Talk:University of East London/Archive 1

Archive 1

Duplicate content

Looks like the Famous Alumni section's been copied word for word from UEL's "Famous Names" page... But finding alternative descriptions for these people won't be easy either. What should we do? Yuyudevil 14:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

In the context of a page about a university it sounds like you are trying hard to discredit the university by using the P word. Copying a list of half a dozen alumni is hardly plagiarism. It is fair use. Also, you do not demonstrate a neutral point of view in your comment that "finding alternative descriptions for these people won't be easy either". Let's agree to call it duplicate content. The duplicate content could have been placed by anybody with an axe to grind. I would like to know which univeristy you went to so that we all know what your personal bias is. Personally, I went to the University of East London.

--JamesJohnSmith (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Campus section

This section reads like a brochure and is full of weasel words ('x, y, z, and more') and peacock words ('stunning', 'innovative'). It should be weeded out as there is plenty of useful information there. 81.205.195.3 (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

History section

I have removed the history section as it was a direct copy of the university's web page on history which is linked in the lead as reference 3. Copyright violations are not allowed. Reference 3 can be used a source, but it can not be copied in total or even close. It has to be rewritten. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Substantially rewriting what content was there and replacing it with content from English Heritage and Degrees East: The Making of the University of East London, to remove dependence on UEL's own website for this section. Still work in progress, but hopefully everyone can see the direction it's moving in. Nothingelseis (talk) 10:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"Reads like an Advertisement" and "Neutrality"

Please add a reasoning to the discussion page before flagging the article in such a way - it gets very difficult to know exactly what it objectionable otherwise. I am about to trim Peacock words from the Campuses section, and also remove all the unsubstantiated claims made about UEL, how easy it is to work in the library, etc. I would suggest that such claims be fleshed out (with third party references made) in the separate articles already about the Docklands and Stratford campuses. This section seems like the most advertorial and partisan to me as it stands here. Nothingelseis (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've now made substantial changes and, given the absence of prior discussion, will now remove the two flags noted above. If anyone wants to put these back again, please explain reasoning below so that there is at least an overall sense of progress being made, rather than tiresome to-ing and fro-ing. Thanks! Nothingelseis (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a current student at UEL, I've been there for a whole academic year. The library is noisy, it's a really big issue with the students at the moment. There have been a LOT of complaints. The person who wrote a lot of this wikipedia page for UEL is clearly an insider and an employee. When I first edited the page to include problems about the library, it was altered with words taken almost verbatim from the Library and Learning Services policy about noise in the library. I also added that there is no common room on the Docklands campus - which is true - and highlighted the tired state of the so-called outdoor gym. If anyone can suggest ways of how to substantiate these claims I will listen with a keen ear (photographs perhaps of the gym, or of the litter strewn Docklands library?). Students looking to choose between universities deserve to know what to expect (noisy library, no common room on campus) and this wikipedia entry for UEL reads like a corporate advert. I'm speaking the facts here rather than trying to diss another university. Ronnie444 (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

UEL Closure during G-20 Summit

As this event has reached the Times Higher Educational Supplement (the major commentator on HE affairs in the UK as far as I know) and the Guardian Education pages; also due to the global political event it reacts to; I've made a summary of the recent reaction of UEL to the G-20 Summit and the alternative events it had planned. It may be a bit rough for a first draft.81.205.195.3 (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've moved content from this section to the Wikipedia entry dedicated to the 2009 G-20 London summit protests, and also added Chris Knight to the list of notable academics. This seems more appropriate to me for an entry focused on the university. Hope that seems right. --Nothingelseis (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea - thanks. 83.163.48.147 (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should mostly move over, thanks. However, based on the basic link between location (here) and event (the G20 protests page), would it be good wikipedia policy to simply leave a sentence like 'UEL was the location for a summit criticising the 2009 G-20 London summit', linking to the 2009 G-20 London summit protests pages. Strictly speaking this was a seminar/conference, not merely a protest. The references also bear it out as a notable political gesture.

By the way I'm the original author of this section at another location, I don't know if my IP changes as I can't remember what computer/location I was at at the time, but it's the same person. 81.105.203.146 (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Intake

I really out to remove the comment about "students who obviously have no business going to university" but I must admit it made me laugh a lot, so that would be hypocritical. Could someone else do the deed, please? PrivateSponge (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edits

It doesn't matter if I've ever been to the UK, London, UEL, Europe or anywhere else. The article as it was contained sourced information, Wikipedia works through sourced information. While I respect that you have a desire to make the article on your school look good, please read WP:OWN, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. And for the record, I have been to UEL, toured the school and the residence halls. I personally liked it, but that doesn't make it any less important that the information here be well sourced. -MichiganCharms (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The information about locations and the Olympics are relevant but not for the opening paragraph. Everything else is fine if you can source it. Leave out that IPA start up thing, that has no place in an encyclopaedia. WP:Weasel might be a good read. -MichiganCharms (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have made some minor changes to the opening few sentences in the lead paragraph - I edited them to improve readability. Darigan (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Please comment here before editing the University of East London page

Yet again the University of East London page has been edited without discussion. So I have change it back to my previous revision. Please, let's have an open discussion. If you feel you are really qualified to edit this page then tell us why you think you know more about the University of East London than me. Also, let us know what your bias is by telling us which university you represent. --JamesJohnSmith (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have edited the University of East London page based on my deep knowledge of the subject. I am a former student of the University of East London and that makes me a subject matter expert. The content and ordering of the first section at the date and time of this posting are based on my superior knowledge and experience. Before editing the page again, please explain here why you think you know more about the University of East London than I do. --JamesJohnSmith (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, Wikipedia regulations do not recognise 'subject matter expert[s]'. Anybody can edit Wikipeia, and everybody equally has to follow the same guidelines. The edit that you restored seems to breach a number of guidelines. Have a look at the Wikipedia rules on wp:peacock, wp:weasel, wp:original, wp:npov, and wp:sources. Particularly obvious examples include your claim that the University "has a bigger impact on changing society, the economy and lives than any other university". How could you possibly measure that? What is your source (using yourself as a source is original research, and against Wikipedia guidelines)? Wikipedia guidelines allow anybody to edit an entry, and require a neutral point of view, and most importantly a notable source. Trying to stop people posting true things that might reflect negatively on your university (such as league table rankings) is, as I understand it, against the spirit of Wikipedia. So is trying to stop people who are not students at your university from posting to your university's Wikipedia page (anybody can edit Wikipedia). On the other hand, adding information that is true and well-sourced (such as the proportion of mature and ethnic minority students at UEL, as long as you can provide a source for this information and use sources to justify any claims you make about comparisons with other universities) is not only allowed, but encouraged. This is what Wikipedia is all about. At the moment you make many generalised statements without sources. If you can find notable and preferably independent sources for the claims that you are making then they have a place on this page. Wikipedia pages on universities are not supposed to look like adverts for the institutions. ThomasL (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I would add that I would personally like to see a more neutral version of this page than is offered by either of the alternatives recently posted. It is certainly possible to present a more evenly balanced view of the university without breaking Wikipedia regulations about sources and point of view. ThomasL (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made some changes already, mainly trimming away the peacock and weasel words, and trying to fit the content to a more standard university template (e.g. moving content about time-sensitive news stories to separate wikipedia entries on those news stories [Alternative G20 Summit]. Completely agree with ThomasL's comments and approach. --Nothingelseis (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have made some minor changes to the opening few sentences in the lead paragraph - I edited them to improve readability. Darigan (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i linked the mention of Imran Khan to the Imran Khan Wikipedia entry Darigan (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ditto Tinchy Stryder Darigan (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i added a few citations in the Schools/Subjects area to ensure that claims made about subjects taught were substantiated. Darigan (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i added an additional UEL alumni - Mr. Bockarie Stevens, Sierra Leonean ambassador to the US - Properly Cited Darigan (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Docklands Campus - impact of aircraft noise

T here should be some mention about the impact of aircraft noise on Docklands Campus which overlooks the London City Airport runway. This effects lectures and

Plus, there are halls of residence. Currently most of the flights are early morning and afternoon. But with airport expansion from 76,000 to 120,000 - you will see 1 flight movement every 90 seconds!

The airport was only ever meant to have a maximum of 30,000 flights and jet planes were not allowed. But all promises broken. And you have a dodgy Newham Council.....

---

Plus UEL refusing to disclose information under Freedom of Information Act :- http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/london_city_airport_3#comment-3792

FOI was launched as UEL remained silent over expansion of London City Airport.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.62.101 (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Engineering stats addition

Removing small section from main article to talk to cleaning up (as per article edit)

---

The University caters for approximately 23,000 students with 120 nationalities, and was named The UK's most inclusive university by The Guardian's university guide 06/07. The Civil Engineering department has been impressively RANKED 5th in 'THE GUARDIAN'S latest league table for 'CIVIL ENGINEERING' moving up from its previous position last year where it was ranked 8th. Forllow this link and look under engineering,civil,- http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2010/jun/04/university-league-table

---

Darigan (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

I do not think a "broader convention" about university rankings is necessary or desirable. Who is going to decide what the convention should be? You? You are not qualified to have an opinion about any university other than the one you went to. I would like to know which university you went to so it is clear what your bias is. I went to the University of East London.

--JamesJohnSmith (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If user Timrollpickering has sourced information regarding UEL, of course s/he is 'qualified' to make edits, as is anyone with sourced information. A standard convention on which university rankings would be useful, as without a measure of comparison all rankings become meaningless. 81.205.195.3 (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"You are not qualified to have an opinion about any university other than the one you went to." This is utter madness. There are objective standards by which universities can be compared, such as student experience surveys and research assessment exercises. While these are open to criticism, like any other tool of measurement in the social realm, they nevertheless offer some opportunity to see an institution in its national context. The undoubted fact that university articles on Wikipedia are edited and patrolled disproportionately by people who have an interest in presenting their subjects in a favourable light is what makes for such useless and dispiriting articles on universities. If a department has done well in an RAE, you can bet it will be mentioned, but there is no mention of surveys and assessments where the institution has performed poorly. Timrollpickering was attempting to put university articles on a more objective footing. You do not need to have attended a university to say something meaningful about it, and in many cases this is likely to compromise your ability to say something of use to the reader. In general, articles on places low on the academic scale highlight the nice facilities and omit the (frequently, not invariably) poor teaching and research, while the likes of Durham and Exeter have well-sourced claims about snobbery and social exclusivity sanitised by editors with an interest in downplaying such things. Beorhtwulf (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyvios etc

This article is a complete mess, as are the related UEL articles. I am sure that some readers will have been upset with my numerous edits over the last few days but:

• wikipedia is not a directory/list
• many of the images have been deemed to be copyright violations (by the community, not merely myself)
• much of the text has proved to be ditto
• some of it has been repetitive
• redundant wikilinks
• incorrect information when the sources are examined
• the splitting of this article into numerous other articles is mostly repetitious and pointless.

... I could go on. My recent dealings suggests to me (and I may be wrong) that most of the contributors are current students at UEL. Frankly, if I am correct, then I am appalled in particular with regard to the copyright violations. Anyone undertaking academic study at this sort of level should know better, surely? It is only partly to do with WP's policies; the other part is about personal and academic integrity.

I would urge contributors to read the basic Wikipedia editing guidelines regarding adverts, conflict of interest, verifiability, copyright, notability etc. And also to read WP:UNIGUIDE and perhaps look at some of the featured articles in this particular genre, such as that for Oriel College, Oxford. - Sitush (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Addition: also take a look at Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Education. - Sitush (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

RAE 2008 rankings

As I understand it the rankings are just that, and this article has in the past been keen to promote good rankings as if they were meritorious. Therefore, surely a course that is not ranked did not merit that ranking? How have I misunderstood this? - Sitush (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstand how the RAE works. Its ratings are based on the submissions a university makes. However, a university may choose not to make a submission in a particular field for various reasons, such as the number of staff involved in research, the amount of research undertaken or numerous other reasons. Consequently, they will not receive a rating for that area but that is not based on the quality of the research, merely on the fact that no submission was made. If something is not submitted for assessment, it cannot be assessed and therefore its quality cannot be judged. Therefore my change of wording from 'merit' to 'receive' is perfectly correct, and the word merit misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilinabbey (talk • contribs) 19:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, understand now. However, it needs to be made clear in the article that - effectively - the RAE is self-published information, in the wikipedia sense. It is not entirely an independent survey but rather one based on what the institutions choose to have assessed. To be honest, IMO, that makes it a waste of space but it is verifiable and so therefore can be included, with the proviso that I make. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Any league table is a waste of space in that sense, as they only measure what the compilers choose to measure. Also, the RAE has now been scrapped and will be replaced with a new form of assessment, but I don't have the details of it readily to hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilinabbey (talk • contribs) 21:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

How to lie with statistics comes to mind! <g> There are some details about the replacement in the WP article for RAE - no idea if accurate or not. Can I give you an example of my point, though? Who's Who relies on people filling in a questionnaire. What they choose to fill in/disclose is entirely up to the individual and the publication makes no attempt to check for omissions etc. In consequence, Who's Who is often considered not to be a reliable source for anything but the most basic of information (ie: dates, usually). RAE is little different: it only measured what the institutions submitted for measurement. - Sitush (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The RAE was regarded as fairly objective, at least it was the UK government's choice of how to be objective about university research, while allowing a role for peer review. It's true that universities could decide not to submit at all in a particular area, but where they did submit their work was graded. The replacement is the Research Excellence Framework. You can read about it on www.hefce.ac.uk. The point about the RAE and REF when used in Wikipedia articles is that we should be consistent throughout different university articles. We shouldn't allow universities to pick out their best results. This point is made about league tables on Wikiproject Universities. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure about whether this article meets the consistency criteria (will read up the link you provide) but it was cherry-picking prior to my edits earlier todaY. I just grabbed some alternate numbers for courses offered by depts that had received a significant coverage higher up in the article - especially since the only one that was cited was for a course (civil engineering) which got no mention anywhere other than for one "pretty looking" statistic. - Sitush (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

West Ham Technical Institute

I'm not sure if the issues with the subsection of the above name are being understood or not. Over the course of the last few days I have merged it with other aspects of the History section and seen it reappear as a subsection. Please can someone justify why the merge should not be valid. If the Institute was that important in its own right then, surely, it deserves its own article? I would be very pleased to see such an article. Otherwise, my merges (which other editors, more experienced than me, have seen) would appear to be the correct course to take.

At best, the subsection makes for awkward reading: the article moves chronologically through significant events leading to the formation of UEL and then suddenly jumps back a century or so ago. This was one of my reasons for merging.

I am not saying that I have got it right, but I would appreciate a explanation of why one editor seems to think that I have got it wrong. That editor may be correct. I have my doubts but, then, I would think that. Is there any chance of consensus here? I do not want to get into an edit war. - Sitush (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Original research

I have had to delete a paragraph referring to the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise and which stated UEL to be in the top 5 / 10 of modern universities, depending which newspaper analysis was used.

Wikipedia has a policy of no original research, which includes synthesising and/or drawing conclusions not advanced by the cited source. Neither of the newspaper articles cited seemed to refer to "modern universities" at all and in any event it seems to me to be a woolly sort of term (I do know of the so-called redbrick and plate-glass terms, but even they are contentious in terms of their alleged members). Assuming that "modern university" must mean universities built after a certain date and/or gaining university status after that date, someone has gone through the newspaper tables, made their own analysis of which are "modern" and then created a ranking from that. As far as I can see, that is OR.

If anyone wants to reinstate this material please would they first take it to the OR noticeboard to gain consensus. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

What you did was quite correct. You've done a lot of good work on the article. You can find more info about how university articles should look on the WikiProject Universities page - would you like to join the project? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Unfortunately, I've done quite a lot of destruction of the article. I've just applied basic WP policies/guidelines in so far as I know them but the effect has been perceived by other contributors as being negative. So be it.

I don't really have any great interest in the subject area (I'm more into industrial history). Came across this one because it was throwing an error (missing reflist or something like that), and have stayed because it was in such a mess ... and then got messy again when the same contributors returned & undid my fixes! From the perspective of supporters of UEL, they probably rue the day I got involved, but from WP's perspective perhaps it was no bad thing. I'll keep an eye on it in any event because I suspect that these issues will keep returning. - Sitush (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

topuniversities.com

An IP editor has recently inserted some information from www.topuniversities.com, which I have reverted. My reasons are: (1) this site appears to regurgitate information and does not itself indicate where from; (2) the wording of the UEL section which was cited suggests that it comes from UEL itself, but the information has not been found on the UEL site etc, so it may well actually be a circular reference to old information provided in the WP article; and (3) similar information has previously been removed from the article here on the grounds of WP:UNIGUIDE etc. I have my doubts that topuniversities can be classed as a reliable source - Sitush (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Editing - Editor with CoI

Hi, I work for the University of East London, and I've been asked to update some of the out-of-date content in this article, and to make some edits to the Alumni of the University of East London category (There are a few people listed there that are holders of Honorary Degrees, but that are not Alumni in the sense of having completed study at UEL).

I have familiarised myself with what I believe are the relevant guidelines. I don't intend to make any contentious edits, but if you have any concerns at all about my editing, please do let me know. Codecarrot (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Advertising

The academic reputation section of the article is highly misleading and amounts to nothing more than advertising. UEL has consistently been rated as one of the UK's worst universities. Such blantant and distorted advertising is bad enough in that it breaches wikipedia guidelines but it also gives a totally false impression to many overseas students who apply based what they read on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.76.85 (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing misleading about this section. This section is simply stating facts and figures about the university, and does not sound like an advertisement as all. Just because it ranks low in the league tables does not mean that its a bad university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.81.252 (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

File:UEL DocklandsCampusSky.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:UEL DocklandsCampusSky.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:UEL DocklandsCampusSky.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)