Talk:London Metropolitan University
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject London, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to London. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] QAA ratings
the bit about the QAA rating that was deleted needs to be replaced, in the 2006/2007 prospectus loads of courses are listed as 24 out of 24 rating from the QAA, as well as many others 22 and 23 rating.
Also:- President Sir Roderick Floud
Need to be change and I can't access this area to edit.
[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] 'Campus' sections
A lot of the material here was a copyight violation from the University's 'History' page, and this subpage. I've removed it, but those pages are a good source (if properly cited) for adding more material to this article. When doing so, please consider whether the material would be better deployed in London Guildhall University or University of North London. Thanks — mholland 09:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Alumni
The entry for Sir Mark Thatcher (listed here) does not record him as having been to any university.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bill Tegner (talk • contribs) 23:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
- Indeed. Mark Thatcher did not go to university, but he did fail his accountancy exams three times. He must have taken them somewhere. Anyone got a source? — mholland 23:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Prior to the 1992 Education Act turning the polytechnics into universities someone who went to one of the institutions that now form London Met could quite legitimately be said to have "not gone to university". That said I have no idea one way or another where Mark Thatcher sat for his accountancy exams. Timrollpickering 11:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the fictional character 'Alan Partridge'. 13:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.165.63 (talk)
[edit] Industrial relations
I added a section detailing the troubled record of industrial relations since the merger. At various points I have edited out a negative tone that I had allowed to initially creep in, and thus stick to the facts, which I have referenced. Unfortunately, the entire section has been deleted more than once, with one user claiming that this section was "a hoax". My text has been replaced with more PR-friendly (to London Met) material, but without any referencing as is required under the Wikipedia guidelines. In re-instating my material, I have also inserted some of the material that was added by the other - mainly anonymous - authors, but I do not feel obliged to go to the effort of finding ways to insert the material of people who delete entire sections of writing. I presume my material has been deleted because it is politically inconvenient, but Wikipedia Universities is not a branch of the PR departments of the named institutions, so any factual material has a right to be online. Should further such deletions occur, I shall have to report this to the regular Wikipedia editors as an instance of vandalism.
Crewsaver 15:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Once again my text has been deleted. I am restoring the old version.
Crewsaver 10:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Alterations have been made today by the user at IP 163.167.99.92. As previously, this has involved deleting chunks of text. Furthermore, the references are completely messed up in the text that is left, and text that is added is not properly referenced. At this point I want to see if someone else is going to make alterations/additions/reversions, but as the Wikipedia guidelines are still not being adhered to in respect of the above then I don't think this edit can stand.
Crewsaver 17:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Request for intervention at WP:ANI
I have submitted a request for administrative intervention at WP:ANI#Edit war at London Metropolitan University. This article appears to be the subject of a severe edit war. Dr. Submillimeter 13:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Press release
Wikipedia isn't really the place for copy&paste press releases, especially those that format badly, but if anyone wants to put some details in the article here's the relese: Timrollpickering 12:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Events, however have moved on and a recent joint press statement was issued:
JOINT PRESS STATEMENT
'London Metropolitan University and UCU are pleased to announce that, following a meeting,
chaired by Brendan Barber (General Secretary of the TUC) on Wednesday 18 July 2007 at the
TUC, London Metropolitan University and UCU have reached an agreed position in relation to
the issue of union recognition and talks on proposed redundancies. Both sides have endorsed
a set of principles for future joint working. The terms of the agreement are attached.'
18 July 2007
LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY AND THE UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE UNION (UCU)
Principles:
In a spirit of partnership, Management and UCU agree to an exploration of new approaches in
pursuit of the University’s strategic goals and objectives:
Both parties:
1. agree to conduct themselves such that industrial relations between the University's
managers and union representatives is undertaken constructively and with integrity and
mutual respect at all times. In this regard, management accepts the right of UCU
representatives to represent the views of their members and UCU accepts the right of
managers to manage.
2. commit to working together openly, to ensure transparent and timely communication and
discussion of issues of mutual interest.
3. accept that they have a joint responsibility to seek to enhance the quality of educational
provision.
4. will seek to promote conditions of service, including financial and non-financial rewards,
that reflect the value of staff, within the resource constraints of the University.
5. commit to develop and promote ways of working that promote equality of opportunity, work/life
balance and the health and welfare of the University's staff.
6. commit to resolving issues of disagreement through agreed internal mechanisms before taking
any action or initiating any publicity of any kind.
The realisation of these principles will be facilitated by an agreed collective bargaining
framework, established by means of formal recognition and facilities agreements.
Given the agreement now reached between London Metropolitan University and the University and
College Union (UCU) on the above issues, it is agreed that UCU will cease both its boycott of
the University and its planned ballot for industrial action for the duration of time-limited talks.
As well as covering the above points these talks will also include all the currently proposed
redundancies, whether of full-time or part-time staff, including hourly paid part-time staff;
with a view to reaching agreement by the end of September or earlier if practicable, therefore
no action to initiate redundancies will take place within this timescale. It is further agreed
that the only statement that shall be issued to staff, union members or any external party to the
University is this press statement.
[edit] Industrial relations material
Can anyone here account for the awful over-length of the Industrial relations section? It looks to me like obvious undue weight. The section has engulfed the article, and I'd suggest that most of it ought to be summarised and cut or branched into a separate article. Wikipedia is not the place for a running commentary on an industrial dispute (including cut-and-pasted press releases). I also have severe WP:BLP concerns relating to the Board of Governors section (which I suspect is by no means unrelated to the coverage of the staff dispute). The section certainly shouldn't be carrying a disclaimer.
In the absence of any objections, I intend to shorten some of the material here quite a bit. — mholland (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- I regard the industrial relations material as very important to the article. The university has been continually engulfed in industrial disputes and it is important that these be noted as part of the current institution's short heritage. I am upset that I can trace the deletion of many of the criticisms of London Met to an IP from within the institution. I understand that this is a controversial practice and has seen much media attention in the past weeks in the UK.
- I intend to register as a wiki user and make my own contributions to the article. I have a range of sources that will corroborate the industrial relations material that is in dispute. It may be worth suggesting that the industrial relations material be allocated its own article so that the university article can conform to wiki standards? Please get back to me on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.185.95 (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- A short, neutral summary of the recent industrial dispute would be fine. What we had as of this revision of 22 August was an awful, thinly-sourced, blow-by-blow account of an internal dispute which was pieced together by IPs on both sides of the dispute, many emanating from the University. The material was removed outright by registered user Jesi Chan. I don't seek to ascribe a motive to that user, but I think that in making cuts, he/she did the article a favour (although I notice that some material added was equally poor). Please do register an account and please add material, but note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a battleground for factions within a university to play out a dispute. — mholland (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Thank you for your prompt response mholland. I am both a student and an employee of the university and hence this may compromise my impartiality. My main concern is that I traced edits to London Met, I do not wish to see the unbiased nature of wikipedia compromised in this way. I am reasonably sure that much of the information conveyed in the industrial relations section is accurate and will seek references for any further edits I make. Please excuse my ignorance of wiki protocol, I have only been a reader until now. Thanks again.
-
[edit] Student Union
Please note mholland that Recently performances have included Maximo Park, the Real Stone Roses, DJ Spoony, Loose Cannons, Wiley, 80’s Matchbox B Line Disaster, DJ Hanif, DJ Luck & MC Neat, Jeff Mills, Lab 4, Frantic, Hallucinogen, Latina Max and London’s largest Brazilian Carnival. is at least two years out of date. The list of recent performers provided by myself (and deleted by yourself) is far more accurate. If you were to go by the current article, you might as well include Jesus and the Mary Chain or Jools Holland.
It is worth pointing out that both of the venues are owned and run by the university for profit, and have nothing at all to do with the student union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.185.95 (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough: I've swapped the list for yours - it's unsourced and I've no feelings either way on how recent the list of acts should be. Feel absolutely free to go ahead and fix problems as you find them. That is Wikipedia's great strength. — mholland (talk) 00:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Writing Style
This article reads like an advert. Can someone clean it up so it's not quite so one-sided? Hardcastle 11:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
