Talk:St Mary's University, Twickenham

Untitled

how do you change the name of the page, as it is now a university college and not really part of the uni. of surrey

Renamed

In response to the request above, I worked out how to change the name of the page, but am having trouble removing double redirects. Can anyone help? ThomasL 21:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What was the previous name? Click on 'move' for info about redirects.--Duncan 21:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It was "Saint Mary's College, University of Surrey". I will have another look at the redirects information. I seem to be missing something, and am not managing to get it to work. ThomasL 08:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Aha! Solved it. ThomasL 08:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Info Box

There is more detail on the edit page but when you see it as it is normally it doesnt all come up and by location it has something like {{{city}}} that i cannot seem to get rid of. If anyone can help that be great. Martyn1987 11:40, 15 Mat 2007 (BST)

Fair use rationale for Image:StMarysSurrey.jpg

Image:StMarysSurrey.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. MikeLynch (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

---

St. Mary's University College (Twickenham) → St Mary's University College, Twickenham – I work for St Mary's would like to change the name to the one proposed. This is because St Mary's University College, Twickenham is how the institution is branded elsewhere. I cannot changed it manually, as my Wikipedia account hasn't been autoconfirmed. Thank you A.wattanajantra (talk) 13:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support What the institution choses as branding is not particularly relevant to how we disambiguate on Wikipedia. However, this moved is in line with the naming guidelines, which state that, where the disambiguator is a geographical entity, we should disambiguate by comma, not by parentheses. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Corporate branding is irrelevant, but this is still the correct name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on St Mary's University, Twickenham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.catholicherald.co.uk/article/18th-june-1954/7/the-chapel-in-the-wood-i

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:St Mary's University, Twickenham/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I think the old college bar was on the site of the former altar in the old chapel, not the former baptismal font.Dermot33 (talk) 11:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Substituted at 05:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Rio 2016 St Mary's saw

This needs to be clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.150.156.248 (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Trim

Article seems highly promotional and full of trivia. I realise that this is common for university articles but that does not make it right. It needs perhaps 30% binning. - Sitush (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Validation of degrees at Union Theological College by St Mary's University, Twickenham

I see that this article has already been criticised for its excessive promotional content that is written like an advertisement. Now it seems that updating the page to include the connection with Union Theological College has been repeatedly removed without appropriate reasoning.

For example, it has been repeatedly claimed that this pertains to a third party and is not the subject of the page itself. Is the Privy Council the subject of the page itself? If not, how is that reference any more or less relevant? Is the Privy Council not also a third party? If those validating St Mary's University, Twickenham are so relevant, why are those whom St Mary's University, Twickenham in turn validates considered irrelevant to this section? Furthermore, given that the Wikipedia entry for Union Theological College also makes reference to the partnership with St Mary's University, Twickenham for validation purposes in the summary section of the page, why has this never been considered equally invalid?

It has further been repeatedly alleged that the description of the relationship contains information that is subjective and disputed. Let us dissect this piece by piece as follows:

Firstly, it was stated that St Mary's University, Twickenham is now responsible for validating the undergraduate degree programme at Union Theological College in Belfast. How is this description subjective and where is the objective evidence that this is either innaccurate or seriously disputed?

Secondly, it was stated how previous reporting claimed that students had "experienced bullying, as well as sectarian and homophobic attitudes” from its faculty members. How is this description subjective and where is the objective evidence that this is either innaccurate or seriously disputed?

Thirdly, it was stated how a previous professor was dismissed from longstanding employment after saying that he would be "heartbroken" if anyone accused him of being "bigoted against Catholic students". How is this description subjective and where is the objective evidence that this is either innaccurate or seriously disputed?

Noting that the geolocation of the IP address 95.129.68.110 is in Slough whilst that of 2A00:23C6:A782:8D01:4DD9:80B:22B7:60E5 and 81.131.130.104 is in Aldershot, and noting also that Slough and Aldershot are locations within very easy commuting distance of Twickenham, one could be forgiven for inferring that whoever wishes to remain anonymous whilst removing evidence of the connection to Union Theological College possibly might be somebody who works at St Mary's University, Twickenham. If so, it would be disconcerting to say the least if the experiences of former students at Union Theological College who claim to have experienced sectarian bullying should now be summarily dismissed out of hand without direct reference to any contrary evidence.

Curious critters (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE: I now see that further edit warring has been attempted by 194.80.238.40, with the hostname "worf.stmarys.ac.uk”. This user has simply repeated in parrot fashion the same claim "Removing information from the summary section of the page that pertains to a third party not the subject of the page itself and contains information that is subjective and disputed" but has made no attempt to engage with this talk page to articulate the propriety of such claims. However, the associated talk page for this user (talk) reveals a long history of vandalism, ensuing warnings and temporary blocks.

Curious critters (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

FURTHER UPDATE: I now see that further edit warring has been repeatedly attempted by 90.242.161.7, apparently also located in London and also repeating verbatim the same mantra "Removing information from the summary section of the page that pertains to a third party not the subject of the page itself and contains information that is subjective and disputed" but without making any attempt to articulate the propriety of such claims. Could this possibly be someone at St Mary's University, Twickenham? Why would someone want to remove any reference to the connection with Union Theological College?

Curious critters (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Coming here since it seems relevant to the discussion about the Union Theological College page. (it's actually how I stumbled upon that page, I was looking at articles on UK universities) I would note that even systematic statements of fact can become charged or communicate bias depending on the way they are strung together, and the weight each fact is given, (even if every individual sentence is true) so I don't think a sentence-by-sentence analysis is necessarily helpful without connecting them together. The important detail to be picked out is that the relationship between that college and QUB was terminated, (I would point out that only one reason has been given in this article, while the issue seems much more complicated as presented here) and St. Mary's have filled the gap. IMO this is relevant enough for the lede. But this is not properly communicated in the article at all, and it is unclear how the incidents relate to St. Mary's, especially sufficiently so to appear in the lede. Specifically, the lede should be a summary of the important facts about the college, and it's unclear why the dismissal of a professor at Union Theological College is relevant enough to be included. --Caliburn · (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 12:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Greetings Caliburn, I have accordingly now added what you describe as the important detail wherein the relationship between Union Theological College and QUB was terminated.

Curious critters (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Union Theological College

Glorious mud, you have repeatedly reverted changes I have made to the article. Please exaplin why. If you look at the diff here, on line 100 I had written 'The college teaches undergraduate, postgraduate and doctoral degrees and trains ministers for the Presbyterian Church in Ireland' You have repeatedlty changed it to The college trains ministers for the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, teaches a few theology courses and has made its premises available to Orange lodges.' The language you are using to describe the teaching is less precise and comes across as a little demeaning. The inclusion of the use of premises by a third party also seems rather far removed from relevant to the St. Mary's article.

Further on down you keep inserting the phrase 'in a widely publicised case involving competing allegations of gross misconduct' in relation to the dimissal of Prof. Kirkpatrick. This is inaccruate. Prof. Kirkpatrick was fired for gross misconduct. There were no other cases of gross misconduct. Please exaplin why you keep adding this phrase? Ardenssedvirens (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ardenssedvirens, thank you for your note. At 13:58 UTC, I initially reverted to the last wording introduced by Sola Reformanda but later amended this at 15:16 UTC to teaches a number of theology courses and provided a supporting reference. How is this wording demeaning? If you can show instead that an exceptionally vast multitude of courses are taught, then either of us can appropriately change the wording to reflect this as a consequence. However, I did not get that impression from the descriptions on the separate Wikipedia article for Union Theological College.

As for your statement about Prof. Kirkpatrick having been fired for gross misconduct, was that not just cooked up by some kangaroo court and yet to be properly tested legally? I have tried to keep this neutral by instead referring to competing allegations and I have provided a brief balance of supporting references, as curated from the more detailed account in the Wikipedia article for Union Theological College.

Glorious mud (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Glorious mud, I didn't say that wording was demeaning. i said the previous wording was demeaning, which you kept reverting back to. I acknowledge that you have changed to your own wording, but what was wrong with my wording that you kept reverting it? I had a bit more detail than the vague 'a number of courses.' Why are you insisting on vaguer wording?

As for misconduct, the fact is that he was fired by his employer for gross misconduct. Calling his employer a kangaroo court is rather biased wording. It is factually incorrect to say that there were competing allegations of groos misconduct. If you disagree then please cite the competing allegations. Obviously Prof. Kirkpatrick denies that he commited gross misconduct, but that's not the same as there being competing allegations of gross misconduct. Can I suggest the wording be changed to 'dismissed for gross misconduct, an accusation he has challenged and which received considerable press coverage.' Ardenssedvirens (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ardenssedvirens, I thought that referring to a number of courses would avoid any needless dispute about quantity, though it seems I was possibly mistaken in that regard even after changing this accordingly. I think you referred to doctoral degrees but the Wikipedia article for Union Theological College indicated that these were being outsourced elsewhere instead.

Otherwise, I am content to have the wording you suggest of dismissed for gross misconduct, an accusation he has challenged and which received considerable press coverage. That should also fit with the references I added, if inserted appropriately.

Glorious mud (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Orange Order gif

Hi Citrus cross aurantium, I'm replying to your edit at 19:30, 4 April 2022.

The gif is, according to the description you gave it when you uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons, 'Queen's LOL No 1845 Rising Sons Of William service'. So it is of a service being held by an external group on the premises of the college. The subject of the montage is not views of the college, but members of the Orange Order. There is no evidence that it even features students from the college itself. So the caption you gve it 'Students attending service at Union Theological College, showing different views of the college premises' is misleading. This article is about St. Mary's University, Twickenham. This section is about it validating degrees for Union Theological College. A photo montage of the Orange Order is not relevant to that. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ardenssedvirens, membership of Queen's LOL No 1845 Rising Sons Of William is clearly stated as exclusive to current members of the Loyal Orange Institution of Ireland who are students, staff or alumni of Queen’s University Belfast. Can you therefore definitively confirm that no such individuals as depicted in the montage (including rear views of heads) are or ever have been students, staff or alumni of Union Theological College, and provide appropriate supporting references?

Citrus cross aurantium (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Citrus cross aurantium, you have the burden of proof the wrong way round. If you think a GIF is relevant then you should demonstrate it with evidence, not put it in and demand that others provide evidence that it shouldn't be there. By the time that photo was taken QUB had already severed its ties with Union Theological college. How is a montage of students from Queen's University Belfast attending an Orange Order event relevant to St. Mary's validating degrees at Union? Ardenssedvirens (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ardenssedvirens, I actually think you have the burden of proof the wrong way round instead, as you have made more specific or stronger assertions without supporting evidence. For example, in your edit at 18:45, 3 April 2022, you stated the following:

"Not photos of a college event or college students."

You therefore made a stronger claim that no students of the college are depicted. I am simply asking you to please provide the evidence for your own particular assertion. By contrast, the accompanying text merely describes the montage as depicting students attending a service at Union Theological College, and simultaneously showing different views of the college premises. No particular claim has been made therein regarding what the students might have been studying. Nevertheless, members of Queen's LOL No 1845 Rising Sons Of William are primarily students and may also include alumni, whilst the images depict different views of the college chapel and front steps. So, how then is the accompanying description in any way inaccurate in light of the aforementioned information?

Although you have stated that QUB had already severed its ties with Union Theological College by the time the photos were taken, note that page 11 of the college's "Annual Report and Enhancement Plan" (PDF). states the following:

As the Institute disbands, some remaining part-time QUB Theology students – looked after by another University School – will continue to enrich the College community over the next few semesters, as they work towards completing their studies with Union’s ongoing support.

In light of this, what is the evidence that the montage does not contain any photos of college students at the college, as you have claimed?

In your edit at 18:45, 3 April 2022, you also stated the following:

"Nothing to do with St. Mary’s either"

Again, this is a strong claim that asserts no whatsoever connection. Are you therefore claiming that there is no connection between Union Theological College (which is depicted in the montage) and St. Mary’s? If so, what is the evidence for this? By contrast, I have not made any particular claim about validation arrangements, and neither does the text accompanying the montage. It merely refers to students attending an event at the college, and it therefore seems appropriate as an illustration here since it shows off multiple views of the college premises being actively used, doing so in a compact manner.

Citrus cross aurantium (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Citrus cross aurantium By inserting the photo you have already made the implicit claim that is relevant. I have asked question about is relevant and said that you have provided no evidence of its relevance. That continues to be the case. As you yourself say ‘ have not made any particular claim about validation arrangements, and neither does the text accompanying the montage’ yet that is the context for Union Theological college being mentioned in this article, so by your own admission the photo is not relevant. You haven’t addressed the issues I raised about the captain being misleading or the true subject being the people in the montage, not the views of the college. You are not being constructive here. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Citrus cross aurantium to add to what I said in my previous comment, I’ve just checked MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE and it says ‘Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding.’ Can you please explain how a montage of photos of students from Queen’s University Belfast attending an Orange Order event is significant, relevant to St. Mary’s accrediting degrees for Union, and aids in understanding the topic. As far as I can see the relevance is highly questionable and the images do not aid understanding, but can only create confusion, especially with the caption you have provided. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 06:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ardenssedvirens, I have simply asked you to provide evidence for your claims, yet in response you appear to be making even more seemingly unsubstantiated claims. Nevertheless, I will respond to each of your points in turn in the hope that you might eventually provide the requested evidence for your own assertions.

By inserting the photo you have already made the implicit claim that is relevant.

The image was actually inserted by Glorious mud. I simply undid your revision (1080981569) and asked for an explanation.

I have asked question about is relevant and said that you have provided no evidence of its relevance.

I do not necessarily feel obliged to justify the relevance of an image inserted by another editor. However, as the person originally responsible for the montage, I would point out that you have only partially quoted my label for this in your comments above. The full description is "Queen's LOL No 1845 Rising Sons Of William service at Union Theological College on 26 September 2021" and the caption is "Service at Union Theological College on 26 September 2021". The subject is clearly Union Theological College, as well as Queen's LOL No 1845 Rising Sons Of William. How is this not relevant to a paragraph in this article that describes Union Theological College?

by your own admission the photo is not relevant

I have not made any admission either way. I am simply asking you to provide the evidence for your claims and you appear to want to make even more seemingly unsubstantiated claims instead.

You are not being constructive here

I merely generated content here that another editor has subsequently used, to which I have no particular objections (in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license). I later corrected an error in a URL for a reference in this article. I have now also corrected your grammar in your recent edit to the article (I will leave it for you to correct grammar or typographical errors in your own comments above if desired). How is that not constructive? By contrast, you evidently want to remove image content and I note that you have made your own dislike of the Orange Order very clear elsewhere. How might removal of content generated by others be constructive here, simply because of your own avowed personal dislike of those depicted?

As far as I can see the relevance is highly questionable and the images do not aid understanding, but can only create confusion, especially with the caption you have provided.

Are you simply saying that you are confused, or can you provide evidence that anyone else is confused? To which caption are you referring (my caption for the image or that in the article), and how is this caption confusing? I am not especially concerned about whether the image I generated remains in this particular article or not. First and foremost, I would simply like to see the evidence behind your own claims.

Citrus cross aurantium (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Citrus cross aurantium In your edit you said 'please explain on talk page why this image is either misleading or irrelevant to Union Theological College and its partnership with St Mary's University, Twickenham.' In response I have already referred you to MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE and its statement that ‘Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding.’ As I have already explained, this article is about St. Mary's University Twickenham. Union Theological College is mentioned in the context of a partnership in which St. Mary's accredits degrees for the college. The image is not of students studying for degrees at Union Theological College, or of them being awarded degrees. It is of a student society of another university, Queen's University Belfast, holding an event on the college grounds. That is a very tangential connection that does not explain or illustrate the partnership between Union and St. Mary's. In fact it has the potential to add confusion because the caption states students without clarifying that they are in fact members of a student society of another university.

I have explained why I believe the gif is not relevant. If you or @Glorious mud believes that it is relevant, please explain how it fulfils the purpose I quoted above from the MOS. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 07:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Partnerships

To address repeated vandalism of this page, with extensive material pertaining to a third party being published, a new objective section on partnerships of St Mary's University has been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.129.68.110 (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)