Talk:Kingston University: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kingston University article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days

Higher education Start‑class

This 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.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

London Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

I removed Carme Chacon from the list because she studied a postgraduate course in Kingston University (Canada), not the one in Kingston upon Thames —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.221.44 (talk) 08:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled by the coat of arms. I don't see this image on the University's website. It was added to commons by someone who claims to license it as his/her "own work". Is this for real? Does anyone recognize this image? I wouldn't be surprised if it is straight out of Harry Potter. Amusing, perhaps. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lorifredrics -- a name that perhaps not coincidentally resembles that of the wife of Howard Fredrics -- is keen to add a section about a "controversy".

Any "controversy" worth the name will generate newspaper articles, etc. None has been proffered.

The latest readdition adds two new "sources" to what Itsmejudith and I had previously deleted. One is an unspecified article in a 1998 issue of the Times (which might be relevant to the doctor in question, but whose placement is odd at best) and the other is a PDF that merely lists the doctor's name for unspecified reasons.

As I see it, Lorifredrics is merely dumping material that might possibly lead to a controversy under a title labeling it a controversy. Well, let's see the controversy. If there's a controversy (and not merely in blogs and so forth, but in newspapers or the THES or similar) then let's look at it. -- Hoary (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article in the Times is referenced and quoted extensively in other source provided from the FOI request site. Kingston University and the GMC have acknowledged the veracity of the information contained in this section via a source that is well established and reliable - http://www.whatdotheyknow.com, which provides a forum for requesters and responders to FOI requests. A controversy does not have to have received note in MSM, but simply has to be a subject that would create a controversy were it to become widely known. Clearly, hiring a professor with a record of serious sexual misconduct with teenage girls to teach teenage students at a large university would be considered a "controversial" decision on the part of Kingston University or any university for that matter. The source showing the "Professor"'s name contains specific information relating to his being among the doctors struck off of the register of accepted BUPA consultants (there is obviously a reason he was struck off), a fact that supports the controversial nature of his appointment as "visiting professor." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorifredrics (talk • contribs) 03:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A controversy does not have to have received note in MSM, but simply has to be a subject that would create a controversy were it to become widely known. So a controversy simply has to be a subject that would create what simply has to be a subject that would create what simply has to be a subject etc etc etc.

The small matter of recursion aside: No. There may be "no smoke without fire", but there's no controversy without smoke. So where's the smoke? If there isn't any and you feel the need to generate some, then please do so on some other website.

Exciting news! Lorifredrics has kindly divulged that

There is now evidence that has been gathered of payments made to you [i.e. me, Hoary] for your Wikipedia editing services. This evidence will shortly be released in a public forum.

Although some mention of "reputation manager" would have made the prospect even more mysterious and thrilling. -- Hoary (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that Lorifredrics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a user with a very big WP:COI is trying to add a section about Dr. Fredrics that is not of encyclopaedic note and I Oppose it's addition. Mtking (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I disagree, as this matter has appeared in many news publications, and most recently has been raised by a member of Parliament. I'd say that anything that is part of Hansard is sufficiently noteworthy. It appears that Mtking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has an overly strong view in opposition to anything remotely negative being published about Kingston University, no matter how noteworthy. I suggest that this be resolved by more reasonable people.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorifredrics (talk • contribs) 00:32, July 14, 2011

The quantity of text that Lorifredrics is trying to add certainly strikes me as grossly excessive for what seems to have been a pretty trivial incident and only indirectly connected to the university, albeit a senior member of staff. No more than a single sentence on this is reasonable in my view, and even that is borderline. The COI issue is of course also a problem, particularly for something like this which is contentious.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The University funded the entire set of cases, to the tune of some £500,000 of public money on behalf of the University's chief executive. A reading of the speech by David Burrowes, MP clearly demonstrates involvement of the University itself in this matter. Calling a matter that reaches the floor of Parliament "trivial" in an extended speech and questions to a Minister is inverse hyperbole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorifredrics (talk • contribs) 01:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we should not have a section "Controversies" anyway, per WP:Uni style. This information should be incorporated into Academic profile or Academic life. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've screened the aforementioned contribution, and corrected it for proper inclusion, and as I have no conflict of interest here, that should no longer be a factor. BETA 22:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that consensus exists for the section on the domain name exists for it inclusion, it is covered at Scott's page. Mtking ^(edits) 22:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree - it is only marginally relevant to the University. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, in reference to Rangoon's concerns, It should be pointed out that lengthy does not indicate that a subject is more prominent than another. In this case, it means that the subject is simply more complicated than others to explain. Second, it is not simply the fact that it involves the vice chancellor, but that his actions impacted the reputation of the university in a negative way, hence the controversy. To the point where a member of parliament was aware of it, and let's face it, politicians are fairly miopic, it would take a lot for him to take note of it.

David Burrows makes a good point as well when he remarks on how easily someone could gain control of this particular institution and further his own ends, to the detriment of taxpayers. That's why they call it a controversy, because people don't know who or what to blame and everyone involved winds up "wearing it" in the end. Whether or not it is logically relevant to the university itself, it is undeniable that the controversy affected the university's reputation in a negative way. BETA 23:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Burrows' point is a good one is by the way. You say that it is undeniable that the controversy affected the university's reputation in a negative way. It's deniable. ¶ For one thing, was there even a controversy of any note? The passage you're keen to add reads: This incident ultimately resulted in some minor negative publicity for the University when cited as an example by Member of Parliament David Burrows. But the only news coverage cited is an article in the local newspaper Surrey Comet. Oh, redlinked. Well, here is the paper. As I write, its top story is "Yes We Can-Can: Kingston orchestra to inspire in tonight's concert". Very, very small potatoes. -- Hoary (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You keep talking about news coverage as if it were the only source imaginable. The fact that this particular case was debated in the house of commons, makes it clearly relevant. Anyways, notability isn't the standard here, it's reliable sources. Certainly a representative of the people can speak to the people's belief that the university is part of a conflict in this matter. BETA 11:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning the MP's right to speak in the House. But just what do you mean by the word "controversy"? (And do you have any idea of the number of matters that are brought up in Parliament?) -- Hoary (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law Economy, trade, and companies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Considering the policies WP:DRNC, WP:BRD, WP:REVEXP, WP:BRDWRONG, what are we doing wrong, and how do we get back to proper discussion? BETA 12:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sign your posts, perhaps? In any event: the edit has been rejected on the grounds that it is insufficiently important to warrant inclusion on the university's page (thus WP:UNDUE); it is already present on Peter Scott's page, where it belongs. So let's drop the bit about "no explanation" (you just overlooked it). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomoskedasticity sums just as well as I could. But I would like to add that this is an encyclopaedia least we forget, not an arena to either promote or discredit anyone or anything. The bar for adding anything that is designed to show the subject of an article in a negative way (such as this) has to be set high, yes it was covered in the local paper, yes a MP mentioned it in parliamentary proceedings, buy only to make his point in a debate unrelated to either Scott or the university and most of his information appears to be sourced from Fredrics in an unprompted e-mail, and given parliamentary protection he does not need to check the facts before he says anything. Mtking ^(edits) 12:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the policies WP:DRNC, WP:BRD, WP:REVEXP, WP:BRDWRONG,.... Not only is none of these a policy, none is even a guideline. (Three are essays, and one is part of an essay.) ¶ So much for the "wikilawyering". Googling reveals that Howard Fredrics does not like Peter Scott or Kingston University. Either his dislike of Kingston University or the tussle with Scott over a domain name or both conceivably tell(s) us something significant about Kingston University. And maybe there is a "controversy" worth the name. But we haven't been given evidence for either. -- Hoary (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the university itself considers this damaging to their reputation [2] ("and are damaging to the reputation of both the university and the named individuals") indicates that this really is a controversy that is linked to the university. The way in which they dealt with it may have been by pretending it was about using his name, but it really originates with the university proper. BETA 13:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the cited policy WP:UNDUE, the policy indicates that the points of view about the subject would be in question, not the subject itself. There are no points of view discussed in the contribution, simply facts about the controversy. Whether anyone believes the university is involved or not is not commented on. BETA 13:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to understand what you're saying, but it seems to assume that there was a "controversy". The Guardian deals with British university affairs in some depth. It shows no sign of there ever having been any controversy. -- Hoary (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, The question of The MPs remarks in commons. If the information he was given, was in fact false, this would still constitute a controversy because of the potential for others to believe in the information, and the fact that the MP himself believed it was veracitous enough to use it in a commons debate. BETA 13:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. If it is a controversy, evidence for this will be available - your opinion about what would have happened is utterly irrelevant: we base articles on evidence from reliable sources, not on the psychic powers of contributors. The only coverage this supposed 'controversy' has had is apparently an article in the Surrey Comet. Unless you can find other WP:RS (not scanned documents - RS is published), attempts to portray it as more notable (i.e. actually noticed!) than it is, including it in the KU article constitutes undue weight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is "veracitous" the British answer to "truthy"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoary (talk • contribs) 14:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the undue weight and manufactured "controversy", the material added was factually wrong in at least two three places and would need to be changed if restored (1) "The website, which is owned by a senior lecturer at the University" The owner of the website was not a lecturer at Kingston at the time of the case, having lost his job two years earlier. (2) "a subsequent criminal charge for harassment... was promptly dismissed as well". It was not "promptly dismissed". The former lecturer was convicted of the charge. The case was overturned and a year later he was acquitted at a retrial, although the conviction on a charge of public order offence was upheld.[3]. (3) " [the WIPO decision] highlighted the fact that Scott had not accumulated sufficient goodwill under the name, "Sir Peter Scott" to qualify for an unregistered trademark". The report did not "highlight" anything. That is the view of the WP editor who added it. The out-of-context quoted phrase about the complainant not having acquired sufficient "good will" was used in the sense of the complainant not having previously used the name in commerce or received significant financial gain from the name itself. Voceditenore (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the case was not covered by the the mainstream press but was covered by Times Higher Education Supplement, a specialist publication. Voceditenore (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine I concede. These are mostly very good points. Some of them are incorrect assumptions. As an example, notability does not in fact apply to information within an article, as someone alluded to. And no, mainstream press is not a prerequisite for weight. Sorry to say, that one made me laugh.

No more additions unless and until more sources are found. However, we could have saved all this kerfuffle if someone hadn't made a low blow about conflict of interest. It's a pretty flimsy case of it. You should not do that again. Use your words, with real reasons next time, instead of attacking other well meaning editors. :o) BETA 20:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What "low blow" and "flimsy case" of COI are you talking about? The confirmed one? Dayewalker (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one, perhaps? -- Hoary (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or this one? Voceditenore (talk) 06:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to additional sources justifying further edits, demonstrating notability of events/cases/issues, and demanding inclusion of these events/cases/issues the following links may be of interest - http://www.manhattanchronicles.com/The-Dead-Sea-Scrolls-Scandal.php http://www.latinfinance.com/DailyBriefArchivePrint.aspx?ID=71778 http://www.managingip.com/Search-Results.html?Home=true&Keywords=fredrics --Lorifredrics (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first briefly discusses Fredrics/Scott as part of a very different discussion; the second has one short sentence about the matter; the third may or may not say something but you have to pay money in order to find out. I'm not much whelmed. -- Hoary (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Coming from ANI) I would have to agree with Hoary and others here that based on the evidence thus far, this looks like a relatively insignificant controversy affecting the university that doesn't belong in the article. Incidentally, people have already made some good points about the parliament thing, but another point is that unless there is something unusual about the UK parliament, and I don't think there is, mention in parliament isn't that big a deal. MPs say things in parliament all the time about a large variety of topics. It's their job. Unless what they said merited coverage in RSS it's largely irrelevant when it comes to determining significance. Even if you haven't been to parliament (I have) or watched coverage of parliamentary proceedings (ditto), this should be obvious from reading coverage that a lot of the stuff said in parliament is not really that interesting or significant. Nil Einne (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, it looks like the consensus is shifting to including the contribution. [4], this may get interesting. BETA 03:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finding it hard to take that new SPA edits to seriously given this edit. Mtking ^(edits) 03:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the recent discussion at AN/I makes it very clear that consensus has *not* changed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues, first "Tuition Fee Hike" seams somewhat POV and secondly not sure that this is worthy of encyclopaedic note. Mtking ^(edits) 12:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only source for this is a Local paper. Mtking ^(edits) 12:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's important enough to include.Teapotgeorge^Talk 12:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So lets get this right :

it's put its prices up to the same level as one third of the the other UK universities, Two local MPs had a meeting the the University and gave a quote and the Student Union President also gave a quote all of which only makes a local paper.

it "featured in the bottom 10 institutions in terms of employment" sourced to national papers.

all of this takes over 7% of the page. I can see reasons for keeping the "featured in the bottom 10 institutions in terms of employment" bit; but the fees bit is WP:RECENT and WP:UNDUE in its current form. Mtking ^(edits) 12:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is however a sector wide issue so I moved it to the history section so it can see in the right context. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edits you are trying to make are not relevant to the topic, the fact that other universities are doing this too is irrelevant. You wouldn't put "Kenny rogers is a singer, just like michael jackson is a singer" on Kenny's article would you? BETA 13:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not the statement being made, the statement indicates that their move was in-line with a third of their competitors within the sector - this places the move within a sector wide context, without it, an unfamiliar reader might think that they simply one day decided to do it out of the blue. By that logic, the fact that they are amongst the top worst universities for employment should not be included because of mention of other universities. However, that paints this organisation in a negative light, so on the current pattern of your edits, I guess you are ok with including that? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement makes it look like some sort of peer pressure from other universities, they made their own decision based on their internal situation, and if you think it's peer pressure, then find some evidence of this. BETA 13:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It says nothing of the sort, it's simply a statement of fact - they took decision X, in the content of the sector, YY number of universities also took this decision. Says nothing about motives. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I repeat, the whole section is an WP:UNDUE section aimed at trying to show the university in a bad light and should be removed unless reliable sources other than the one local paper call it one. Mtking ^(edits) 13:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think the raise of tutiton fees should be mentioned but not in that section and certainly not in the slanted lacking in context way that BETA wants to present it - anyone else? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In April 2011, Kingston University joined 47 of 123 other English universities in raising its fees to the maximum allowable ₤9000 per annum" in the history section would do it for me. Mtking ^(edits) 13:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, me too! BETA 13:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's good, straight to the point and also places it within a sector context. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I will do it then. Mtking ^(edits) 13:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe hike has a derogatory connotation where you're from, but in most English speaking places it simply means a significant increase in a short period of time. BETA 13:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from the UK - Hike is not as NPOV as "increase" or even "raise". --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please See definition #2 [5] at wiktionary. BETA 13:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Protected

{{Edit protect}}

 Not done - The idea of protecting for a short while for edit warring, is not so you immediately throw in an editprotected template, but that you all take the week's break to discuss here and come up with a consensus of how the page should be edited when the protection expires.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was protected while I was making the change agreed to above :

As per above, please remove the section "Tuition fee increase:" and add under history :

In April 2011, Kingston University joined 47 of 123 other English universities in raising its fees to the maximum allowable ₤9000 per annum.^[1][2]

Mtking ^(edits) 13:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd tend to agree with that. I fail to see the "controversy" here. Like 47 other UK universities it's raising its fees to £9000. The university isn't keen on it. Obviously the students aren't either, although note that the Student Union rep's quote was taken out of context. He actually said "It's not a fair level of fees, but that's not the university’s fault". This whole bit is like the "dog bites man" story. Incidentally, "hike" isn't derogatory or POV, but it's unencyclopedic style. This is (or at least is supposed to be) an encyclopedia not a badly written newspaper. I've made other copyedits to that effect, apparently the last before the article was locked. Voceditenore (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin please undo the vandalism edit made by User:Avanu, It's unwarranted, and it makes for a very unencyclopedic feel to the section. As you can see [6] none of the bold edits made to this point amounted in removal of this magnitude. Though we were in a spirited discussion on talk (there were disputes about where the information should go, title of section etc.) there wasn't consensus to remove that much. BETA 14:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that we did not decide to remove the tuition fee section. we only decided to move the line about 47 of 123 to the history section. there is no mention above of removing the section under controversy. Thank you. BETA 13:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think it's pretty clear that we did - the support seems to be for removing the tution fee section entirely and replacing it with the single line suggested above. If anyone besides BETA disagrees with my analysis, let me know below. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit Warring is unnecessary. First, what do the sources SAY? Hike or Increase or something else or both? If something else, use that. If both, and you can't agree, flip a coin, or use something else. If none of the above, flip a coin and pick something else. But don't edit war. Simple yes? Lesson over. How about "Tuition Fee Changes"? Very neutral, yes? -- Avanu (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tution fee changes is fine by me but still think the whole thing should be moved upto the "history" section --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, a whole section on what 1 in 3 other UK Universities are doing seems WP:UNDUE, the single line in the history section covers it about right. Mtking ^(edits) 14:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, the question is not just whether a lot of universities are doing it, but is it actually a 'controversy'? If so, then the stuff 99 or 200 other people do is irrelevant. -- Avanu (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No sources have been forthcoming that it is. Mtking ^(edits) 14:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the discussion, I agree the section should be moved and pared down. It sounds like it's (not surprisingly) not something unique to this university and it doesn't seem that significant. This reeks of WP:Recentism to me, I doubt in 20 years it will be of any real significance. Nil Einne (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Primary questions might be, what has the university done differently in response? What have students done differently in response? What has the community done differently in response? Much like the Taco Bell lawsuit recently about beef content, very little actually came of it, but for a short time, Taco Bell discounted a few food items. -- Avanu (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While not an admin, I have deactivated the template as my reading is consensus is not yet sufficiently clear (at the very least on what edit is required) to edit over protection. Note that per Wikipedia:Protection policy an admin is generally required to protect the current version even if that's the WP:Wrong version and the edit (full) protected template is only used when there is consensus on what edit is required. Nil Einne (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that there is a significant 'controversy' specifically regarding Kingston University and the tuition fees issue. The section has clearly been added as yet another attempt to slant the article. It should be removed in its entirety. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree likewise. It's silly to have that section in that subheading. Again, where is the "controversy"? Maybe there should just be a section called Bad things about this university. We could add one to every article about a university. I'm sure there are lots of "bad things" to be gleaned from local newspapers for aspiring Jimmy Olsens. And we must definitely add it to the 46 other universities who raised their fees to £9000. Just joking of course, but really... Voceditenore (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lets start again

Propose :

Remove the section "Tuition fee increase:" and add under history :

In April 2011, Kingston University joined 47 of 123 other English universities in raising its fees to the maximum allowable ₤9000 per annum.^[3][2]

• Support Mtking ^(edits) 14:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nil Einne (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose that information is too recent in time to put in the history section, also, It should be pointed out that it isn't just that they raised their fees, but that KU was among the worst (in terms of employment) to raise their fees. BETA 14:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Among' is perhaps a key point, since according to the source, 5 of the bottom 10 were 'among'. More significantly the source [7] seems rather flawed since it says they are in the bottom 10 but then includes a list of the bottom 10 which doesn't list them.... Do we have a better source? BTW is the 47/123 thing accurate? While trying to find another source for the bottom ten/maximum fees thing I came across [8] which says 46/67 universities which plan to charge all students the maximum and 49/67 who intend to charge at least some students/courses the maximum. I came across further sources [9] [10] [11] suggests Kingston is one of the ones who wants to charge some but not all students/courses the maximum (although the average looks like it will be close to the maximum). Nil Einne (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There are two different issues: Should the 'tuition fee increase' section be removed, and should we discuss the issue in the history section? In my opinion, there is little doubt that the section is a breach of NPOV (basically concocting a 'controversy' by synthesis) and should be deleted, but I see no reason why this needs to go into the 'history' section, per WP:RECENTISM and as giving undue weight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Definitely Support moving from "Controversies". Would also support leaving this non-event out completely (see my latest comment in the section above). And definitely oppose pointing out that it's among the bottom 10 in graduate employment if the only source for this completely contradicts itself.[12] Voceditenore (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as above. Not a controversy. Dayewalker (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as above. It's very likely that this fee increase is controversial, but (i) if it is then nobody has shown good evidence of this (unless, of course, "controversy" merely means "more or less embarrassing stuff"), and (ii) there shouldn't even be a "controversies" section. The fee increase is of some importance and worth a mention. There's nothing about "history" that excludes "contemporary history". If this is limited to one sentence there's no danger of "recentism". Nil Einne suggests that it may not be entirely accurate; it can be amended later. -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong oppose any form of censorship, please remember than the First Amendment gives us the freedom of speech and any removal goes against that that right. KingsonRules (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your premises are wrong. See Wikipedia:Free speech. -- Hoary (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • ROFL... Not that one again... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "'Oppose'" too recent for history, and should be in Controversies section, as this is a controversial subject, based on the general tenor of debate both here and in the public sphere. I would add that it is controversial because Kingston's graduate employment rate is in the bottom ten, as per a recent article in the Telegraph.Lorifredrics (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There's is no problem with putting the fee rise in the History section. Normally, histories of insitutions go from the beginning to the present. The History section is currently very poor – 2 short sentences – and needs expansion anyway. The fact that something caused a controversy on Wikipedia is not the same as it causing a controversy in the real world. The increases in maximum UK university fees are definitely controversial as a general issue, but their implementation in a particular university does not constitute a controversy about that university, unless reliable sources can be found to support this, e.g. student uprisings, mass staff-resignations, etc. So far there has been no evidence that this is the case with Kingston or any of the other 46 universities. Note that the Telegraph article does not adequately support the idea that this was controversial at Kingston and has also made an error one way or another. It mentions it as allegedly being one of the 5 universities in the bottom 10 that are raising fees to the maximum, but then lists the bottom 10 and Kingston is not on it. Voceditenore (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Let's not waste a second more time on the current campaign against Kingston. It's essential that we have consistency across university articles. There are structure guidelines on WP:UNI. We need to stick to those and ensure that league table positions and all other indicators are given in a standard style without commentary. If someone wants to take on the donkey work of going through all the UK university articles adding the information about the new undergraduate fees, that would be great. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it current stands, I would say that the general consensus seems to be remove the Tuition fee section entirely - the question of if any content should replace it in another section is a seperate question and not settled yet. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I was thinking would it not be a good idea just to have a filed on the infobox and list what the fees are for each university in a constant way ? Mtking ^(edits) 07:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motive poll:

BETA 14:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So much for WP:AGF. I suggest we ignore this bit of nonsense, and carry on discussing the issue in the normal manner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BETA: "I believe that Kingston is one of the worst universities in uk". This is not an advocacy site, it is an encyclopedia - your best move now would be to stop editing the article completely. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]