Talk:Northeastern University – London/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Infobox Affiliations

In our infobox under Affiliations there is clearly a dispute about whether the following should be there:

affiliations = Students will study for degrees under the University of London International Programmes Referenced to Coughlan, Sean. "Private college challenged over 'university' label", BBC News, June 7, 2011

My feeling is that we should not have anything there and NCH is unaffiliated (independent).

The UoL is clear I think in its press release that there is not any kind of affiliation with NCH. http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/media/press_releases/new_college_humanities.shtml It does have some instituions which it officially recognises as offering. "Institutions offering support within our framework are known as recognised centres and have been awarded either Affiliate or Registered Centre status. Affiliate Centres have demonstrated a long-term commitment to quality of teaching, support and administration. Recognised centre status applies to specific programmes on certain campuses" http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/study_ep/faqs/institutions/index.shtml#one NCH is not one of these yet. Perhaps it should be removed and we have a discussion here. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 08:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC))

I have modified it to affiliations Independent (but students register as external students with the University of London) Hope that conveys all the information needed/desired and is correct. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC))

The information is correct, but I think the basic problem is still that it's not an "affiliation", and since the UoLIP press release makes it clear that they have their own ideas about "Affiliate or Registered Centre status" it seems misleading for our article to indicate an "affiliation". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

My hope had been that the "but" indicated that this wasn't really an affiliation and some people seem to want this there for a reason that is not exactly clear to me so it seemed like a bit of a compromise. This stuff seems to upset people so it is best to be delicate. A problem is I think that some people wish to support and others oppose this instituion and factual corrections tend to be deemed to really be taking sides. The "private" vs "private for profit" distinction is interesting. I think private is broad and includes for and not for profit institutions. This is a private for profit institution. But adding this is deemed by some to be an attack. I don't know away round this kind of problem. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC))

Mrrasnw, I think the problem is that you, Nomoskedasticity, and NBeale seem to be adding only material that could be seen as criticism of the college, or attempts to undermine it, rather than editing from both perspectives. What you add may be quite accurate, but when it's A and B and C and D and E and F, all negative, issues other than accuracy come into play too, such as neutrality, and avoiding repetition, and whether we are fairly representing the bulk of the reliable sources. In addition, there was an offwiki campaign to have people create accounts or revive old ones to get round the semi-protection, with the explicit aim of attacking the college.

It would help a lot if regular editors would look for information on both sides. That would lead to a better editing environment. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Editors work with articles as they find them; your comment makes sense in relation to creation of an article, but that's not what we're doing. I'm perfectly happy for the article to contain positive information, under the usual conditions. Anyway your entire post is a classic AGF fail. Perhaps there's a comment on the content in question you'd like to make? We were talking about "affiliations". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The only thing I'm asking is that you adopt the same high standards of neutrality for your own editing that you insist on for mine. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

And I reject the notion that I'm not adhering to those standards already. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, well, here's Grayling's response to the letter from several academics that someone added to the Reception section earlier. Perhaps you could use it to break the pain barrier and add something from Grayling's perspective. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Funny, I don't actually feel the need to prove anything to you, SV. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel like I have taken sides against the institution. My objections have been to our article which seems to have been passing off proposals for facts, providing misleading information and spin and for some editors taking factual corrections as criticism.

On the affiliation with UoL. It seems to me clear that the NCH proposes to be a provider of tuition for students studying externally for the UoL degree and to award its own diploma but that it is not affiliated with the UoL unlike other Affiliate or Registered Centre status. And there is in my view no problem with stating this clearly. But to get this change editors have had to battle tooth and nail against those who, seem to me to, wish to defend a missleading impression. The picture of Senate House - was to me a clear example of this. The picture of the UoL's library - I added - still seems a problem. This is, I think, clear spin and the NCH itself would refrain from using such images in its publications unless it had established some formal relationship.

That it is, unlike some private educational institutions, to be run for profit is a distinguishing feature among UK HE institutions - but why should this be a biased addition. What is wrong with being run for profit - is this an approach to be hidden?

I think it is good to remember that this article has explicitly claimed that the NCH was a University, and that it was implicitly part of the University of London, that it had buildings and - but I am less sure of this - that it was a charitable/nfp instituion! Every correction has been fiercely resisted.

Our article is in my view far too long - I think we could cut most of the lead as it virtually duplicates later things and although style allows this it seems too much to me. There has been both clear criticism and spin in the article but I don't think I have added either and criticisms of my contributions are unfair (Msrasnw (talk) 09:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC))

The article didn't say or imply that NCH was part of the University of London; or that it had buildings; or that it was a charitable institution. Those things were never there, and were therefore never corrected, and those corrections were therefore never fiercely resisted. This is exactly what I mean about not having a neutral or informed attitude toward this.

As for the lead, it's meant to summarize the article, which is what it does; see WP:LEAD. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that it did

• explicitly stating that NCH was a University

"New College of the Humanities is a British university, established in Bloomsbury"

[1]

• implicitily it was part of the UoL by the addition of a {{University of London}} template thing, by the claims to affiliation of UoL and the pictures of UoL Senate House.
• implicitily claiming that it had buildings - infobox claiming it is Location Bloomsbury, London. Pictures of UoL Senate House and No 44 Bloomsbury Sq. So far I think the College has no listed physical location.
• implicitily claiming that it was a charitable institution. This is weakest of my claims but in the UK almost all of HE is public or private charitable with I think the exceptions of BPP and Kaplan. An interesting and unusual thing, I think, about NCH is its for profit model in the humanities. (But Economics and Law would seem to me more clearly like things offered in other private for profit educational institutions). I am not sure why this has prvoded contentious as being for profit is a legitimate business aim.

Anyway (although I think we may have done some damage with our article - I know someone who has looked at - although I guess not properly read our article amongst others - who think NCH is part of UoL - that it is in Bloomsbury, is going to be using UoL lecture theatres and class rooms and that the Stars will be doing one-to-one classes with the students.) I think most of our errors have been corrected. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC))

I think you're getting very mixed up. It said it was a university because the newspapers did. It didn't say it was part of the University of London. It didn't say it had buildings; indeed, it discussed how a building would be rented. It didn't say it was a charity. And I've lost what your point is. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It may well be the case that some of us are getting a bit mixed. I think it is good to be clear and precise especially when there is room for misinterpretation. Hopefully I think we have removed much of this and the errors (albeit cited) and false implications have largely been removed. I think it is useful to treat sources sensibly and I am a bit worried about our first source - which perhaps caused many of the problems. The Telgraph article - with the Headline: New university to rival Oxbridge will charge £18,000 a year: A group of the world's leading academics have launched a new British university which they hope will rival Oxford and Cambridge, it was announced. The article itself refrains from calling it a University - but there is reference to an independent university college. Headlines are notoriously problematic - and it is unwise to base our articles on them. It also includes the line: Prof Grayling ... hopes the college - a registered charity - will counteract this. It also claims that it will initially offer eight undergraduate humanities degrees taught by some of the globe's most prominent intellectuals. I think it has become clear that it is not (yet) a registered charity and the stars are likely to be doing guest lectures for the Diploma not for teaching the UoLIP degree syllabuses. Do you think it might be best to remove this source (The Telegraph article 05 Jun 2011) now as what we are using it for can be more accurately sourced? Anyway best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC))

You want to remove a source because you don't like its headline? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The Lead

Just above I wrote:

Our article is in my view far too long - I think we could cut most of the lead as it virtually duplicates later things and although style allows this it seems too much to me.

I reproduce it here to make the discussion clearer (Msrasnw (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC))

I don't know why you think the lead should be cut. By definition it should duplicate later things. If you read WP:LEDE you will see "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.". I think that the current lead does that admirably. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 09:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It is more worry about length and the extent of duplication but you are right in that it maps onto our WP:Lede requirement. I think it is a matter of proportion. I think after having started life with a comparison with Oxbridge a now "suggested comparator" for it seems to be Amherst College (still a rather grand claim - but it is only starting so...). That article's lead seems to me more proportionate. I am not sure why for example we have the details of what it will be teaching, what the fees are, who the partners are and their affiliations, in the lead. And I think a modified verion of the line "The announcement attracted a mixed response in the UK" might be enough in the lead instead of the little list of support and opposition. But I have no strong feeling and it is a very problematic article anyway so I won't shorten it (Msrasnw (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC))

The kind of intro I would go for would be something more like this:

New College of the Humanities (NCH) is a new undergraduate college in London, England. The creation of the college was announced in June 2011 by the philosopher A.C. Grayling, its founder and first master and it offers tuition for degrees in law, economics, philosophy, history, and English literature. In addition the college will require students to work toward a diploma by completing courses in critical thinking, practical ethics, science literacy, and professional skills. The announcement attracted a substantial and mixed response in the UK media.

But I realise this would be a problem and have no plans to change it. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC))

That would be too short; please read WP:LEAD. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for you response and kind further suggestions for my reading. As it happens I had already read WP:Lead - thanks anyway. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)) PS: I think your page User:SlimVirgin/NCH is showing up in lots of categories. If you add a {{noindex}} template thing I think that might help.

An illustrative example of my worry is in the lead we have one sentence on the college's advisory board:

The college's advisory board includes Zeinab Badawi of the BBC, Ian Rumfitt, chair of the philosophy department at Birkbeck College, and the heads of five independent schools.

And then in our main text we also only have one sentence (albeit longer with a little more (or less if we note the removal of Prof Rumfitt's fulltime job)) detail and a different emphasis (lead: five independent schools - main body four independent one state (should this later be four private one state - as this state school might be "independent" of the LEA)

There is also an 11-member advisory board that includes BBC news presenter Zeinab Badawi; the philosopher Ian Rumfitt of Birkbeck; William Swainson of Bloomsbury Publishing; the heads of four independent schools, City of London School for Girls, St Paul's, Rugby, and Wellington; and the head of one state school, Walworth Academy.

I think this duplication does not really follow good practice (WP:LEAD). Should we kick the Advisory board out of the lead or reduce it or leave as is. Anyway best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC))

I agree. I don't think the advisory board is worthy of mention in the lead, however if it is to stay perhaps it would be better as "In addition to Grayling, 13 senior academics from the UK and elsewhere have been named as partners, as well as an 11 member advisory board" --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 13:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm neutral on the advisory board point but in general I think that the lead is about right in terms of overall length, although in my view the paragraph about media reaction to the launch is undue and recentist and little more than a soapbox for negative comments about the institution. The same comments go for the 'Reception' section in the article itself - way too long in my view and clear recentism. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

On the criticism in the lead - would just a line like:

The announcement attracted a substantial and mixed response in the UK media.

be prefereable to what we have? (I think it might be good not to do many significant changes without waiting for a while until those very interested parties who might be asleep have had a chance to join the discussion) (Msrasnw (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC))

In my view that would be more than enough for the lead. The 'Reception' section needs to be similarly cut back though. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that works for me too. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 15:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The lead is meant to summarize the article—i.e. it should be a stand-alone piece that gives readers the key points—so it's standard to summarize the reception section as a kind of meta-paragraph. Again, see WP:LEAD. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that we can summarise the reception section (and others) without giving the details and backing up its claims (so long as they are backed up below). Msrasnw's suggestion seems to me to suffice. It is easy for readers to scroll down and read the reception section if they want to know more about that: but the quick version is that there's been a (notable) debate about the college and whether it is a good thing or not. SmileyBen (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's standard to have a "meta paragraph," as it were, summarizing the reception. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 07:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

I just changed the talk page archiving from 7 days to 60 days and reverted the last move of several discussions to the archive. Given that this page is not yet two weeks old, and is subject to a large amount of change as consensus form on its content or new editors come along to contribute, I think it is premature to start filing away discussions to archive pages when those early discussions may well be germane to any current or new discussions. It is especially important that any new editor coming along can see those recent discussions to avoid any potential repetition or even alleviate edit warring. If you think 60 days is too much then let's get consensus on what is the appropriate number. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 12:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, what I am requesting is entirely appropriate. User:MiszaBot I clearly states "NOTE: Before requesting automatic archiving on an article's talk page or a Wikipedia forum, please establish a consensus that archiving is really needed there." --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 12:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted a change to 14 days. I believe this is much too short. Before starting any archiving on the talk page for this very new article can I request that we a) come to agreement on whether archiving is needed at all, and then at what point we should start it? I for one don't believe we should start archiving until the article is at least three months old, and even then we should only do it if the talk page is becoming unfeasibly long. If archiving is deemed necessary then I would suggest that 30-60 days is an appropriate period to retain. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 23:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

60 days is too long, so I'll adjust it again to three weeks. There's no reason at all to leave threads that no one is responding to, especially when they have BLP implications as some of these do. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I say you should leave it for 60 days, and then set it to three weeks. It isn't about whether people are responding to the older discussions, it is about giving newer editors the context so that they can make more considered contributions. Right now I'd like to see what others say before putting anything into the archive - that's what consensus is. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 07:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't see compelling reasons for archiving this page yet - neither length nor BLP. Much of the earlier discussion seems to me still relevant and I think it helps readers see more recent contributions in perspective. I am not clear about which particular BLP implications are possibly troublsome. Also the premature archiving without an attempt to establish a consensus here seems to inappropriate (Msrasnw (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC))

This article was created less than two weeks ago. Archiving is not necessary yet; eventually something like 30 to 60 days will likely be appropriate (with the decision depending on volume/activity), but I would not want manual archiving or a short duration at this stage. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Bob, you seem to be questioning or reverting even the most ordinary of issues, including reverting the bot parameters twice, and the bot once. Three weeks is quite standard. There's no reason to have special rules for this article, and no one should be reverting this kind of thing. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Read the not above from Miszabot. There has to be an agreement on talk page archiving. There is no agreement, no consensus. Three of us believe it is too early, only you want to see it archived. Until there is consensus the talk page should not be archived. Remember you don't own the page that you created (or its talk page) --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 07:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You've arrived here with a bit of an attitude for reasons I don't understand, but whatever the cause it's not helpful. Two people have added the bot parameters. You've reverted them both. Now please leave it. It's longer than I wanted, and shorter than you wanted, so it's a compromise. It's an odd thing to spend time discussing and reverting over. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 07:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If I have an attitude it is that I don't like people who try to own and control articles. Once again - there is no consensus yet for talk page archiving. Leave it alone until there is. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 07:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bob. I've added archiving to the page, in line with the discussion above. You don't seem to be objecting to automated archiving per se, but have removed it because of unrelated disagreements elsewhere on this Talk: page. This Talk: page is very active, and filling much too quickly; it's hard to find the truly active discussions in among all the ones that have died. We'll start with three weeks for now, but probably have to revise it downward if the page keeps growing this rapidly. Please keep in mind that threads will not be archived unless they are actually dead - that is, no-one has made any comment whatsoever in the thread for over three weeks. Also please keep in mind that removing auto-archiving altogether simply because you object to the age setting is a bit pointy/disruptive. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I am really sorry, but where do you think you get the mandate to add auto archiving? Is there a consensus yet that it should be used? Personally I do think it is useful but not yet, not until the article is perhaps a month or even two months old. Clearly others think that too. Just because you and slimvirgin think it should be added doesn't mean that it should be as there is no consensus. The guidance for miszabot couldn't be clearer - only turn it on where consensus exists. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 16:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Archiving is unrelated to the age of an article, so I'm not sure why you bring it up. Automated archiving, as with all automated tasks, is used to ease the burden on editors of manually having to do boring housekeeping tasks. Moreover, you haven't responded to any of the points I've raised in my post; rather, you have simply said, in effect, "you haven't followed proper process". This Talk: page is over 175k, and is already filled with dead conversations. Please stop using this issue as a proxy for your other disputes on this page; as I've said, it's a bit pointy/disruptive. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw a discussion about this on SV's talk page. This talk page currently contains well over 22,000 words. Archiving under such circumstances is absolutely normal, and appropriate. --JN466 23:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The Lead's summary of the reception section

My feeling is a line like:

The announcement attracted a substantial and mixed response in the UK media.

is an adequate summary of the reception section. The reception section includes:

• Grayling's report that he has had a lot of interest
• endorsements from Tony Blair, Boris Johnson, The Times , The Economist, Niall Ferguson
• criticims from Terry Eagleton (and then a response by Grayling), David Allen Green (New Statesman), a letter to The Guardian, Terence Kealey;
• criticism of the criticisms by Toby Young and Simon Jenkins.
• the section concludes with Grayling's response to the criticism and then the protests agains Grayling and Dawkins.

The relevant bit in our lead is I think this:

The announcement attracted a mixed response in the UK, where most higher education takes place in the state sector. London's mayor, Boris Johnson, welcomed it as a bold experiment, while The Times argued that higher education has been a closed shop in the UK for too long. There was an angry reaction from sections of the academic community.

It seems to me odd to single out Boris and the Times. What about Blair and the Economist and Eagleton, Green and Kealey? I think better to have a short one liner and then further info in the subsequent section if needed. There is additionally a bit in the lead on complaints:

Complaints included that NCH had copied the course descriptions of the University of London's international programmes on its website; was offering the same syllabus with a significantly higher price tag; and that the senior academics involved with the project would in fact do very little of the teaching.

but this does not seem to be properly picked up on later. But am not sure what to do with this.

Anyway I prepose to replace this

The announcement attracted a mixed response in the UK, where most higher education takes place in the state sector. London's mayor, Boris Johnson, welcomed it as a bold experiment, while The Times argued that higher education has been a closed shop in the UK for too long. There was an angry reaction from sections of the academic community.

with this

The announcement attracted a substantial and mixed response in the UK media.

I also prepose relocating it to the end of paragraph 1 as I think the response is a large part of the justfication for the article. A preposed new college with no students or buildings yet and only a few staff is not I think notable per se - it is notable because of the stir caused. Are there any objections or other suggestions? (Msrasnw (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC))

Sounds good to me! +1 SmileyBen (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Msrasnw, there have already been objections to this, based on WP:LEAD. The lead must be a stand-alone overview of the article's most important points, and the reception (examples of the main plus and minus points) is part of that. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Given SlimVs problems with this I won't shorten or tidy the lead or indeed contribute to this article for a while (a few days). (As an aside I think it is against style to include things like Prof. Rumffit's chair of the philosophy department at Birkbeck in the lead when it is not in the main body) (Msrasnw (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC))

The lead at present is very unbalanced. All the supporters are named (including some obscure members of the advisory board) but none of the critics are. And the criticism is much more than "angry reactions from some sections of the academic community". I've made a start, but a lot more is needed and I don't have time. And BTW UK universities are actually private institutions, not "state" - it's just that they get a lot of state funding. NBeale (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

In describing the college, we include the names of those involved, obviously. Naming its critics—who have no involvement in it—is a separate issue entirely. The paragraph in the lead that summarizes the reception section, per WP:LEAD, names the mayor of London and The Times as notable supporters. If you want to add the names of the most notable critics in that paragraph, we can do that.

Do you have a source showing that most British universities are private institutions? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Slim - you know as well as I do that we need sources for information we put in to WikiPedia, not for mis-information we remove. Find a source that says they are State institutions, and I'll show you why this is wrong/sloppy journalism. More fundamentally, we need to balance the lead so that the critics and proponents get equal weight. I'll make a start. NBeale (talk) 08:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Science literacy

The call for "science literacy" seems to come from Dawkins. Dawkins sees himself as a scientist, while Grayling does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.200.228 (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a point? :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 07:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I am just attempting literary source criticism. Red smoke makes this difficult, but not impossible. A. C. Grayling seems to be the Laurence Boyce of Zambia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.4.194 (talk) 11:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Depeditor seems to be a sock-puppet of Grayling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.4.194 (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Acgrayling is another sock-puppet of Grayling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.4.194 (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Grayling is the Laurence Boyce of Zambia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.46.250 (talk) 09:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Opening sentences

I notice that User:Sussexonian's suggested change of opening three lines designed to clarify that it is not yet operating was reverted with the the edit summary :(restored some details, tidied). I prefered Sussexonian's change which does seem to me to clarrify what I think is the current situation. That the college does not really exist yet other than as a legal entity and a website. That is it has no buildings or many staff or any students. I also think this is poor form to not recognize, at the very least by noting it in the edit summary, that this reversion might be substantial and or controversial. Sussexonian's version was:

New College of the Humanities (NCH) is a private for-profit limited company which intends to operate an undergraduate college in London, England, from Autumn 2012. Its creation was announced in June 2011 by the philosopher A.C. Grayling, its founder and first master.(Ref )

NCH will offer tuition in law, economics, philosophy, history, and English literature for undergraduate degrees with....

I prepose we restore it as it seems to clarify the true situation. Any views? (Msrasnw (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC))

• Comment: I don't think we need a pseudo-RfC in order to decide whether or not the lead should mention that the NCH is not currently operational. We just say in the lead something like "...that intends to admit students for the academic year 2012 onwards." This isn't a controversial matter and doesn't need the formal trappings of a straw poll as initial attempts to establish consensus have not been made without the formality. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

  Sorry I just hoped to try to establish a consensus as I anticipate any such changes would lead to an edit war. Would you like to just remove these headings? (Msrasnw (talk) 11:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC))

  I've refactored it to remove the straw poll aspect. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The lead says the college's creation was announced in June 2011, and that it plans to offer tuition from October 2012. It has employees and it's accepting applications. What's the point of stressing some more that it hasn't actually opened yet? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the wording of Sussexonian's is to be prefered - ie style and also I think intends to operate an undergraduate college is more indicative of the fact that there appear, as yet, not many staff (only three academic staff listed who will be teaching rather than guest lecturing) and no students and no buildings. That is I think I am doubting the extent to which you could say it is a college. To me this is still a proposal. For it to be a college we would need both staff, students and (if it is not a distance learning institution) buildings I think. (Msrasnw (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC))

That's your personal opinion. The sources are calling it a college/university, it has staff, and it's taking applications. Msrasnw, I thought you had agreed to stop making only negative edits/suggestions. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Niall Ferguson History or Economics

I have moved Niall Ferguson from the Histroy group of the Professoriate to Economics as he is listed as being Economics and Economic History and this seems more appropriate. He is also listed, as are some of the others (David Cannadine, Linda Colley, Steven Pinker and Peter Singer), as visiting professor. I am not sure why some are visiting and others just The Professoriate. (Msrasnw (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC))

Ok reverted again - everything is reverted I don't think this is fair. I was only shifting him from the history list to the economics list. The citation [2] has the following two profs for history

* Prof. Sir David Cannadine - History (visiting professor)

* Prof. Linda Colley CBE - History (visiting professor)

and for economics only

* Prof. Sir Partha Dasgupta - Economics

Ferguson is listed as Prof. Niall Ferguson - Economics and Economic History (visiting professor). So I just thought this was more appropriate under the economics title. (Msrasnw (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC))

He's an historian. What benefit do you see in calling him an economist? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The cited source (NCH) lists him as Prof. Niall Ferguson - Economics and Economic History (visiting professor). I presumed that the college was wishing to link him with economics and this to me seems legitimate as he is in my view best seen as an economic historian and traditionally (less so now) economic historians were as welcome in economics as in history departments. (Msrasnw (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC))

Our list doesn't need to be so precise as to categorize people according to what they might teach. Otherwise we would have to be more precise for the others too. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

NCH will not make use of any University premises for its teaching or other activities

Professor Geoffrey Crossick - Vice-Chancellor, University of London has, in answer to UNISON questions, stated that: NCH will not make use of any University premises for its teaching or other activities. How, if at, should we deal with this? (Msrasnw (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC))

Might help to see the source for this. Assuming RS, then what would be the obstacle to drawing on it? It might be a useful source for balancing the primary/self-published source produced by the college that says the opposite. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The source is letter to Josephine Grahl, Acting Branch Secretary, UNISON Senate House - in response to her request for more info. Ms Grahl has published the text on UNISON/Senate House's blog [3] (Msrasnw (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC))

That's not exactly ideal. On the other hand, I'm not sure it's any worse than vimeo.com/etc. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I must admit I thought the suggestions that UOL premises would be used (other than the library where we know the story) had been removed from the article. Maybe someone reverted them back in again. Sussexonian (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Our second paragraph reads:

... with the University of London International Programmes.....The college plans to use the University of London's teaching and student facilities in and around Bloomsbury. Which is still problematic I think but plans might make it just about OK (Msrasnw (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC))

Mass reverting

I came to this page a couple of days ago just to look at the article on this new venture. I spotted a couple of potential improvements and made them, followed by the change referred to above under "Opening sentences" as I thought the business should not be described as a college until it opens. I admit I didn't study the talk page first so was not aware how much activity there was between editors on the page, and when that change was reversed I accepted that others have contributed more to this page and perhaps there was consensus over the lead.

Some time later, having noticed a bizarre and confusing array of reference tags, I spent an hour or more disentangling them. User Slim Virgin has reverted the whole set of changes en masse, with no consideration for what corrections have thereby been uncorrected. We now have once more, • the chairman of the business with no forename, • an academic listed as belonging to the wrong college, • an independent school wrongly identified, • a web page of the business cited 7 or 8 times under separate footnote references, • several Guardian articles referenced 2 or 3 times. Then we have once more, something I have never seen before anywhere on Wikipedia, cases where one footnote number introduces anything up to five distinct citations. That is not a recognized citation method, and could lead to much muddle as the article is edited by others over the weeks and months. There was more work I intended to do, for example a number of the cited news stories do not relate to the place in the article where they are referenced. But there is no point in doing this if all changes are going to be reverted en masse. I wonder if there is a template that can go on the page, maybe {{keepoff-mine}}, to warn people not to waste their time? Sussexonian (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I for one would support the restoration of both your improvements to the references and to the lead. (Msrasnw (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC))

This is a practice that SV herself has complained about when practiced by others. She must have forgotten, and so I'm sure she won't mind if you simply undo the edit in question where she has done it herself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I have been bold (perhaps foolish) and restored Sussexonian's version. Is this OK? (Msrasnw (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC))

Thank you both for the support and I may be back tomorrow with a few more corrected references (the vimeo one e.g.) Sussexonian (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it is important to be clear it is two things I have done in this reversion:

i) revert the changes in refs. This was done not as a matter of style but because of the accuracy and consistency of the new version

ii) reverted the lead which I think a wider consensus might support.

Both a these perhaps should be debated more prior to any reversion. (Msrasnw (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC))

I have remodified the opening line in an attempt at compromise that is it now reads:

New College of the Humanities (NCH) is a private for-profit undergraduate college in London, England, which intends to begin operating in Autumn 2012. (Ie. I have removed the limited company) (Msrasnw (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC))

You are completely out of order. Do not change citation formatting, and do not add citation templates. See WP:CITEVAR. Please read the policies and guidelines and start editing in accordance with them. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR is quite clear on this; one should avoid "adding citation templates to an article that already uses one of the other citation formats listed in this guideline". Citation templates are an awkward complicated language, and they significantly add to article load and edit times. I understand that some editors like to use them, but it's inappropriate to impose them on an article that already has a guideline-compliant citation style, particularly when the addition has been objected to. Please don't do this again; focus instead on improving content, if required. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

On referencing I am sorry if my restoration of Sussexonian's citations to what was in my view a more consistent and tidied referencing was deemed not desirable. It seemed a big waste just to throw out all Sussexonian's work without any acknowlegement. And the referencing produced was far better. Content wise I am not clear that there was any problem with this work. His justification for his changes seemed to me compelling:

We now have once more, • the chairman of the business with no forename, • an academic listed as belonging to the wrong college, • an independent school wrongly identified, • a web page of the business cited 7 or 8 times under separate footnote references, • several Guardian articles referenced 2 or 3 times. Then we have once more, something I have never seen before anywhere on Wikipedia, cases where one footnote number introduces anything up to five distinct citations. That is not a recognized citation method, and could lead to much muddle as the article is edited by others over the weeks and months.

Should we try to tidy the current type of referencing using his corrections as a guideline?

On the lead On the seperate issue of the lead would this New College of the Humanities (NCH) is a private for-profit undergraduate college in London, England, which intends to begin operating in Autumn 2012. be better than what we have? (Msrasnw (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC))

Further mass reverting

has just taken place, reintroducing all the factual errors referred to above as well as restoring the non standard multiple citation references. I was prepared to undo the citation templates which earlier contributors disliked per CITEVAR, but there is no justification for undoing, in bulk and without discrimination, a whole series of edits (mine and others') in order for one user to get their way.

On referencing, as I said my introduction of {{cite news}} etc may have been a mistake but the state of the citations was (now once more is) such a mess that it seemed right at the time. There is no way, per Citevar quoted above by Jayjg, that the article consistently showed a guideline-compliant citation style.

On the lead, the establishment is a limited company and there should be no harm in saying so; it is not the usual legal status of a college so it's of some note. My view is it is not currently a "college" but proposes to start one: it has no known location in Bloomsbury or anywhere else, and no teaching has yet taken place. The BBC article (cited somewhere on the page but not at this point) states that the first admissions will be in autumn 2012, but strangely the official site seems to contain nothing about a start-up date or term dates in general. To be clear, I have no direct or indirect interest in this institution, merely wishing to see a decent article that will give visitors, including potential students from UK or elsewhere, accurate information and useable links to off-wiki sources.

I will check back later. Sussexonian (talk) 07:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Help: I have asked User:Jayjg as an administrator who has not been involved with editing this page (except to comment on my reversion to the neater references) for advice about to deal with our disputes here. Hope that is Ok/appropriate! (Msrasnw (talk) 11:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC))

Sussexonian, the article currently uses a style recognized by WP:CITE, namely citation bundling, written manually. The guideline and the MoS are clear that editors shouldn't arrive at articles to change citation styles (and particularly not to add templates), or change any other matter of style that is just a matter of preference.

What you're doing now [4] is simply removing references, which left one sentence uncited and another wrongly cited—neither of which had anything to do with bundling or lack of templates—so I don't understand the purpose of your edits. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I have never seen that style of "bundled" citation before, and it is not particularly suitable for an article under frequent change, as if sentences get moved around during updating/editing, the bundled refs will get removed from the facts they are trying to verify. This is perhaps why some of the sources do not relate to the sentences they are attached to. The change I made at 07:10 UTC was the point at which I discovered the latest mass revert, and I thought it had been lost as an edit conflict. The purpose was to correct the Vimeo source URL which was a dead link, and remove the Telegraph quote from the sentence saying The college plans to use the University of London's teaching and student facilities in and around Bloomsbury which the Telegraph story [5] did not confirm. In fact I don't think there is any source for that sentence which seems to be incorrect (the official site doesn't make that claim, for example) and perhaps it should be removed. I looked right through the article history today and notice earlier cases where other contributors had sought to tidy/improve/normalize the reference style only to be reverted. At the moment this is inhibiting the contributors from making improvements as they all get reverted en masse, so I will not seek to do more than a minimum of tidying to the citations. Sussexonian (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I have doubts that "bundled citations" amounts to a "style". Anyway since SV opposes mass reverts (as above), I'll be happy to help her remember in case she forgets again. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

John Gordon

IQ 2, John Gordon's organisation, costs £40 a year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Gordon seems to be a friend of Dawkins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

an exclusive 18000 pounds a year

I am not sure an exclusive 18000 pounds a year is so useful in the opening line. The figure is repeated later in the lead. I'll remove it for now. But feel free to restore if you wish and are sure! (Msrasnw (talk) 21:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC))

Infobox and Peter Hall

Have added a little note about Grayling's first partner in this venture Peter Hall (should he be credited as a joint founder?), and some more details including ownership and old name for the company, target no. of students, to the info box. I would like to add no. of staff but I don't know how to count the profs. Are there as yet only 4 academic staff - or should we count the other "profs"? (Msrasnw (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC))

Proposed in the first line

I have added "proposed" to the first line. My worry is this college as doesn't yet seem to exist other than on "paper" on the web and that we may be being used as adversting. It only seems to have three academics in addition to AG listed and at least two of them seem to still be working for their unis. Any views? (Msrasnw (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC))

New facilities

Listed here: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KDmi-bbml10J:www.nchum.org/downloads/NCH-Prospectus-July-2012.pdf+%22the+registry%22+%22bedford+square%22&cd=16&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk is some discussion of the NCHs facilities.

It says:

The Registry houses many of the College’s teaching facilities. Most weekly one-to-one and small group tutorials will take place in the building’s individual subject faculty rooms. The Registry also houses seminar rooms in which some of the larger group classes will take place.Teaching will also be conducted in the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies facilities at Russell Square. The Institute’s modern, purpose-built teaching accommodation is ideally situated for convenient access to the City and West End. NCH Prospectus 2012-13 p.10

Should these be added to replace the The college has as yet no facilities of its own. I think we have a picture of the Registry in our Bedford Square article. (Msrasnw (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)) PS: I have now added a note. Hope is OK (Msrasnw (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC))

Removed some possibly problematic additions

I hope it is OK I have removed:

NCH is part of the University of London through its International Programme and students will receive University of London diplomas. ref: http://www.nchum.org

as I don't think it is part of UoL Also I have removed

Due to the large number of applications only around 1 in 10 students got offers, making NCH one of the hardest universities to gain entry to.

as this sounds to me over-promotional - and this

Furthermore, NCH is one of the most selective universities worldwide requiring a AAA at A-Level or a minimum of 36 points in the IB Diploma. This puts its entry requirements at the same level as Oxford and Cambridge in the UK or the Ivy League in the United States.

which also sounds very over-promotional. (Msrasnw (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC))

It's clear that it's not part of the University of London, so I agree with the removal of any statements to that effect. But in my opinion the statements about selectivity, if true, ought to stay.Tillander 10:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh come on.92.12.60.184 (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)