Jump to content

Talk:Kingston University: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Protected: proof it
→‎Protected: Proving examples of sources -- these sources are on referred sites
Line 32: Line 32:
:Documents don't lie. The sites referred to above show all sorts of examples of supporting evidence to back up the information that was removed. Included in the why-diana.org site are links to press reports in the Guardian and Times Higher Education Supplement, among others. The www.sirpeterscott.com site includes reports in Indymedia.org as well as copies of court documents. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/87.194.51.176|87.194.51.176]] ([[User talk:87.194.51.176|talk]]) 21:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Documents don't lie. The sites referred to above show all sorts of examples of supporting evidence to back up the information that was removed. Included in the why-diana.org site are links to press reports in the Guardian and Times Higher Education Supplement, among others. The www.sirpeterscott.com site includes reports in Indymedia.org as well as copies of court documents. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/87.194.51.176|87.194.51.176]] ([[User talk:87.194.51.176|talk]]) 21:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Then provide a sample here then. The direct links themselves need to be included and it needs to be vociferously cited. It is best to try it out here. As it is, it is libelous to accuse them without any sources. [[User:Woody|Woody]] ([[User talk:Woody|talk]]) 21:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::Then provide a sample here then. The direct links themselves need to be included and it needs to be vociferously cited. It is best to try it out here. As it is, it is libelous to accuse them without any sources. [[User:Woody|Woody]] ([[User talk:Woody|talk]]) 21:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

:Note: comments in removed version regarding Diana Winstanley are referenced in the following links referred to on why-diana.org:
http://www.thes.co.uk/current_edition/story.aspx?story_id=2032396
http://www.tuc.org.uk/h_and_s/tuc-12326-f0.cfm
http://icsurreyonline.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200surreyheadlines/tm_objectid=17609187&method=full&siteid=50101&headline=pressure-of-work-drove-mother-of-two-to-kill-herself-name_page.html
http://business.kingston.ac.uk/diana.pdf
http://www.thisishertfordshire.co.uk/search/display.var.901541.0.pressure_of_work_leads_lecturer_to_kill_herself.php
http://education.guardian.co.uk/further/story/0,,1876675,00.html


Court document supporting comments regarding criminal charges against Donald Beaton is referenced at:
http://www.sirpeterscott.com/images/beatonsummons.jpg

Numerous other documents provided on www.sirpeterscott.com to support factual reporting in Wikipedia article.

Revision as of 22:22, 15 January 2008

WikiProject iconHigher education Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

is this what David Martland was on about in lecture ? Does anyone really know, cause i am just as lost when i leave that lecture as when i went in...


Yes it is what I mentioned in the lecture, and I'm glad to see that you have found out how to edit the text.

I'd be grateful if you (or whoever) could restrain yourself/ves from putting the graffiti on the Kingston page, but otherwise I'm glad you have managed to get it to work.

You may have noticed other things about this work - such as the list of Recent changes, and the notion of watchlist - these are quite powerful.

Enjoy your week DaveM


I'm not keen on the article at all as it stands, the list of courses needs to go, but I've got nothing right now to replace it with. If I get some time I'll do some research and see if I can find something more substantial and more informative to bring it more in line with other University articles, but if other people are at a loose end, this could be a nice project... --Lawlore 02:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


OK, I've tried to sort out this page and give it a better layout. I don't have time to pull together enough information for all the sections, so I've made them stubs that other people are more than welcome to add to! Jonks 15:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University ratings

(I'm posting this to all articles on UK universities as so far discussion hasn't really taken off on Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities.)

There needs to be a broader convention about which university rankings to include in articles. Currently it seems most pages are listing primarily those that show the institution at its best (or worst in a few cases). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#University ratings. Timrollpickering 23:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

Given the sheer number of reverts on both sides, I have had to protect this article. Given that I had to create the first discussion on this matter, it does not bode well. Please discuss the problems here and come to a consensus. I removed those statements that were not sourced because they breach the WP:BLP policy as well as being potentially libelous. Discuss it please. Woody (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would cautiously endorse the protected version. The removed material is potentially libellous; the sources supplied for the material [1] [2] are obviously POV-pushing. A brief search turned up no relevant press reports. — mholland (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Documents don't lie. The sites referred to above show all sorts of examples of supporting evidence to back up the information that was removed. Included in the why-diana.org site are links to press reports in the Guardian and Times Higher Education Supplement, among others. The www.sirpeterscott.com site includes reports in Indymedia.org as well as copies of court documents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.51.176 (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then provide a sample here then. The direct links themselves need to be included and it needs to be vociferously cited. It is best to try it out here. As it is, it is libelous to accuse them without any sources. Woody (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: comments in removed version regarding Diana Winstanley are referenced in the following links referred to on why-diana.org:

http://www.thes.co.uk/current_edition/story.aspx?story_id=2032396 http://www.tuc.org.uk/h_and_s/tuc-12326-f0.cfm http://icsurreyonline.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200surreyheadlines/tm_objectid=17609187&method=full&siteid=50101&headline=pressure-of-work-drove-mother-of-two-to-kill-herself-name_page.html http://business.kingston.ac.uk/diana.pdf http://www.thisishertfordshire.co.uk/search/display.var.901541.0.pressure_of_work_leads_lecturer_to_kill_herself.php http://education.guardian.co.uk/further/story/0,,1876675,00.html


Court document supporting comments regarding criminal charges against Donald Beaton is referenced at: http://www.sirpeterscott.com/images/beatonsummons.jpg

Numerous other documents provided on www.sirpeterscott.com to support factual reporting in Wikipedia article.