Talk:University of East London

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] Duplicate content

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

In the context of a page about a university it sounds like you are trying hard to discredit the university by using the P word. Copying a list of half a dozen alumni is hardly plagiarism. It is fair use. Also, you do not demonstrate a neutral point of view in your comment that "finding alternative descriptions for these people won't be easy either". Let's agree to call it duplicate content. The duplicate content could have been placed by anybody with an axe to grind. I would like to know which univeristy you went to so that we all know what your personal bias is. Personally, I went to the University of East London.
--JamesJohnSmith (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[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)

I do not think a "broader convention" about university rankings is necessary or desirable. Who is going to decide what the convention should be? You? You are not qualified to have an opinion about any university other than the one you went to. I would like to know which university you went to so it is clear what your bias is. I went to the University of East London.
--JamesJohnSmith (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please comment here before editing the University of East London page

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

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

As I understand it, Wikipedia regulations do not recognise 'subject matter expert[s]'. Anybody can edit Wikipeia, and everybody equally has to follow the same guidelines. The edit that you restored seems to breach a number of guidelines. Have a look at the Wikipedia rules on wp:peacock, wp:weasel, wp:original, wp:npov, and wp:sources. Particularly obvious examples include your claim that the University "has a bigger impact on changing society, the economy and lives than any other university". How could you possibly measure that? What is your source (using yourself as a source is original research, and against Wikipedia guidelines)? Wikipedia guidelines allow anybody to edit an entry, and require a neutral point of view, and most importantly a notable source. Trying to stop people posting true things that might reflect negatively on your university (such as league table rankings) is, as I understand it, against the spirit of Wikipedia. So is trying to stop people who are not students at your university from posting to your university's Wikipedia page (anybody can edit Wikipedia). On the other hand, adding information that is true and well-sourced (such as the proportion of mature and ethnic minority students at UEL, as long as you can provide a source for this information and use sources to justify any claims you make about comparisons with other universities) is not only allowed, but encouraged. This is what Wikipedia is all about. At the moment you make many generalised statements without sources. If you can find notable and preferably independent sources for the claims that you are making then they have a place on this page. Wikipedia pages on universities are not supposed to look like adverts for the institutions. ThomasL (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I would add that I would personally like to see a more neutral version of this page than is offered by either of the alternatives recently posted. It is certainly possible to present a more evenly balanced view of the university without breaking Wikipedia regulations about sources and point of view. ThomasL (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Edits

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

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