Talk:Kingston University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A mortarboard This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Attempt at making the TOC come back

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)


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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)
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)
Note: comments in removed version regarding Diana Winstanley are referenced in the following links referred to on why-diana.org:

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.51.176 (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian, which is a reliable source, says "According to reports of the inquest into her death, Prof Winstanley had been suffering from stress at work." I would accept the statement:"Following her experience with workplace-related stress, Professor Diana Winstanley committed suicide in July 2006." being readded into the article. The other comments have not been backed up by sources as of yet. Woody (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Witness intimidation

I have removed the reference to the "witness intimidation" and "employment tribunal" sections. The latest source for this data is an apparently autobiographical posting to a site that anybody can post news to, so apparently little more than a blog by the very person this incident is all about. I have nothing to do with Kingston, and therefore have no worries about their reputation, but judging from the information that has been posted here, the employment tribunal found for the University, the Crown Prosecution Service found for the University, and the ongoing case has yet to be decided and has failed to interest anybody in the media except the plaintiff himself. The postings here come close to breaching the Wikipedia rules against autobiography, have little notability (person takes University to court and loses is hardly news), and are all based on self-penned sources that are certainly not from a neutral point of view. Even the legal document is carefully edited so that the names of those involved, except for those against whom the action is taken, have been deleted. If the University loses the case and this is published in neutral media (as I'm sure it would be), then this could be added to the Wikipedia article. At the moment, however, I don't think it should be here. ThomasL (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I had edited down the section from the original diatribe whilst I was looking for sources. As it is , the information was in breach of our WP:BLP criteria which is a very important polcy. Until the information can be sourced to a reliable source, ie not blogs, it should not be re-added. More to the point, it has little relevance to the University until the University is found guilty in an employment tribunal. Woody (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


The employment tribunal case is ongoing -- no finding has been made...YET. Vera Baird, MP, QC has found that the CPS was wrong to drop charges because it is illegal to intimidate witnesses to an Employment Tribunal. Victims to crimes, as listed in the summons, have had their names removed to protect their status as victims. The way the entry is written is now clearly from a neutral point of view (Thanks, Woody for your assistance in editing it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.51.176 (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it still breaches the WP:BLP policy which is a non-negotiable policy. It is clearly intended to disparage its subject without evidence. No charges have been brought and as such, it has no relevance here. It is also not sourced properly, it is sourced to a blog, which is not verifiable. I am removing it again, if it is re-added I will have to request a block. Woody (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence is a court indictment/summons. Source is public record available through any request to the court. I have no connection to the subjects of this article except that I have read the court documents myself, having requested copies of all documents. The evidence is compelling and the Magistrates' court would not have charged the defendant if there was not a prima facie case. Also, There is a documented source -- a letter from Ms Baird, that is publically available online at the website www.sirpeterscott.com. Do you dispute the veracity/authenticity of this letter, which is signed by Ms Baird? You yourself quite fairly edited the text earlier today and found no problem with it. Why did you suddenly do a 180 degree turnaround? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.51.176 (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I edited it whilst looking into the substance and looking for sources. In retrospect I should have removed it completely, but I didn't. The accusation is still unproven, it is still an accusation. I could accuse someone and file court papers, it does not make them accurate. This has little to do with the University in any case, it is related to the individual in question. There aren't any verifiable, third party sources available. The information has to go. Woody (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The third part sources include a letter from Vera Baird, QC, MP. Who is more reliable than the solicitor general of the UK on such matters? The evidence itself is available online -- letters from Donald Beaton to the victims are on www.sirpeterscott.com. Are you saying that this is not sufficient to constitute a verifiable source? We are talking about the words of the defendant here in black and white. The article does NOT state that the accusations have been proven, however -- it merely says that the allegations were made and that a court found substance to issue an indictment, with a further finding by the Solicitor General. These are facts. The information is highly relevant, as this is a matter of high public interest. There are many examples of entries on Wikipedia where allegations are referred to, even when a case has been decided in favour of the accused. One such example is the entry for Michael Jackson [3]. Clearly the case of Kingston University and accusations of witness intimidation have far more credible substance than those lodged against Michael Jackson. This is why I disagree with your decision to remove the information. I would like to avoid a formal appeal, and would hope that your earlier balanced and neutral edits would be a fair and reasonable compromise solution to our disagreement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.51.176 (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sirpeterscott is an advocacy organisation that is in a vendetta against the University. It is not an impartial source. I repeat that this is not the right place for this as well. An article on the case would be the right place for it, but as there are no reliable sources, it would be deleted. The WP:BLP state that: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles. It is poorly sourced. Woody (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement that sirpeterscott is in "a vendetta" against the University. It appears to me to be posting neutral factual information, primarily documentary evidence, to be interpreted as the reader sees fit. I disagree that the entry is poorly sourced. Furthermore, I offer the following additional source of information/reference for consideration, consisting of court documents and case law references [4]. Please restore the entry or I will have no choice but to launch a formal request for third party mediation or other similar method of resolution. 87.194.51.176 (talk —Preceding comment was added at 01:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read http://www.sirpeterscott.com/#threats if you think it is not in a vendetta with the University. Please read WP:Verifiability. I have already asked for third opinions and am open to any mediation that you think appropriate. Woody (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I've read the passage you cite. That doesn't sound like a vendetta with the University. Sounds more like the University has unreasonably threatened the web hosting company and the author of the site is responding, quite reasonably to threats against freedom of speech. I interpret the "harm" referred to by the author as harm to the principles of free speech caused by threats against the web hosting company, who by the way, refused to cave into the threats, consistent with academic principles of free speech and expression. In any event, i refer back to my additional source listing provided above, which supports the accuracy of the information in the entry. If you would like this additional source added, I woudl be happy to agree to that. I would, otherwise, like third party mediation of this dispute. How should we begin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.51.176 (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Woody is right in that there is no wiggle room here. Court documents are unacceptable sources when secondary coverage from reliable sources is absent. Similar to how Woody explained, anyone can create a court document, and they can make it say whatever they want. A court document in its pure form contains only the opinions of its creator, without any review or fact-checking. When there is no coverage of this document in a reliable, secondary source, it necessarily presents an unweightable point of view. Such information is absolutely unacceptable where living persons are inmplicated. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This site WILL remain until Kingston University agrees to change its behavior and makes amends to those whom it has harmed Sounds like a disagreement of opinions to me. Anyway, the other source merely confirms that there is a disagreement. We don't list every disagreement on Wikipedia between Universities and their employees. That is not our job. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia to hold verifiable information. This is not the place for this until more sources cover this. In terms of mediation, I have already asked for third party opinions, we wait for them to arrive. Informal third-party mediation is the first step, after that it see Dispute resolution. Woody (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't get the lack of a TOC. Anyone know? I'll comment on the issue here in a sec. Avruchtalk 01:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Just looking through the argumentation above, I have to agree with Woody. It is debatable whether the information should be included, but what is not debatable is that it must be sourced to a reliable secondary source. Blogs, parties to the case and other generally unreliable sources are not sufficient to include something that could be considered contentious or controversial in an article (with reference to a living person, since this is not technically a BLP article). Avruchtalk 01:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with woody as well ,that anything from that site is suspect. The most obvious reason is that it purports to be the man's own site, but the way it talks about him hardly seems to be how one would write about themselves. It goes after people using unfounded, specious allegations and innuendo about their behaviors, and relies on primary sources, when it uses any at all. Those it does use it uses with it's own framing of the context, which casts doubts on the neutrality of the presentations. ThuranX (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that Wikipedia should hold verifiable information. The information in the article (irrespective of Woody's (et al) views on the sirpeterscott website) is verifiable. The article does not draw conclusions -- it states that accusations were made and that charges were leveled by the Magistrates Court with further support for criminal charges being put forth in an opinion by Vera Baird written to MP, Vincent Cable.

As for mediation, I would ask that we go with a MedCab approach at this point. I am concerned that "contributors" who are, in fact, either employees of or contracted "reputation managers" of Kingston University would chime into other forms of informal third party mediation, as they have already done. In case you are wondering whether or not I have evidence of the identity of those who have already repeatedly undone parts of this article, I can tell you that your own IP address begins with 130 (I have the complete address, but won't publish it here in order to preserve your privacy). I have a system of checking IP addresses of Wikipedia Users and have linked a number of posters in this article with the university employees and contractors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.51.176 (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You can make a request for comment if you still disagree. There's little point opening a mediation case when there's merely one user disagreeing with many. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
And with those accusations that people opposing you are all secret employees of Kingston, you're certainly going to be seen as a credible complaintant. That you're grabbing up editors' IPs to determine that we're all kingston employees is probably a violation of some Wiki-POlicy or other; certainly the threat to use it against us constitutes a breach of WP:CIVIL if not WP:NLT. ThuranX (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wouldnt it be more appropriate to list it as accusations of witness intimidation and therefore it can explore both sides of the argument- Matt_world2004 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt world2004 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No, beacause Wikipedia is not the place to list arguments and accusations that are unsourced. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for verifiable information, not a place for arguments between two parties to be "aired". Woody (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

These points ARE sourced. You just don't happen to agree that a copy of a summons issued after a four hour hearing before three magistrates to determine whether or not there was a prima facie case to be answered is a valid source. I disagree. Is there really any doubt that the court did issue that summons after hearing preliminary evidence? There is no issue of "arguments" being aired here -- rather this is a neutral reporting of facts -- Mr Beaton was, in fact, charged with witness intimidation. Mr Beaton, in fact, sent a series of threatening letters (the source provides actual copies of the letters). The source says that the CPS dropped the case on a technicality. The source says that the Solicitor General wrote that the acts described would be a crime under another statute (supported by a copy of the letter from the Solicitor General). What more proof could one possibly want? There is no assertion of guilt here, mind you. There is only an assertion of facts about what has happened.

Again, I must insist on a MedCab review of the article, especially now that someone (matt_world2004) has chimed in in support of including the information as original posted.87.194.51.176 (talk) 11:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You have no third party, reliable sources. Medcab is for disputes between two editors, the only person who is in a dispute here is you, versus four other editors. We can open a request for comments (article) if you really think it neccessary. The trouble is, there isn't much wiggle room here, BLP and V are core policies. Woody (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you miss the point of needing third-party sources. We're not so much asking for verification that the allegations were made (as I don't think anyone here doubts it), but verification that the allegations are worth noting. It is generally the case that if no reliable sources have taken note of something, than neither should we. This is especially important in the case of negative information, and extraordinarily important in the case of biographies of living persons, or any article in which living persons are implicated. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Vera Baird MP,QC is a reliable third party source, as is Vince Cable, MP, both of whom have "noted" the issues at hand. I think when the Solicitor General of Great Britain and the acting Lib Dem Party Leader bother to acknowledge something, THAT is "noteworthy."87.194.51.176 (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, no, they really have no choice. It's drama surrounding the allegations. It's like saying everything the US supreme court has ever taken the slightest notice of, which should certainly not be the case since anyone can file an appeal with them. The absence of any reliable sources (if you read the link that keeps getting posted, you'll notice that individuals are not reliable or notability-establishing sources) that mention this continues to call the noteworthiness into doubt. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid the point you've missed is that the individuals allegedly involved here are high-level public officials, including the Vice-Chancellor and University Secretary of a public, government controlled university. The apparent criminal involvement (by their own words and admissions -- see the documentary evidence contained on the website www.sirpeterscott.com) in the sending of threatening letters to witnesses to an Employment Tribunal makes this information highly noteworthy, regardless of where the primary source materials are posted, that is unless you doubt their authenticity Perhaps you have a different view towards university officials as important public figures, in this case made more so by virtue of the fact that the Vice Chancellor is recently knighted.87.194.51.176 (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid you are missing the point. We have guidelines and policies for a reason, they need to be followed or don't write at all. The policies have been shown to you, yet you continue to push your agenda. They are personal accusations that aren't noteworthy at the moment. If we had an article on those individuals, and you had third party sources, then you would be able to add the information there. They are allegations made against a person, not the University. The fact that you are resorting to using peoples IP addresses show that you are clutching at straws. You clearly have an agenda, given that you run the sirpeterscott website. Wikipedia is not the place for POV pushers or people with a conflict of interest. Woody (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no connection to the sirpeterscott website. I simply came across the site by chance. I have no conflict of interest. I merely seek to prevent those with a conflict of interest from silencing the documented truth, which any reasonable person can plainly see by looking at the available evidence. As stated previously, these accusations are, at the least, no different than accusations lodged against Michael Jackson, which were fully explored on the Wikipedia page for him, notwithstanding the fact that documentary evidence was not presented of such allegations, and notwithstanding the fact that such allegations were later proven untrue by a jury. You appear to have a double standard here, which is quite puzzling to me. I simply ask that the facts as they are be put forward. As the story unfolds, of course, further support will be provided, including mainstream press articles, which I understand are in progress.87.194.51.176 (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
To be frank, I am highly disbelieving of your first statement. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you have concerns regarding the Michael Jackson article, take it to that talk page. Those allegations were covered in third party reliable sources and form a key-part in understanding Michael Jackson and his profile. That cannot be said for your allegations, coupled with the point that they haven't been proven or disproven. Until you have the reliable sources, the information cannot be reinserted into the article. I am being reasonable and there is no double standard; everyone has to provide sources. This argument has become circular now. Until sources are forthcoming, the information simply cannot be added under wikipedia policy. Woody (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to disagree with you, Woody on this. I would refer you to the following link which seems like pretty strong evidence of the veracity of claims being made by the previous editor - [5]. It sure looks like threats against a witness to me.Catface1965 (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
That is the sirpeterscott website which has been discussed ad nauseaum before. It is not reliable, nor is it third party. Please read all of the guidelines stated above. Woody (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
It certainly appears that these letters did come from Donald Beaton and were written to employees involved in an Employment Tribunal. One of the letters has the signature of Mr Beaton on the bottom. From my reading of the letters, it sure looks like witness intimidation, as Mr Beaton clearly demands that all copies, not just a copy, of the evidence be turned over under penalty of criminal prosecution and civil costs. Sounds like an attempt to bury important damaging and embarrasing evidence in a court case to me. Surely, that can't be legal. It would seem to me that if a letter(s) come from one of the parties (Beaton) and there is no contentiousness over whether or not the letters are authentic, then there is no problem with reliability of information. So to summarize, we do have a situation where someone has been charged with witness intimidation by a court (a third party), albeit ultimately the case was dismissed on a technicality. Then we have a situation where a higher legal authority (the solicitor general, another reliable third party) has offerred a dissenting view of the criminality of the alleged offence. I don't see any problem with the spirit of Wikipedia policy, despite the fact that no mainstream newspaper has yet reported on this story. The origin of the letters and solicitor general opinion, which is signed, seems to me to be immaterial in this particular circumstance. I'd say let the entry in.Catface1965 (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if the use of partisan non-verifiable sources (such as the so-called 'Sir Peter Scott' website) was permitted on Wikipedia, there are actually two views expressed on that website. Donald Beaton's letter makes it clear that the ex-employee recorded private conversations without permission (there are extracts from this recording on the 'Sir Peter Scott' website, so this much is obviously true) and that the University regarded this as illegal (a reading of the law supported by third-party non-partisan sites such as http://www.gla.ac.uk/services/dpfoioffice/a-ztopics/taperecordingconversations/ ). If or when a third-party source reports on this conflict and court case, it would seem likely that they would name both sides, and mention both arguments. The 'Sir Peter Scott' website, obviously written by the complainant or somebody very close to him, does not do this - except by accident - and its partisan and unreliable nature precludes its use as a source on Wikipedia. Once again, I would suggest that we wait for the court case to reach its conclusion. If the court rules against the University then that would almost certainly be reported by the mainstream media, and that would provide neutral, verifiable, third-party sources that could be used in a Wikipedia article. ThomasL (talk) 10:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Another Third-Party source disputes any notion of illegality of such a recording, when it is made in the public interest. See http://www.lawreports.co.uk/ICRE/2006/nov.0.3.htm. In this case, which was different from the one involving Kingston University in that in the latter, there were no deliberations taking place -- it was an informal tea break, hence matters of following agreed procedure covered in Amwell v Dogherty do not apply. In any event, there was clearly no criminal conduct by the employees in either case and Mr Beaton, as confirmed by the Magistrates' Court, was not acting to prevent or in response to a criminal act. Else the Court would not have found a basis to charge Beaton with a crime. Glasgow's interpretation of the law does not apply in this instance and Kingston's attempts at doing so are patently misconceived. Furthermore, by virtue of the fact that the University's letters are included in the site, the issue at hand is presented even handedly (both side's points of view are expressed quite openly)87.194.51.176 (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't want to turn this into a detailed debate as to who is right or wrong as far as the court case or employment tribunal is concerned. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball, and the courts will make their own decisions. My case is simply that a personal website and blog-like postings to open-access media do not represent a third-party, reliable, verifiable source (even if it includes some very carefully selected aspects of the other side's position) and neither does it prove notability. Others may disagree with me, but my own position is that media report(s) of a court case that went against the University would justify inclusion of this information (in measured terms) on this Wikipedia page, but only after the court has made a decision against the University and reliable third-party sources have reported this (as I'm sure they would).
I would briefly point you towards http://www.employmentappeals.gov.uk/Public/Upload/06_0243ResfhMLNDA.doc , which is apparently the officially published and full conclusions of the Employment Tribunal Appeal that you cite. The conclusion of the tribunal is that "75. In our judgment (by a majority) the Employment Tribunal in the present case was right to permit Mrs Dogherty to put in evidence her transcriptions of the “open hearing” parts of the proceedings she attended but (in our unanimous view) it erred in law in not debarring Mrs Dogherty from making use of her recording and transcription of the Panel’s private deliberations (as appearing, for example, at pages 181 – 201 of the Supplementary Appeal Bundle placed before us). Accordingly, we allow the appeal only to the extent of making that direction which the Tribunal should itself have made namely that: “Mrs Dogherty may not adduce in evidence in support of her claim the transcripts of the private deliberations of the panel members or any evidence derived from them.” The difference between a tea-break and official deliberations may produce different results, but that will be decided by the tribunal and the courts. Once it has been decided, and the results independently reported, then this may become something that could justifiably be posted on a Wikipedia page. ThomasL (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Kingston's credibility has just taken a hit. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7397979.stm Perhaps when taken together, folks will start to pay attention to the supposedly biased entries on Wikepedia?

``` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.51.176 (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Halls of residence claim

Why was the 45% of first years can only get halls of residence claim removed, It is a perfectly valid claim based on the numbers of students? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt world2004 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, we need verifiable, third party sources before we can add it in. It was removed a long time ago I believe. It sounds to me like you have calculated the figures yourself, which is frowned upon per the original research policies. Please provide the source and the sentence you want added in here, and we can discuss it. Woody (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)