Talk:University of Westminster

Self-published sources banner

Okay, Rangoon11, you want to reach consensus regarding the self-published sources banner I added? How about you address explicitly here the central issue (that this article relies almost exclusively on (mainly promotional and puff-piece) sources on the UoW website) before you remove it again? If we are to establish the importance of the subject of the article, we cannot simply accept UoW's word for it, correct? Famousdog (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely no question that this university is inherently notable under WP policies, and I am puzzled that you have even mentioned that issue.

It would be helpful if you could specifically list those claims in the article which you feel require third-party sources.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's a notable institution. But this is an extremely long article most of which is unimportant (unless the article is intended to be an advert for UoW) and applies to ALL universities (and is therefore redundant info). WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Do we need to know the distance to every tube stop and the inside leg measurements of every VC since 1950? And stop reverting my changes, since I HAVE taken this to talk, as you suggested. Famousdog (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"Of course it's a notable institution." So why did you question this in your previous post? Have you got any interest in actually working to improve this article, or just in adding tags to it (which any moron can do in a couple of minutes) and wasting others' time on this Talk page? And wholly factual and uncontentious information such as financials does not need third party citations. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You are showing severe ownership issues regarding this article. I am adding tags to point out the areas where there are difficulties in order that we can work to improve it. What is your problem? And don't call me a moron, that's in extremely bad faith. Famousdog (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

So you are now adding failure to assume good faith to edit warring. I'm fast losing interest in discussing this with you at all. You come across as a nasty piece of work. In the meantime, wait for consensus before seeking to impose changes to the stable version of this article which have been reverted for good reason (and by an editor who has actually spent time trying to improve this article, rather than merely adding tags to it). You also appear unable to read. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I repeat: You are showing severe ownership issues regarding this article. I am adding tags to point out the areas where there are difficulties in order that we can work to improve it. You yourself say "It would be helpful if you could specifically list those claims in the article which you feel require third-party sources" - I have tagged those statements that are poorly sourced or of trivial importance or need citations. It seems that I'm making all the compromises here. Now I'm "a nasty piece of work" and am "unable to read"??? Do I need to report you for harrassment? Famousdog (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You are attempting to impose the addition of an excessive number of tags to this article by edit warring. Thus far, every time your edits have been reverted, you have simply reverted again and added even more tags. Such behaviour is uncollegial and unacceptable, as is your accusation of harrassment.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Outrageous Bullying and ownership by Rangoon11

Okay, I'm just going to set out the chronology of my involvement in this article so I can get it straight in my (and your) head:

• I boldly add a banner saying that this article relies too much on self-published sources, which it does. The vast majority of links are to UoW, raising valid conflict-of-interest and promotional issues
• You revert this claiming my banner was "unjustified". No explanation beyond that.
• I put the banner back and you revert, asking me to reach consensus on the talk page. Really? With who? You haven't justified either of your reverts yet.
• In order to "justify" the addition of the banner, I tag the sections I see as problematic and explain my reasoning on the talk page, as you suggested.
• There then followed a sequence of edits in which you basically deleted most of my tags, thereby breaching WP:3RR. Finally you make your first comment on the talk page. Asking me to, as far as I can see, do something I've already done.
• I reinstate the tags, since you haven't address the core WP:SPS issue that I have raised.
• You revert, saying "take it to talk". I already am talking (quite a lot by this point).
• You, on the other hand, call me a moron.
• When I suggest that this is not in very good faith, you call me a "nasty piece of work" and suggest I am "unable to read"!
• I tag the various sections I consider as being of dubious importance - you simply revert. Who is being "wholly unconstructive" now?
• Finally, in a bizarre bit of mental ju-jitsu, you suggest that I am edit warring!!!

WTF? As far as I can see, I am faithfully following the bold-revert-discuss cycle while you are hurling abuse and edit warring. Famousdog (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with these comments which is my experience of trying to improve this site in August last year - see history especially around August 12. If I was the VC of this establishment I would be very concerned at the image this gives out. The same goes for some of the links to overseas sites linked from the main article. This site and related sites need substantial work. For the record I have no connection whatsoever with this university, just a desire to improve a site which frankly looks like the work of a very poor PR department. Cj1340 (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Do either of you seriously believe that this article has been improved by today's addition of a massive number of tags? Or that wholly factual information such as financials, the date on which the name changed to the Royal Polytechnic Institution, the number of campuses, the names of faculties, and the fact that the union operates a bar and a night club on the Harrow site, require third party citations?

This article does need a lot of work. It does not require the crude addition of massive number of tags - for example the entire Organisation and administration section, which is perfectly standard and entirely factual, has now been defaced with completely unnecessary tags. Equally far from being too long, the article is in fact far shorter than those of most UK universities and actually requires expansion. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon11, thanks for your recent, very helpful edits. I am just looking through them now and you have fixed several problems that I tagged. I think you misunderstand the point of tags. They are there to flag any issues so that said issue can be resolved. There are a massive number of problems with this article, hence my (as you say) "crude addition of massive number of tags." If you simply remove them every time I add them, how will any other editors spot problems that need to be fixed? Secondly, I'm not suggesting you find third-party citations for "wholly factual information such as financials ... and the fact that the union operates a bar and a night club" or the whole Organisation and administration section. I actually think that information is not notable enough to BE HERE. Most universities operate like this. Concentrate on what is special about UoW? I agree with Cj1340 that this article currently "looks like the work of a very poor PR department." Famousdog (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Too many tags

Hi, can I propose a quick appeal to common sense? The point of page notices and in-line notices are to attract new editors to improve the article. The header notices have been merged to avoid becoming a mess of page-filling warnings but to be honest the text does look like a schoolboy's failed English Lit essay with a depressing morass of teacher's notes. It is good to see the article being discussed and improved, but adding too many in-line notices runs the risk of putting off new editors from trying to help while the article looks like a war zone. Often, it is more helpful to have just a page header notice and a section on the talk page explaining what the issues are (such as poor quality sources) with suggestions on how they can be fixed. If in practice you are likely to return to the article and fix the problems yourself, then Be bold encourages us to just get on with it, rather than using notices to moan about the problem. At the end of the day we are trying to create articles that the public can enjoy and benefit from reading, this principle should apply even whilst the article continues to improve.

In particular I see heavy use of {{Self-published inline}}, this seems rather unfair when there are relatively simple facts being presented and the University's website would be the best source of the material. If you think the phrasing is overly promotional then simple weeding of the non-neutral text is a copyedit problem rather than a poor sourcing issue. The big notice at the top of the page is sufficient for future editors to consider finding more independent sources such as the archives available at http://www.aim25.ac.uk/cats/15/5141.htm. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Fae. I will do as you suggest by, for example, removing SPS tags from sections that are trivia (and should be removed for that reason, not because they are SPS). However, I have tried to raise these same issues a couple of times waaaaay back in February 2011 and also suggested a merge from the Journalism department that, frankly, doesn't seem notable enough to warrent it's own entry. I did this mainly by adding a simple banner, rather than inline tags, however, Rangoon11 systematically dismantled and downgraded the banners I originally put up, without really addressing any of the issues. This is why I decided to point out the individual breaches of policy, as he clearly had not understood which sections were at fault. Famousdog (talk) 10:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of relevant and cited information

Wholly factual details of financials, faculties and schools and leadership/organisation are entirely standard for university articles and should not be removed without prior discussion here. That these have been removed by an editor who yesterday festooned this article with a vast number of unnecessary maintenance tags, is especially disappointing.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Where does it say that this is standard practice for University articles? Just because something is true does not mean it is, as you say, "relevant" or belongs in an encyclopedia article. I repeat, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. Secondly, I have explained several times why I tagged the sections and statements that I did. Stop bitching because I tried to add some editorial rigour to your rose-tinted essay about UoW. You do not own this article. If that disappoints you, tough cookies. Or am I being too "nasty" for you again? Famousdog (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Chancellor Baron Paul

Here's some useful info:

Lord Paul is the chancellor. His family trust has given £300,000 to the university. Since the 1960s he has lived in Portland Place, around the corner from the flagship building.

Not sure where this fits best. Governing structure? Staff? He is the titular head of the institution so he needs to get a couple of lines (especially given the financial angle, and him being in the news). BrainyBabe (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Jihadi John, Washington Post

I'm no good at altering wikipedia entries, but could someone please add an entry about this university is notorious for the creation of radical Islamist terrorists. You could quote the Washington Post article listed here as a source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jihadi-john-a-graduate-of-my-radical-university/2015/02/27/2e36ea64-bde4-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

I can't believe this hasn't been added already. There must be thousands of people coming to wikipedia to find information and links to Westminster University and its connection to international Islamic terrorism but there isn't any mention of it. Surely this warrants as relevant information given Westminster University has appeared on numerous TV and newspaper articles? The fact that its embarrassing to the Uni should not prevent it from being prominently displayed, as terrorism has become the University's biggest and most famous export.