the university made it quite a bit clearer than NCH did. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 11:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

One problem here is that the new editors posting on this talk page (who say or imply that they work in academia, though it might just be one person) have misunderstood what NCH and the University of London are saying. Other people seem to be communicating that misunderstanding to newspapers. So this is one of those cases where primary sources are valuable (so long as there are no SYN violations), and secondary sources should be chosen carefully to avoid spreading the confusion. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 11:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

University

All the sources are calling this a private university (Times Higher Education, Guardian, BBC, Telegraph, etc), so we should follow suit. The Privy Council argument is irrelevant to how ordinary words are used; they regulate only how the word is used in titles in the UK (whether something can call itself University of X), and they're luckily not in charge of how Wikipedia uses it. We should simply follow the sources. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 10:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I've followed Times Higher Education in calling it a private university college. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 11:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Times Higher Ed calling it a 'university college' is just as inaccurate as sources calling it a 'university'. Both terms are legally-protected in the UK, so cannot be used without Privy Council approval.

The Privy Council argument is entirely relevant here. Common descriptions are normally fine on Wikipedia, but this is an area where the common usage is incorrect. The correct usage therefore takes president. This article cannot describe the NCH as a 'university' or 'university college', as it is not either.

I have therefore changed the article to read 'higher education college', which acknowledges that the NCH is in the same sector as universities. - Green Tentacle (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

As per edit summary -- we're not obligated to follow UK law, instead follow the sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The article for tsunami is there and not at 'tidal wave', despite the latter being a more common term used to refer to it. On Wikipedia, accuracy ALWAYS goes before common terms. - Green Tentacle (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

We go by the sources here. If the Times Higher Education is calling it a university college, there's no reason for us not to follow suit. What the privy council says about how words are used in titles in the UK does not change how English speakers around the world use language. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearly (as you are all having this debate) this is a contentious term. The BBC have run an article on the debate about this term that even quotes a government spokesperson saying ""New College for the Humanities is not currently a university college. The college has not yet applied to use this title," said a Bis spokesman." Regardless of the truth, I think it is clearly most valid to use to least disputed term (in this case collage) and it should be changed immediately. User:Heathcoteheat —Preceding undated comment added 11:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC).

We have a big problem on this talk page with people not reading the sources they cite. That source [1] and all the others say it may not use the word university in its title. But it may refer to itself as a university college, as may other sources, clearly. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 13:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

A. C. Grayling

The new college will probably be using Grayling's 2002 work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.8.149 (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Grayling has written books with titles like "Wittgenstein" and "Russell". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.105.19 (talk) 09:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

mention of "University of London degree"

In the introductory section it is currently mentioned: 'Students registering with NCH will register for a University of London degree, and will use the University of London's student and teaching facilities.[5]'

This is vague. Students registering with NCH will be individually and independently registered with London International Programmes (ex 'External System'). I propose the use of a clear discription like the one already found under the 'College structure' section, viz. 'NCH students will register for University of London degrees under the University of London International Programmes'. There has been some confusion about the relation between UoL International Programmes and NCH, especially in the media. The wiki article should be totally clear about that.

UoL IP has been offering courses for 150 years. Students register individually and independently. They only pay for registration and examinations. If they pass the exams they get a UoL IP degree (equivalent but not the same with internal degrees). How you study is up to you. You may study alone, you may consult your dad's cousin, the sage on the mountain, or attend an institution, private or not. These institutions only help you prepare for the UoL exams and have nothing to do with UoL whatsoever. NCH is such a preparation centre offering additonal coursework that has nothing to do with, and contributes not towards, the UoL degree.

Furthermore, under 'Courses' section we find 'the Guardian writes that the same degree courses are available from Birkbeck, Goldsmiths, and Royal Holloway colleges for ₤9,000 or less;' Well, the Guardian is wrong. They have in mind Internal Uol Courses. Uol International degrees cost roughly 3.000GBP IN TOTAL for a BA(check fee sections of their official website).

The wiki article should make clear to prospective students that : Students registering with NCH will have to be individually and independently registered with London International Programmes. Registration with NCH and succesful completion of NCH courses is neither necessary nor sufficient (i.e. it is irrelevant) to obtaining a UoL degree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.34.178 (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

misleading info about NCH 'affiliation'with UoL

At the table beneath the photograph it reads "Affiliations: University of London degrees[1]"

This is false information. First of all there is no institution that goes by the title "University of London degrees". Secondly, UoL press release (http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/media/press_releases/new_college_humanities.shtml) states clearly:

'...Independent Teaching Instuitions vary considerably in their scale and fees, this partly reflecting the level of local costs. The University of London International Programmes has a process for providing and re-confirming recognition to selected Independent Teaching Institutions around the world, the purposes being to indicate where good-quality support may be obtained and to facilitate co-operation to continuously improve the student experience. This does not preclude any institution from deciding to teach University of London International Programmes curricula and examinations without seeking recognition.The University is aware of the intention of the New College of the Humanities (NCH) to provide tuition to students of the University of London International Programmes. There is no formal agreement between the University of London and the NCH concerning academic matters. As with any other Independent Teaching Institution, a dialogue will be maintained about when to apply for recognition under the Institutions Policy Framework, but normally a track record is required. To avoid any confusion, it should be made clear that NCH is not, and will not be, a part of the University of London. Meanwhile it is legitimate for NCH, as an entirely independent institution, to provide tuition to students of University of London International Programmes as other institutions in London and around the world do. These students’ applications for registration for degrees would be made individually with the University of London International Programmes.

Therefore, it is clear that the '"Affiliations: University of London degrees[1]"' is misleading and has to be removed 85.73.34.178 (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It makes the information you want to impart easier to follow if you post it once, and keep it in the same section if it's about the same material. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 13:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

"Professoriate"

I think the use of the word "professoriate" is at least potentially misleading, and it doesn't help that the references are to the college's own website (selfpub). Commentators are noting that some of these people have full-time jobs elsewhere (and some live abroad) and might be in essence decorative. I think we might be falling for some promotional efforts here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I used the word the college uses, because it's not clear what these academics will do exactly. But senior academics are often not around a lot, so that wouldn't make NCH different from anywhere else.

By the way, self-published material written by a subject is fine in articles about that subject, especially when purely descriptive like this. There's nowhere else to get this information except directly from the primary source, so we don't have a choice really. Also, it's worth nothing that SPS doesn't really apply to institutions, so it's probably better to think of this material as a primary source, rather than a self-published one. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course we have a choice -- we have a choice not to include this information, particularly if it is unduly self-serving. Curious reading of SPS -- I don't share it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually wrote SPS, and the intention is that it apply to blogs and websites run by one or two people, not anything with professional input. Otherwise, we would have to call the White House a self-publisher, or the New York Times, whereas in fact they are professionally published primary sources when discussing issues they're involved in, and secondary sources when not. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The White House might well be a SPS when publishing stuff about itself, and we would prefer third-party sources. The material here falls foul of several clauses (self-serving, assertions about 3rd parties, doubts about authenticity). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

But then you're extending the meaning of SPS unnecessarily, when thinking in terms of primary/secondary would be sufficient.

There aren't going to be any secondary sources for this that are independent of the college or the professors, because they are the only sources that know. If e.g. Dawkins and the college say he is a professor there, no one else can really say otherwise. Secondary sources do exist for the information, but they have copied the website and press releases, as have we. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not extending it in relation to what it says. If there are secondary sources for "professoriate", then great (but you said earlier that there aren't) -- we should use them. The point I'm making is "it's promotional" and you're not addressing it. Do I need to spell it out in greater detail? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing your point, and if so I apologize. As I see it, NCH has said there are 14 well-known professors behind this, and have referred to them as the professoriate. Secondary sources have also published those names. None of the professors has stepped forward to say "Oi! What's this about me working for NCH? Never heard of it!" So it seems to be true, whether promotional or not. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The professoriate at most universities would be full-time employees. The use of the word here is part of the branding and implies a level of involvement and commitment that is clearly not on par with regular usage of that word -- an effort to promote this place that Wikipedia has no reason to assist with. But never mind, I've taken care of it in a different way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Professors needn't be full-time employees.

I don't think it's appropriate to rely on a New Statesman opinion piece so much. It places scare quotes around professoriate, [2] so you added them to the article. [3] You added a quote from it to the Reception section, [4] and a second quote from it at the start of the paragraph describing the professors' teaching hours, ahead of the actual information, as though that writer's opinion mattered more. [5]

Also, the second quote says almost all the professors are attached to foreign universities, but that's not correct, so it should be removed.

I suggest that we avoid quoting opinions as far as possible, unless the source is well-known or says something important and hard to summarize. Ideally, once the reporting settles down and we have a basic draft up, readers should not be able to tell whether the article's authors had a POV about the college. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 10:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've left the two New Statesman writer's opinions in the article, but they're now both in the Reception section. I would normally remove the one about "almost all" the professors being attached to foreign universities, because it seems to be a mistake on the writer's part, but you posted on my talk page that I had violated 3RR (I think that's what you meant, though I can't see it), so I'm worried now about editing anything you've added in case you interpret it as a revert. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 10:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

So when NCH says that it has a famous "professoriate", we're supposed to take them at their word (and not worry about SPS) -- but when someone else observes that it's mostly a matter of "absentees" that's merely an opinion and shouldn't be included? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

But is what he says about "almost all" being "attached" to foreign institutions not factually incorrect? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 13:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

True of Blackburn, Singer, Colley, Ferguson, Krauss, Dworkin, Pinker, Cannadine, and Ricks. Since you prefer not to quote, it would be appropriate to use "the majority" instead of quoting Green for "almost all". The absentee point is not inappropriate at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

How is it true of Blackburn? People can work for more than one institution; what would be relevant here is where they live. Backburn teaches just one semester in the United States, and I believe lives in Cambridge, so there's no reason to believe he would have difficulty teaching in London. Eight out of 14 is not "almost all," or even much of a majority.

Could I ask that you not use opinion pieces as sources for factual issues? And that we only use opinion pieces from well-known writers, or writers making unusual or important points? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 13:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You're now making the source saying something he didn't say; he didn't say the majority, he said "almost all," and he was wrong, so please don't use him as a source for anything factual. Also, can I ask that you avoid "noted," or "noting," which you've used a couple of times; it implies that Wikipedia endorses the statement. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 13:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait, which is it -- should we quote or should we convey? As for your request on opinion pieces -- David Allen Green is apparently notable and I think the point is important. And it would be easier to agree to it if you could agree not to show unquestioning adherence to self-published sources from institutions/people that are engaged in live branding efforts. It's called NPOV, and we're likely to continue disagreeing about it here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

1. The NCH is not an SPS; it is a primary source. But even as an SPS it would be okay to use it here.
2. The NS writer may be notable enough for an article, but there's no reason to single his opinion out here. I added Eagleton's and Johnson's because they're well-known and their views were being reported by multiple sources, not only by themselves. If every editor adds a quote from his favourite article, this will quickly turn into the usual quote farm that you often find in new articles.
3. We should not use opinion pieces for facts, especially when the facts are easy to come by elsewhere.
4. It was the Guardian who reported the teaching hours, so NCH is not the sole source for the level of those professors' involvement (the ones the Guardian spoke to anyway).
5. It is better to summarize than quote, but we should not be using opinion pieces as sources for facts, whether quoted or summarized.
6. Extensive use of a New Statesman opinion piece is unlikely to enhance NPOV.

As I said, ideally readers should not be able to tell whether the writers of this article like or don't like NCH. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 13:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The NCH website is a primary source and an SPS, and I have already indicated why in my view it is not okay to use it in the way it is being used here ("professoriate"). You complained earlier that Green's claim ("almost all") was incorrect, so I fixed that, and "majority" is not incorrect (anyway not sure how we know where Blackburn lives).

I'm trying to look at the bigger picture here, and you're still not addressing it: I don't think it's NPOV to draw so heavily on what NCH says about itself, and if we're going to do that (inappropriately, in my view) then material from Green etc. provides appropriate balance. I'm not convinced that it belongs in "reception", either. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You just keep saying it's an SPS, but I've explained SPS refers to non-professional publications with no oversight: like edits to this page, or edits to a blog. Documents generated by NCH about itself are primary sources, not what Wikipedia calls SPS.

I'm happy to provide balance. My question is why you're quoting a solicitor. I can see why people would want to know what the mayor of London thinks, and lots of sources are quoting him. And I can see why people would want to know what Eagleton—a very well-known academic—thinks, and lots of sources are quoting him too. But I can't see why we're quoting a solicitor that no one else has picked up on. I mean no disrespect to him; it's just a question of using appropriate sources. I wouldn't want to see Eagleton quoted in an article about the law, for example.

And in particular when you find a source got something wrong, something that is very easy to check, that's another cause for concern. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Who is providing oversight for NCH's website? Even if it is only a primary source, I think its use for this "professoriate" business is questionable -- it is offering an insider's view, and a self-serving one at that. Why Green? (He's not only a solicitor, also a journalist.) Mainly because the point seems cogent in relation to what is in the primary source and the way it is being presented here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I know the word "professoriate" is driving you crazy, but it doesn't really mean anything. The main professor in my area when I was a graduate student was someone who gave no lectures at all as I recall, and saw only a very small number of students for tutorials. Institutions differ, contracts differ, and the more senior they are, the less you see of them, in many cases. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

SPS

Here's an example of where you're getting SPS wrong. You removed the single most helpful source so far—the press release from the University of London [6]—on the grounds that it's an SPS. But it isn't, not under WP's rules. It's a primary source, and the first one that properly explained the situation regarding degrees, and therefore vital for the article. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Please show me the diff and I'll be happy to consider further. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You mentioned it here on the talk page; just do a search for the link. There's nothing to consider. The University of London is not an SPS according to the way WP uses the term; it's a professional organization that employs lawyers and professional writers and academics to check its output, a very valuable primary source in this context. I fell upon it yesterday as an oasis in a desert, because it was the first source that explained authoritatively and clearly what was happening. But you wanted to remove it under some rule.

I'm all for editing within the rules, but they have to be applied well. The very strict definition of 3RR you're using, for example, is leaving bad edits on the page that should have been removed. I also see you used an entirely different definition of 3RR for your own edits in another article not so long ago. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite confident I haven't removed the link you mention, and I again invite you to show the diff. Likewise for the accusation of hypocrisy (thank you) but perhaps on my talk page instead of here, please. Anyway how did we get from "NCH website is an SPS" to "University of London is an SPS"? Again, who is providing oversight to NCH's website? Puzzling. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Do a search for the link on this page, and you will see where you said you were removing it. You have misunderstood SPS, and anyway it's irrelevant, because both sources are appropriate under our rules, whatever you want to call them. Are you seriously suggesting we shouldn't list the professors, because not all have been mentioned by secondary sources? That would be very wrong-headed. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You are clearly confused and will not find such a diff in the article history. I take a different view about what SPS and PRIMARY allow in this context; differing views are to be expected. If we are to list the 14 people who have put their names to this thing, it's not at all clear to me that we should follow NCH in identifying them as NCH's "professoriate". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed a statement based on this source, given what was said in a UoLIP press release (and in consideration of SPS). You were mistaken, as would have been clear if you had made an effort to identify the diff. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you could have found this yourself:

According to UoL Press Release

http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/media/press_releases/new_college_humanities.shtml there is no special arrangement between UoL and NCH whatsoever. ... Please, read the UoL press release; it makes everything clear. ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.34.178 (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed it, per WP:SELFPUB, in consideration of this press release which seems to show some contradiction with what the institution itself is claiming. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, you are confused. Please see this diff -- it is clearly what you have in mind, and I do not remove that press release here (or anywhere else). I removed a video produced by NCH itself, because it appeared that that press release from UoLIP contradicted what was in it. Please acknowledge. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Last comment about this issue

Nomoskedasticity, I don't want to comment about this further, because it's going nowhere. My request is that we stick to the three core content policies and the BLP policy; use appropriate, high-quality sources; stick closely to what they say without producing a quote farm; and write clearly and in a disinterested tone, so that Wikipedia doesn't take a side. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

2 or 3

Wikipedia editor Laurence Boyce has made edits favourable to Grayling. Now, Richard Dawkins is in Grayling's new university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.155.52 (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Removal of image

I am puzzled as to why this image of the Senate House Library - which will be the primary library for students of the NCH - has been removed. To me it seemed perfect apt and in no way inappropriate.

Senate House in Bloomsbury, which houses the Senate House Library of the University of London

Rangoon11 (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It seems appropriate to me too. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply: Why I removed it - I removed it because it seemed to me potentially miss-leading. This article is about a new private college that is hoping to get its students access to another institutions facilities. I think it is possible to have the picture there might make people (prospective students or their parents) think that this big building is somehow indicative of the status of the new college. Pictures of ULs big lecture theaters and class rooms because they might be used would also be bad.I think. One of the reasons orgnaistions have big buildings is because of the prestige - credibility etc they yield. I think this new college article should have a picture of the building they own or are leasing as their building. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

It's not misleading at all, it merely illustrates the adjacent text which refers to the library. Edits shouldn't be made purely to make the NCH appear prestigious, nor equally for no purpose other than to make it appear lacking in such. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It's a fact that the college intends to register its students for University of London degrees, and that will give them access to this library, so I can't see what's misleading about it. We could change the caption to make clear that students will have access because studying for University of London degrees. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I would support a change of caption as a fair compromise. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Would that work for you, Msrasnw? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No to the image of UL Senate House on NCH's page. I think so far the college is all proposals and our article is problematic. We have no picture of their office or any of their buildings. Just another potentially, to my mind, inappropriate image of Bloomsbury Square. My view is this is just the sort of thing dodgy institutions do to big themselves up and we shouldn't do it here. I think the College itself has so far restrained itself from publishing such things on its site - but perhaps they are worried about how it might look.

So I am not at all convinced and think the picture of Senate House (University of London) should definitely not be added. I think it is clear that it is potentially misleading. A quick glimpse of the page and you might well think that the Senate House or The buildings in Bloomsbury square were theirs. But they are not they are someone elses! That is my view anyway. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

Agree with Msrasnw on Senate House image. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Msrasnw, you've twice added "the" to Diploma of New College, [7] but the college writes it without "the." [8] Would you mind reverting yourself? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Jolly sorry. I have only just understood, I can be a bit slow, about the structure of their programme. They do the external London degree - with their modules and syllabuses and then in addition do the Diploma of New College which is 4 modules: Logic and Critical Thinking; Science Literacy. Is this clear from our article? Perhaps our para 2 could explain this. Any thoughts and best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

No worries. I've clarified it here. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed the Bloomsbury Square image and replaced it with the logo under fair use. I've moved the Bloomsbury Square image down the page. Feel free to fix it up further. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, Tom, thanks for doing that. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"Professoriate"

I think the use of the word "professoriate" is at least potentially misleading, and it doesn't help that the references are to the college's own website (selfpub). Commentators are noting that some of these people have full-time jobs elsewhere (and some live abroad) and might be in essence decorative. I think we might be falling for some promotional efforts here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I used the word the college uses, because it's not clear what these academics will do exactly. But senior academics are often not around a lot, so that wouldn't make NCH different from anywhere else.

By the way, self-published material written by a subject is fine in articles about that subject, especially when purely descriptive like this. There's nowhere else to get this information except directly from the primary source, so we don't have a choice really. Also, it's worth nothing that SPS doesn't really apply to institutions, so it's probably better to think of this material as a primary source, rather than a self-published one. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course we have a choice -- we have a choice not to include this information, particularly if it is unduly self-serving. Curious reading of SPS -- I don't share it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually wrote SPS, and the intention is that it apply to blogs and websites run by one or two people, not anything with professional input. Otherwise, we would have to call the White House a self-publisher, or the New York Times, whereas in fact they are professionally published primary sources when discussing issues they're involved in, and secondary sources when not. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The White House might well be a SPS when publishing stuff about itself, and we would prefer third-party sources. The material here falls foul of several clauses (self-serving, assertions about 3rd parties, doubts about authenticity). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

But then you're extending the meaning of SPS unnecessarily, when thinking in terms of primary/secondary would be sufficient.

There aren't going to be any secondary sources for this that are independent of the college or the professors, because they are the only sources that know. If e.g. Dawkins and the college say he is a professor there, no one else can really say otherwise. Secondary sources do exist for the information, but they have copied the website and press releases, as have we. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not extending it in relation to what it says. If there are secondary sources for "professoriate", then great (but you said earlier that there aren't) -- we should use them. The point I'm making is "it's promotional" and you're not addressing it. Do I need to spell it out in greater detail? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing your point, and if so I apologize. As I see it, NCH has said there are 14 well-known professors behind this, and have referred to them as the professoriate. Secondary sources have also published those names. None of the professors has stepped forward to say "Oi! What's this about me working for NCH? Never heard of it!" So it seems to be true, whether promotional or not. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The professoriate at most universities would be full-time employees. The use of the word here is part of the branding and implies a level of involvement and commitment that is clearly not on par with regular usage of that word -- an effort to promote this place that Wikipedia has no reason to assist with. But never mind, I've taken care of it in a different way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Professors needn't be full-time employees.

I don't think it's appropriate to rely on a New Statesman opinion piece so much. It places scare quotes around professoriate, [9] so you added them to the article. [10] You added a quote from it to the Reception section, [11] and a second quote from it at the start of the paragraph describing the professors' teaching hours, ahead of the actual information, as though that writer's opinion mattered more. [12]

Also, the second quote says almost all the professors are attached to foreign universities, but that's not correct, so it should be removed.

I suggest that we avoid quoting opinions as far as possible, unless the source is well-known or says something important and hard to summarize. Ideally, once the reporting settles down and we have a basic draft up, readers should not be able to tell whether the article's authors had a POV about the college. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 10:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've left the two New Statesman writer's opinions in the article, but they're now both in the Reception section. I would normally remove the one about "almost all" the professors being attached to foreign universities, because it seems to be a mistake on the writer's part, but you posted on my talk page that I had violated 3RR (I think that's what you meant, though I can't see it), so I'm worried now about editing anything you've added in case you interpret it as a revert. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 10:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

So when NCH says that it has a famous "professoriate", we're supposed to take them at their word (and not worry about SPS) -- but when someone else observes that it's mostly a matter of "absentees" that's merely an opinion and shouldn't be included? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

But is what he says about "almost all" being "attached" to foreign institutions not factually incorrect? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 13:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

True of Blackburn, Singer, Colley, Ferguson, Krauss, Dworkin, Pinker, Cannadine, and Ricks. Since you prefer not to quote, it would be appropriate to use "the majority" instead of quoting Green for "almost all". The absentee point is not inappropriate at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

How is it true of Blackburn? People can work for more than one institution; what would be relevant here is where they live. Backburn teaches just one semester in the United States, and I believe lives in Cambridge, so there's no reason to believe he would have difficulty teaching in London. Eight out of 14 is not "almost all," or even much of a majority.

Could I ask that you not use opinion pieces as sources for factual issues? And that we only use opinion pieces from well-known writers, or writers making unusual or important points? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 13:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You're now making the source saying something he didn't say; he didn't say the majority, he said "almost all," and he was wrong, so please don't use him as a source for anything factual. Also, can I ask that you avoid "noted," or "noting," which you've used a couple of times; it implies that Wikipedia endorses the statement. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 13:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait, which is it -- should we quote or should we convey? As for your request on opinion pieces -- David Allen Green is apparently notable and I think the point is important. And it would be easier to agree to it if you could agree not to show unquestioning adherence to self-published sources from institutions/people that are engaged in live branding efforts. It's called NPOV, and we're likely to continue disagreeing about it here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

1. The NCH is not an SPS; it is a primary source. But even as an SPS it would be okay to use it here.
2. The NS writer may be notable enough for an article, but there's no reason to single his opinion out here. I added Eagleton's and Johnson's because they're well-known and their views were being reported by multiple sources, not only by themselves. If every editor adds a quote from his favourite article, this will quickly turn into the usual quote farm that you often find in new articles.
3. We should not use opinion pieces for facts, especially when the facts are easy to come by elsewhere.
4. It was the Guardian who reported the teaching hours, so NCH is not the sole source for the level of those professors' involvement (the ones the Guardian spoke to anyway).
5. It is better to summarize than quote, but we should not be using opinion pieces as sources for facts, whether quoted or summarized.
6. Extensive use of a New Statesman opinion piece is unlikely to enhance NPOV.

As I said, ideally readers should not be able to tell whether the writers of this article like or don't like NCH. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 13:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The NCH website is a primary source and an SPS, and I have already indicated why in my view it is not okay to use it in the way it is being used here ("professoriate"). You complained earlier that Green's claim ("almost all") was incorrect, so I fixed that, and "majority" is not incorrect (anyway not sure how we know where Blackburn lives).

I'm trying to look at the bigger picture here, and you're still not addressing it: I don't think it's NPOV to draw so heavily on what NCH says about itself, and if we're going to do that (inappropriately, in my view) then material from Green etc. provides appropriate balance. I'm not convinced that it belongs in "reception", either. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You just keep saying it's an SPS, but I've explained SPS refers to non-professional publications with no oversight: like edits to this page, or edits to a blog. Documents generated by NCH about itself are primary sources, not what Wikipedia calls SPS.

I'm happy to provide balance. My question is why you're quoting a solicitor. I can see why people would want to know what the mayor of London thinks, and lots of sources are quoting him. And I can see why people would want to know what Eagleton—a very well-known academic—thinks, and lots of sources are quoting him too. But I can't see why we're quoting a solicitor that no one else has picked up on. I mean no disrespect to him; it's just a question of using appropriate sources. I wouldn't want to see Eagleton quoted in an article about the law, for example.

And in particular when you find a source got something wrong, something that is very easy to check, that's another cause for concern. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Who is providing oversight for NCH's website? Even if it is only a primary source, I think its use for this "professoriate" business is questionable -- it is offering an insider's view, and a self-serving one at that. Why Green? (He's not only a solicitor, also a journalist.) Mainly because the point seems cogent in relation to what is in the primary source and the way it is being presented here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I know the word "professoriate" is driving you crazy, but it doesn't really mean anything. The main professor in my area when I was a graduate student was someone who gave no lectures at all as I recall, and saw only a very small number of students for tutorials. Institutions differ, contracts differ, and the more senior they are, the less you see of them, in many cases. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

SPS

Here's an example of where you're getting SPS wrong. You removed the single most helpful source so far—the press release from the University of London [13]—on the grounds that it's an SPS. But it isn't, not under WP's rules. It's a primary source, and the first one that properly explained the situation regarding degrees, and therefore vital for the article. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Please show me the diff and I'll be happy to consider further. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You mentioned it here on the talk page; just do a search for the link. There's nothing to consider. The University of London is not an SPS according to the way WP uses the term; it's a professional organization that employs lawyers and professional writers and academics to check its output, a very valuable primary source in this context. I fell upon it yesterday as an oasis in a desert, because it was the first source that explained authoritatively and clearly what was happening. But you wanted to remove it under some rule.

I'm all for editing within the rules, but they have to be applied well. The very strict definition of 3RR you're using, for example, is leaving bad edits on the page that should have been removed. I also see you used an entirely different definition of 3RR for your own edits in another article not so long ago. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite confident I haven't removed the link you mention, and I again invite you to show the diff. Likewise for the accusation of hypocrisy (thank you) but perhaps on my talk page instead of here, please. Anyway how did we get from "NCH website is an SPS" to "University of London is an SPS"? Again, who is providing oversight to NCH's website? Puzzling. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Do a search for the link on this page, and you will see where you said you were removing it. You have misunderstood SPS, and anyway it's irrelevant, because both sources are appropriate under our rules, whatever you want to call them. Are you seriously suggesting we shouldn't list the professors, because not all have been mentioned by secondary sources? That would be very wrong-headed. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You are clearly confused and will not find such a diff in the article history. I take a different view about what SPS and PRIMARY allow in this context; differing views are to be expected. If we are to list the 14 people who have put their names to this thing, it's not at all clear to me that we should follow NCH in identifying them as NCH's "professoriate". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed a statement based on this source, given what was said in a UoLIP press release (and in consideration of SPS). You were mistaken, as would have been clear if you had made an effort to identify the diff. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you could have found this yourself:

According to UoL Press Release

http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/media/press_releases/new_college_humanities.shtml there is no special arrangement between UoL and NCH whatsoever. ... Please, read the UoL press release; it makes everything clear. ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.34.178 (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed it, per WP:SELFPUB, in consideration of this press release which seems to show some contradiction with what the institution itself is claiming. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, you are confused. Please see this diff -- it is clearly what you have in mind, and I do not remove that press release here (or anywhere else). I removed a video produced by NCH itself, because it appeared that that press release from UoLIP contradicted what was in it. Please acknowledge. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Last comment about this issue

Nomoskedasticity, I don't want to comment about this further, because it's going nowhere. My request is that we stick to the three core content policies and the BLP policy; use appropriate, high-quality sources; stick closely to what they say without producing a quote farm; and write clearly and in a disinterested tone, so that Wikipedia doesn't take a side. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

2 or 3

Wikipedia editor Laurence Boyce has made edits favourable to Grayling. Now, Richard Dawkins is in Grayling's new university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.155.52 (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Removal of image

I am puzzled as to why this image of the Senate House Library - which will be the primary library for students of the NCH - has been removed. To me it seemed perfect apt and in no way inappropriate.

Senate House in Bloomsbury, which houses the Senate House Library of the University of London

Rangoon11 (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It seems appropriate to me too. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply: Why I removed it - I removed it because it seemed to me potentially miss-leading. This article is about a new private college that is hoping to get its students access to another institutions facilities. I think it is possible to have the picture there might make people (prospective students or their parents) think that this big building is somehow indicative of the status of the new college. Pictures of ULs big lecture theaters and class rooms because they might be used would also be bad.I think. One of the reasons orgnaistions have big buildings is because of the prestige - credibility etc they yield. I think this new college article should have a picture of the building they own or are leasing as their building. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

It's not misleading at all, it merely illustrates the adjacent text which refers to the library. Edits shouldn't be made purely to make the NCH appear prestigious, nor equally for no purpose other than to make it appear lacking in such. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It's a fact that the college intends to register its students for University of London degrees, and that will give them access to this library, so I can't see what's misleading about it. We could change the caption to make clear that students will have access because studying for University of London degrees. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I would support a change of caption as a fair compromise. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Would that work for you, Msrasnw? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No to the image of UL Senate House on NCH's page. I think so far the college is all proposals and our article is problematic. We have no picture of their office or any of their buildings. Just another potentially, to my mind, inappropriate image of Bloomsbury Square. My view is this is just the sort of thing dodgy institutions do to big themselves up and we shouldn't do it here. I think the College itself has so far restrained itself from publishing such things on its site - but perhaps they are worried about how it might look.

So I am not at all convinced and think the picture of Senate House (University of London) should definitely not be added. I think it is clear that it is potentially misleading. A quick glimpse of the page and you might well think that the Senate House or The buildings in Bloomsbury square were theirs. But they are not they are someone elses! That is my view anyway. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

Agree with Msrasnw on Senate House image. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Msrasnw, you've twice added "the" to Diploma of New College, [14] but the college writes it without "the." [15] Would you mind reverting yourself? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Jolly sorry. I have only just understood, I can be a bit slow, about the structure of their programme. They do the external London degree - with their modules and syllabuses and then in addition do the Diploma of New College which is 4 modules: Logic and Critical Thinking; Science Literacy. Is this clear from our article? Perhaps our para 2 could explain this. Any thoughts and best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

No worries. I've clarified it here. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed the Bloomsbury Square image and replaced it with the logo under fair use. I've moved the Bloomsbury Square image down the page. Feel free to fix it up further. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, Tom, thanks for doing that. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Dawkins

SlimVirgin says above that we can use the College's website (as a primary source) to support the list of professors here because none of the named individuals has said the claim is inaccurate. We might need to reconsider this, given a passage in the Guardian today: "Writing on his website on Monday he appeared to be unaware that he was named as a founder of the New College of the Humanities on its website." Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

He wasn't named as a founder by NCH, to the best of my knowledge, or by this article. Some newspapers gave that impression, but we didn't copy what they said. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 13:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Post-nominal letters

I see the BBC is cited as a source for the claim that "They will then be awarded, for example, a BA Hons (London) DNC.". I think the BBC has got this wrong - I don't believe you can legitimately add a diploma as post-nominal letters. Does anyone know what the rules (if any) there are for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmileyBen (talk • contribs) 23:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

We report what the sources say. If you can find a reliable source that disputes this, we can add that too. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 12:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Writing

We have some odd writing being added here. For example, the sentence about public fees has just been changed to "NCH will charge annual fees of £18,000, twice the maximum fee public universities in England may be allowed to charge from 2012." May charge, or will be allowed to charge, or may be allowed to charge because it's not decided yet? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 12:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Some universities will be allowed to charge £9000, others will not. This depends on their commitments to widen access, laid out in access plans. So for each university they may be allowed to charge £9000, but we don't know which yetSmileyBen (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so the sentence was fine as it was: the maximum fee public universities may charge from 2012. "May be allowed to charge" sounds as though no one has decided yet whether anyone will be allowed to charge that. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 13:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. 'may charge' implies that each university is allowed to charge that much, but that isn't so. Each university may be allowed to charge that much. Let's change to "twice the maximum fee some public universities in England will charge from 2012"? Or should that 'some' read 'any'? SmileyBen (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The sentence said: "NCH will charge annual fees of £18,000, twice the fee public universities in England may charge from 2012." This is correct . It doesn't mean everyone else will charge 9,000.

You changed it to: "NCH will charge annual fees of £18,000, twice the maximum fee public universities in England may be allowed to charge from 2012."

The second sentence changes the meaning. It means it hasn't been decided yet whether anyone will be allowed to charge that maximum fee.

I therefore suggest: "NCH will charge annual fees of £18,000, twice the maximum fee public universities in England may charge from 2012," which summarizes what you explained above. Or you can say "will be allowed" to charge. But you can't say "may be allowed to charge," because that means something else. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 13:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point. I think you think I'm arguing about a different word! My point being that 'may charge' is ambiguous between 'might or might not charge' and 'are allowed to charge'. It is true that each might charge £9000k, but is isn't (yet) true that each is allowed to. This will only happen once the Office for Fair Access has given them permission.

I'm not suggesting that the sentence implies everyone else will charge £9000, I'm suggesting that not everyone else will be allowed to charge £9000. Which is factually correct. SmileyBen (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I think adding the word "maximum" makes your point clear. People will be allowed to charge up to that in 2012. The details don't really matter, because this article isn't about that. It's just that "may be allowed to" looks odd. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

"Established" or "in the process of being established"

I feel "Established" in opening line is possibly a bit of a problem. Perhaps "in the process of being established" might be preferable. ie. "New College of the Humanities (NCH) is a private undergraduate college in London, England, in the process of being established by the philosopher A.C. Grayling." "Established" reads to me like something that was started and then continued for some time. "Launched" might be more what I have in mind - but even there I think we should have a least one cohort of students actually being taught before we could say that. If the project fails and no students graduate would we say it was established or had failed to establish itself? Any thoughts? Also the picture of (I think) No. 44 Bloomsbury Sq and the neighbouring buildings seems odd to me. These particular buildings have, as far as I am aware, no connection with this proposed institution and belong to other companies and institutions. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC))

I now see the info box goes for "announced 2011" (Msrasnw (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC))

"In the process of" would be odd writing. It has been established. It exists. It has been set up, created, thought of, announced, written about. Think Popper's World 3. It doesn't need a physical presence. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a nice ref. thanks! I like such things. :) But it doesn't do much for my unease about a quiet long article with details about an institution that exists only an embyonic (or PW3(?)) stage. It still seems to me like it is in the process of being established. What seems to exist is a website and plans or proposals. It seems does not have a physical existance - ie an actual office or firm bookings for classrooms or lecture theatres yet? I am also not sure who is actually contracted and for what part of their time to work at the institution. It would seem to me these might not be enough to meet our normal requirements for an institution to have a page. The arguments and coverage about the proposal would however seem to be big enough to warrant a page. (Msrasnw (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC))

I've changed the lead to "the creation of which was announced in June 2011" to reflect your unease with "established." It has existed since July 2010 on paper. It has raised money, says it has block-booked accommodation, has explained where it will teach, has employed some teachers, has advertised for more teachers, and has requested applications from students. That's an existence that has moved beyond a proposal. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - I haven't meant to cause upset .... I'll stop looking at the page is best perhaps. (But one last thing - is Grayling already the Master - or will he become one later? - the opening line says "will become".) Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC))

You're not causing any upset, Msrasnw. Your input is very helpful. Good question about the master status; I've gone back and forth with the writing several times (is the master, will become the master, was announced as the master). :)

I think the advice in WP:RECENTISM might help here. We should try to write the article in a way that will be most enduring, so that phrases and tenses don't have to be constantly tweaked. Not easy in a case like this, admittedly, but that's what we should be aiming for. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Red smoke

The red colour of the smoke seems to indicate the Leftist opinions of the party behind it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.119.12 (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Over promotional nature of the article

This article reads to me more like a publicity blurb for the new college. I think on an existing well established university we might not expect fees, a complete listing of degree programs as a norm. On a new private college that is just a proposal these seem out of place to me.

Also there seems lots of WP:CBALL stuff. "It will lease a building in Bloomsbury and rent lecture theatres from the university". This is odd to include and seems to be a propossal pretending to be "the future". I will try to tidy things a bit. (Msrasnw (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

I think this is what comes of drawing so heavily on primary and self-published sources... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There are no self-published sources in this article. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

We really need to be sure that we have an NPOV article. So for example Gibbs has been associated with two listed companies, one is still in business and one (which was about education) collapsed. The Economist made both positive and negative comments. We need to reflect both sets of facts and not selectively remove the negatives. We should also probably reduce the material from the NCH website a bit, which is manifestly self-published. NBeale (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Scientists

Of the three alleged scientists, only one, Krauss, is a genuine scientist, and the other two are not. Dawkins is known for his scientific discovery of the "meme". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.155.52 (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC) Dawkins seems to be a friend of Krauss, although the discovery of the meme is entirely the work of Dawkins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.155.52 (talk) 10:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Another alleged scientist, Steven Pinker, has appeared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.23.82 (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

University college

Smiley, another writing issue. What is the point of this change, which you've now reverted twice I think. [16] The source said they had not applied to use the title. What is the point of labouring that? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. "Twice the maximum fee public universities may charge". excellent.

Re: the point of saying they can't use the protected title is that, without this, it isn't clear that they can't. What is the point of saying that they havne't applied to use the title if it isn't clear that they can't. They also haven't applied for a licence to land helicopters on their lawn, but we don't mention that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmileyBen (talk • contribs) 14:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

What we're aiming for here is an article where no one can tell what the writer thought about New College of the Humanities. Your writing is making clear what you think. :)

• The sentence said: "NCH describes itself as a university college, but as of June 2011 had not applied for permission to include the word "university" in its title, according to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills; the use of the term in titles is legally protected in the UK."

• You changed it to: "NCH describes itself as a university college, but as of June 2011 had not applied for permission to include the word "university" in its title, and therefore cannot use it because, as the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has confirmed, the use of the term in titles is legally protected in the UK."

Your change added no meaning, just a sense of disapproval. "Has not applied for permission, and therefore may not use it, and must not use it, and there will be hell to pay if they try to!" :)

We have to keep the tone of the article entirely disinterested. Wikipedia does not have an opinion about New College of the Humanities. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but it's just not true that the change adds no meaning. Before the change it meant:

a) NCH describes itself as a "university college" b) They haven't asked for permission to use the word "university in the title" c) the term is legally protected

...after the change it means:

a) NCH describes itself as a "university college" b) They haven't asked for permission to use the word "university in the title" c) they cannot use the term unless they have permission because d) as BIS has confirmed, the term is legally protected — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmileyBen (talk • contribs) 14:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

They would not need to ask permission to use the word in the title, if in fact they could do so legally without that permission. Adding "therefore cannot use it" is redundant. It's also wrong: they can use it, but would have legal problems if they did. There's no need to over-egg the pudding. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Blimey! I don't think it's me with the need for disinterest in this subject: there's nothing controversial about stating that someone cannot use a title when they haven't applied for it. You might assume that if the article's writer has mentioned that they haven't applied for permission to use a word that they'd have to have permission to use it legally, but that's clearly not necessarily the case. There are plenty of things you can apply to do that you'd be able to do if you hadn't applied to them. Your point about legality rather than possibility is right, I'll concede that. Perhaps suggest a better word to use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmileyBen (talk • contribs) 15:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It's just a question of trying to keep the writing clean. Each word should have a function, without adding repetition or confusion. The words you're adding either don't add meaning, or don't mean what you want to say. Clearly, we would not mention the need for permission unless they were a need for permission!

I'll rewrite the sentence to try to reflect the emphasis you want to introduce, but it really was fine as it was. Also, could you sign your posts, please? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS}

So I changed this to "NCH describes itself as a university college, but is not allowed to use the term "university" in its title without government permission. NCH plans to apply for accreditation with the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education". But Edward has removed it entirely. [17] Any reason for that? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

NCH has removed references to being a university college from its website, as far as I can tell. It was also told it may no longer advertise itself as such, so I don't think such references will return until it obtains accreditation (if it indeed succeeds in doing so). Edward Grefenstette (talk) 08:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you point to where they were told they may not advertise themselves as such? My understanding is they can call themselves whatever they want, so long as "university" is not part of the title. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

"Largely negative"

The University of London's Senate House. NCH students will have access to the Senate House Library because registered as University of London external students.

I've removed "largely negative" response from the lead, and left it as "mixed," as the tide seems to have turned a little. I think the protests against Grayling, particularly someone telling him he had no right to speak, and the smoke bomb, have made some writers come to his defence.

I also added the image of the Senate House library, because Jonathan Kydd, the dean of the University of London International Programmes, has confirmed that NCH students will have access to it as external students. I've made that clear in the caption. It makes more sense than a photograph of Bloomsbury Square. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion above of the Senate House image indicates valid concerns, so I have removed it again. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The compromise suggestion was to restore it with a caption making clear students had access to it as external students (see right). What can be the objection to that? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The image is big & the caption is small, and there is still significant potential for a misleading implication here. The article is not insufficient for the lack of an image like this, and in my view it does more harm than good even with the caption. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what "the article is not insufficient for the lack of an image" means.

The point is that this is, as a matter of fact, a photograph of the library the students will use. It's therefore directly relevant to this article, and to the section where the library access is discussed. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, your edit summary said no one else had supported its addition. Rangoon11 added it, and I supported that. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I've restored this with a clearer caption (see right), because it seems absurd not to show a photograph of the library that section is actually discussing, when we have access to a free image of it. The only point of this article is to inform readers. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the image is a perfectly relevant and appropriate illustration of the content of the article, and the new caption removes all potential for readers to be mislead. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, I think with the longer caption the chance of misunderstanding is close to zero. For one thing, a new college would not be able to own or rent such a large building in central London. And if the building were indeed part of the college, we'd have it higher in the article or as the lead image. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies -- I had a faulty understanding of who added and who supported. My position hasn't changed -- many people will not read the caption and will form a (no doubt vague) misimpression from seeing the image. I won't revert again for now; perhaps others will express a view to make the current 2-2 split more definitive. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is highly misleading to show a picture of the Senate House. It gives the impression that this venture has yhe official backing of the University of London when it certainly does not. You might as well show a picture of the British Museum on the grounds that students would be able to go there. NBeale (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The University of London did not issue a statement saying NHC students would have access to the British Museum. They did issue a statement saying they would have access to the Senate House library. Therefore we have an image of the library in the section about that access. Or did you decide not to read the material you're discussing? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

That was becasue no-one was making misleading claims about access to the Museum that gave the strong impression that the NCH had some special relationship. The UL statement was a pretty furious reaction to the misleading spin. NBeale (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you answer this, please? Also, you said you are opposed to the image, but your revert restored it, so can you explain? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Questions for Nbeale

And if SlimVirgin is going to revert otyher editors work she should do so openly, not via "tidying". The Economist has a balance of praise and criticism and both should be reflected to ensure NPOV. NBeale (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the second or third time you've reverted my entire edit, including a lot of new information, just because you dislike one part of it. This is something you always do when editing, and it's completely unacceptable. In fact, you shouldn't be editing this article at all given your strong religious objections to anything Dawkins is involved in, and your offwiki criticism of him.

Also, it's simply inane to add to the lead "toffs’ college” of well-heeled Oxbridge near-misses is a provocative concept". It's terrible editing. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

NBeale, please do not do wholesale reverts because you object to a small part of an edit. Have you reviewed WP:COI? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Nbeale, the criticism of the professors' teaching load is in the section about teaching; there's no need to repeat it elsewhere. And what is so special about Futuretalk? [18] You said see talk, but there's nothing here. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I put the comment re Futuretalk in the "over-promotional" section becasue it belonged there. The basic point is that we should not be cherry-picking the good stuff from a reference esp in such a controversial article. Let's work together to ensure NPOV. And try not to personalise things. NBeale (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I dont' know what the over-promotional section is. What is so special about Futuretalk? We can't include every company he's ever been associated with. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Nbeale, is there a reason you prefer not to punctuate correctly?

• There is no agreement between NCH and Birkbeck to share facilities, no agreement with the Univesity of London concerning academic matters, and the NCH is not a recognised Independent Teaching Institution although it could apply to become one [19]

• London's mayor, Boris Johnson, welcomed it as a bold experimentThe Economist wrote that there is a market for this idea but a “toffs’ college” of well-heeled Oxbridge near-misses is a provocative concept and there were some angry reactions. [20]

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Gibberish?

The caption for the picture of the Senate House is missing the words "they will be". The present version is gibberish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.117.221 (talk) 03:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Corrected - hope is OK now! (Msrasnw (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC))

Odd writing again

The writing continues to be problematic at this article. For example: "No formal agreement has been made for the intended degrees to be offered for study University of London International Programmes," is meaningless.

Also, Msrasnw, you're over-egging the pudding about the University of London degrees. In the first article about the college, it was stated that they'd be registering their students for external degrees. The college website said that. It was clearly the same syllabus. That registration gives the students access to university facilities. There are private colleges offering tuition to external UoL students, and academics who offer private tuition. This is all entirely normal.

The issue was that some people unfamiliar with the system misunderstood what was being said, and other people familiar with it allowed that misunderstanding to propagate for political reasons. But now that it has all been clarified, there's no need to continue emphasizing it, as though it's somehow untoward. Every British student who was taught for a degree by a polytechnic, for example, was issued a degree by a body other than the teaching institution. So this is not an unusual situation.

Finally, I removed the red links to living people's names. These are possibly not notable enough for an article; if they are it would be borderline. Per BLP, the best thing is not to create articles about borderline people that might cause them a problem down the road. So it would be better to gather sources first to check on notability, rather than red linking. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply to SlimV: Dear Slim, (It seems I can't stay away!) I think the text you restored to the picture of the Univ of London's library is the same user 86.152.117.221 was, in my view, rightly worried about. (you might want to check it again)

I think also our line "It will register its students for University of London degrees as external students" is also problematic. I think associated colleges can register their students but this college is not yet associated. As things stand I think the students may have to register individually with the University of London. If I am right and one is being pedantic then your change may not be so accurate. UoL may change their policy on this of course. I also think "These courses and the syllabuses for the modules have been designed by staff at the University of London." was useful clarification. I think in the UK most old poly's tended, at least relatively recently, to have "their" syllabuses and degrees approved. This is a whole degree - all the units written by others not at the institution. Isn't this a bit different. I also note that the detailed syllabuses for economics anyway seem to have gone from the NCH site. I don't know why (or if I just kind find them anymore) One possible problem was the economics degree would probably require a rather large staff to provide all the options and that may cause problems given the numbers of students involved.

Of the three red links for the ("Three exceptional subject area conveners")- I think Suzannah Lipscomb, who has been on the telly a bit, and Ken Gemes might be notable enough for a page. I don't know about Naomi Goulder. These are the only full time staff listed so far and the redlinks were to try to get more info. Anyway - I will sleep on these issues and not do any reverting - Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC))

Thanks for your reply. A few points:

1. The picture caption is fine. It says: "NCH students will have access to the University of London's Senate House library because registered as University of London external students."

2. Regarding: "It will register its students for University of London degrees as external students," please find a source that says the students will have to register themselves individually. Without a source it's guesswork.

3. The article already makes the point that they're using University of London syllabuses. My concern is that we not keep repeating the same points in different sections.

4. Red links don't attract more information. The best thing is to gather your sources and create the articles if there are enough secondary sources, but please don't create articles about very borderline notable people that might end up causing them a problem.

Overall, the article is at times inching toward the tone of an attack piece. They "say they will do something" (but will they really?). They "say they will register students" (snort, so they say). The best thing is to write in a disinterested tone, and remove all repetition, speculation, and heavy-handedness. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Another reply

Dear SlimV,

1. The picture caption is fine. It says: "NCH students will have access to the University of London's Senate House library because registered as University of London external students."

I think you might want to modify to

"NCH students will have access to the University of London's Senate House library because they will be registered as University of London external students."

But I think this is still a little problematic. It is not sufficient for them to just be registered as external students they also have to pay an additional fee to the library £130.72 per year (one day access free to see if you like it!) - p 8 of this http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/current_students/general_resources/general_docs/libraries.pdf helps I think

2. Regarding: "It will register its students for University of London degrees as external students," please find a source that says the students will have to register themselves individually. Without a source it's guesswork.

It is true it is guess work but I think the " University of London International Programmes continues to register its students as “independent learners”, not as members of a particular independent college or institution." and "These students’ applications for registration for degrees would be made individually with the University of London International Programmes." in the UoLs press release may lend support for this view. http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/media/press_releases/new_college_humanities.shtml

3. The article already makes the point that they're using University of London syllabuses. My concern is that we not keep repeating the same points in different sections.

I think there is an issue that our style is normally something like things that are mentioned in the lead are mentioned in more detail later. This can sometimes look like doing something twice. Is it clear in our article that all the sylabusses of all the units on the degree are designed by UoL staff and exams set and marked by then? Perhaps - but it might be possible to interpret as something like the course titles are the same but there is a substantial difference.

4. Red links don't attract more information. The best thing is to gather your sources and create the articles if there are enough secondary sources, but please don't create articles about very borderline notable people that might end up causing them a problem.

Yes possibly correct but I think this is the way we often, more often in the past than now, get more articles...

Overall - The article is at times inching toward the tone of an attack piece. They "say they will do something" (but will they really?).

I would prefer "plans to" to "will do" . I think this is an inevitable problem with an article about plans.

Anyway best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC))

Re 1: We can add "because they will be" if you want, but it's not needed. The sentence: "NCH students will have access to the University of London's Senate House library because registered as University of London external students" is fine, with "they are" or "they will be" understood. I think the issue of fees is missing the point. You will give 18,000 to NCH, or less (or nothing) if they give you a scholarship or exhibition. They will do the rest.

Re 2: It does need a source that explicitly says what you are saying in relation to NCH. See WP:SYN.

Re 3: It's not only in the lead. We also discuss it under Courses. We can't keep adding it elsewhere too.

Re 4: Per BLP, it's best not to encourage borderline notable BLPs to be created in circumstances that might later prove problematic. If you want to create them, that's fine, but then do that. A red link signals to someone else to do it, when it might not be a responsible thing to encourage.

Re "plans to": It can get to be a bit much if repeated all the time.

You didn't say what you meant by "No formal agreement has been made for the intended degrees to be offered for study University of London International Programmes". SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Another reply

Re 1: We can add "because they will be" if you want, but it's not needed. The sentence: "NCH students will have access to the University of London's Senate House library because registered as University of London external students" is fine, with "they are" or "they will be" understood. I think the issue of fees is missing the point. You will give 18,000 to NCH, or less (or nothing) if they give you a scholarship or exhibition. They will do the rest.

If you are sure the English is fine ... but I still think is not so nice but know my own language is not so good. I still think the extra fees is an issue!

Re 2: It does need a source that explicitly says what you are saying in relation to NCH. See WP:SYN.

I think UoL wrote this press release in direct response to the NCH to make things clear so I think it is directly relevant.

Re 3: It's not only in the lead. We also discuss it under Courses. We can't keep adding it elsewhere too.

I don't think it is clear in our article that all the units on the degree have written by UoL not just the degree... but agree things should be written once.

Re 4: Per BLP, it's best not to encourage borderline notable BLPs to be created in circumstances that might later prove problematic. If you want to create them, that's fine, but then do that. A red link signals to someone else to do it, when it might not be a responsible thing to encourage.

I think in the old days red links were encouraged but perhaps on this you are completely right.

Re "plans to": It can get to be a bit much if repeated all the time.

"Will do" is also problematic.

You didn't say what you meant by "No formal agreement has been made for the intended degrees to be offered for study University of London International Programmes".

I would guess this addition by our collegue user:Elcor101 (not me!) was meant to indicate a concerns about the info box had Affiliations Students will study for degrees under the University of London International Programmes. Whereas UoL explicitly seemed to indicate in their press release that there was No formal agreement with University of London International Programmes. Some other institutions have such an agreement but NCH doesn't.

I think I will edit tomorrow as I am finding some of these things problematic. One thing we might agree on is under the section Courses and teaching we say The college plans to offer tuition for - I think one might say here "is offering"... Anyway best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)) PS: I hope my indents are OK - S o r r y !

But do they need an agreement? This is where the OR kicks in. We need a source that says: "There is no agreement, and they need an agreement before they can register students for UoL external courses." I would appreciate it if you'd agree any additional edits about this on talk first, because we really are starting to overegg the pudding about this issue. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think things look better :) I think this last issue is a semantic one. My understanding is no NCH does not need an agreement to offer tuition - but it the NCH CANNOT register the students with UoL. Students should register individually and pay fees individually. As far as clarifying the situation with affiliated centres. No matter the type of affiliation of the centre offering tuition the fees to UoLIP are paid individually and separately by the students to UoL. I think this helps:

http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/study_ep/faqs/institutions/index.shtml#eight Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC))

If I want to apply to the University of London, I can pay someone to send them the forms on my behalf, and to forward the money on my behalf, etc etc. It's no one's business who does that. So this idea of "students must register individually" would require unpacking. Perhaps at some point NCH will tell its students "here are forms from UoL for you to fill out, and tomorrow you must turn up at UoL's Building X to hand them over," but that would be a very minor issue. Anyway, as always, we need sources. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that the source (BBC) does not describe the relationship as an affiliation, better not to label this passage as an "affiliation". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)