Talk:University College London/Archive 1

Golden Triangle

I came to know from the web that Oxbridge and UCL-ICL-LSE are considered as the member of Golden Triangle (GT). But, later on from a wiki page I got to know KCL is also with in the GT. Some other page said, as LSE is not strongly involved in the research work and GT is a research based grouping, ICL-KCL-UCL are the best choice as the member of GT from UofL. So, I became confused. This article also says KCL is a member of GT. Which one is true ? Please discuss. - Niaz bd 06:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Everybody, I got a solution about the Golden Triangle issue. I found a pdf file at UCL's official webpage written the following lines. "Imperial College, King’s College, the LSE and UCL are all in the small group of leading universities in the UK and with Cambridge and Oxford are sometimes referred to as “the Golden Triangle”." The future of the University of London: a discussion paper from the Provost of UCL by Malcolm Grant, President and Provost, UCL. (p.6)

I guess, this may bring a solution about the Golden Triangle issue.

Here is the link of this PDF [1]

Niaz bd 06:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Russell Group funding

Does UCL really account for over 40% of the Russell Group's funding? There are 20+ universities in the group, do the other 19+ just share the remaining 60%!? Salamander4000 09:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Date founded

To the guy who claims Nottingham University is the third oldest university in England, it is not. The origins of what is today Nottingham University may very well go back to the end of the 18th century, but that does not make it the third oldest university. There are many university institutions who can trace some sort of origin to centuries past, but that does not mean they were founded back then.

The real dispute is whether KCL or UCL is the third oldest, as although UCL was founded several years before KCL, KCL received it's Royal Chater several years before UCL. In the strict sense the date of a university is established by the date of it's Royal Charter (that's why Nottingham is not the third oldest university), but it is convention to state UCL is the third oldest, followed by KCL.

Disclaimer: I am not a UCL student, nor am I affiliated to UCL.

Yeah, but the article says the third-oldest higher education institution, not university. I would change it to university, but that wouldn't be accurate as it is only part of a university. Seeing as there's also this discrepency with King's College, London and the fact that a fair compairison would include all British (not just English) insitutions, I'll just put that it's old. By the way, I'm female and only changed it the last time.

PS - The University of Nottingham can't just trace its routes back to 1798, it is the same institution. It was certainly 'established' in 1798, even if it didn't receive its charter until 1948.

Technically speaking, it's very clear legally. An institution becomes a university when it receives university staus - by which UCL is not a university at all and London is the 4th oldest (after Oxbridge and Durham). However, the common and legal usage of the word 'university' are clearly different in the case of UCL. Given that there is obviously debate about this and that the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide facts, not opinions, I have changed the article to read that it is often claimed that UCL is the 3rd oldest university rather than to state that it has a valid claim to being the 3rd oldest university. Possibly the article should also note that there are other institutions (such as Nottingham) that also claim to be the 3rd oldest university on the basis of their date of foundation as an institution - or possibly a whole Wikipedia entry is needed on the '3rd oldest university controversy'!

This is all getting out of hand, and is a complete distraction to the article, which now looks like the result of much petty bickering. I have simply excised the following section and referred to the footnote. Note that Durham is a distraction: it received its Royal Charter in 1837, after UCL. --stochata 15:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Its legal status as a university-level institution thus postdates that of Durham (founded 1832); however because it was actually founded in 1826 it is often considered the third oldest university in England, after Oxford and Cambridge. It has also been claimed that, since the charter of King's College London (granted in 1829 in a reaction by the Church to the foundation of UCL) predates that of UCL by five years, UCL should not even be regarded as the oldest college in the University of London.

To muddy the waters even further... although Kings got its charter first, this doesn't make it the oldest college in the University of London as UCL got its charter as the university of London, which later absorbed Kings as a college subserviant to UL. UCL then became The University College, recognising its position as the founding college of the University of London. This makes UCL the oldest college and as Kings isn't a university anymore - it is a college of the University which UCL was before the merger, this leaves the University of London as the oldest, of which UCL is the longest serving continuous member. All part of this muddle between the colleges thinking they are more than colleges...MilleauRekiir 13:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't also forget the claim of University of Wales, Lampeter ( "after the ancient universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and those in Scotland, it is the oldest university institution in Britain, receiving its first charter in 1828" [a slightly muddled wikipedia sentence]) as third oldest. mervyn 08:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Durham isn't totally a distraction; its foundation in 1832 was by act of parliament establishing it as a university, which is why it's the other institution (along with UCL) most often referred to as "England's third-oldest university", even though its charter wasn't issued until after UCL's. It basically comes down to what you think is required to be considered a 'university', which is not necessarily objectively answerable. The current text seems pretty NPOV, but I just wanted to note what the situation is with Durham in case future editors are confused. TSP 09:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The University of Wales, Lampeter is a different matter altogether - it claims to be the third oldest degree awarding institution in England and Wales, which is probably quite accurate - but we are just talking about the oldest institutions in England here. 217.43.124.64 14:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, TSP, you are quite right to mention Durham, and I have now edited the footnote to at least include a mention (although perhaps we also need to mention University of Wales!). On the NPOV, yes, I hope we're finally getting there. I'm would be happier if it didn't mention "3rd oldest" at all -- I hope you will agree that the "Founding" section reads much better sticking to the historical dates and not mentioning it! Having said that, we also need to ensure that a bold editor doesn't think that the issue has been entirely missed. --stochata 13:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

List of subdomains of ucl.ac.uk

This seems like a pretty random selection, and pointless given that all of them can be found via the UCL website [2]. I'll delete it, unless anyone objects. Jihg 18:35, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Seems arbitrary. --stochata 00:30, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

'Campaign for UCL'

Is the following relevant to an encyclopedia entry? -- it seems more like pontification about the merits of philanthropic funding. Defend it now or I will delete it all :-) --stochata 00:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In 2004, UCL's most high-profile initiative has been the 'Campaign for UCL', which aims to raise £300m from alumni and friends. This aggressive advocacy of philanthropy has reminded some of US-style university funding, and can quite easily be seen as part of a shift towards an increasingly independent (if not completely privatised) university sector. UCL's management has already shown through its attempt at merging with Imperial and its Russell Group membership (both above) that it aims to be one of the most determined institutions in pursuing such strategies in the long term, even if universities remain nominally public in the short term.

I'll just some notes about what I think is wrong with this section. At the start, "most high-profile initiative" is a peacock term. Surely most schools have fund raising initiatives -- why should UCL's be it's most high-profile initiative, and secondly, why should it be a notable event in the history of UCL? The "has reminded some" and the "quite easily seen as a shift" are both weasel terms -- i.e., they shoe-horn in an unsupported point of view via first a disguised passive voice and then a passive voice. Finally, it turns into a full blown argument for the author's own position. This is fine in academic argument (I am sure the author is an academic), but (I believe) it has no place in an encyclopedia entry. The way to include this in the entry would be to publish a paper elsewhere and then reference it on the page. Therefore, I believe that all of this paragraph should be deleted. --stochata 11:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, but replace with neutral version. How about "In 2004, UCL began the 'Campaign for UCL' initiative. It aimed to raise £300m from alumni and friends. This kind of explicit campaigning is traditionally unusual for UK universities, and is similar to US university funding." Jihg 12:14, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, Jihg. I'll leave for a couple of days more for any more comments and then change it to your suggestion if no more come in. --stochata 13:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Famous Alumni

The famous alumni section is difficult to check up on as people simply list a person name. It would be much easier if everyone listed the name they want to add here with reasons for inclusion. For example, who is Lewis J Vincent? Do they merit inclusion? --stochata 11:00, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New logo

Note that UCL has changed its logo -- see http://www.ucl.ac.uk The new logo is here -- http://www.ucl.ac.uk/corporate-identity/artwork I'm not putting it up myself because I don't know the legal status of using it. --stochata 09:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, we used the old one without any problems. I've included a version of the new logo (Image:UCL-logo-new.png). Should we keep the old logo in somehow? Jihg 02:39, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe we should also add that they royally flushed £600,000.00 down the toilet to come up with that new design.--Sennaista 00:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Naming individual research groups

I've removed the following text from "Founding and Development". Not only is a "famous research centre" not part of the "founding and development", there are many famous research centres in UCL. Listing them all is possible, but I suggest it is done on another page, keeping this page at an institutional level. --stochata 19:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

and it famous for its research output as it is ranked 3rd in research in United Kingdom. One of its famous research centres is the Clinical Operational Research Unit(CORU)http://www.ucl.ac.uk/operational-research/staffcsj.htm which applies Operational Research for monitoring the efficient use of resources in hospitals. CORU is hosted by the Department of Mathematics of UCL but it is funded by the Department of Health of the U.K. Government. The director of CORU is Professor Steve Gallivan.

UCL Union

"and is also constitutionally forbidden from being tied to a political party. Candidates for positions cannot campaign on party tickets" - when did this happen? When I ran for a sabbatical in the early 1990s we ran on party platforms. Secretlondon 22:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Slade school of art

appears to have no mention, or article. It was I think independent, and wanted to link Reg Butler to having been head of it. Some idea of official title, and position in UCL now would be useful. Justinc 01:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The Bartlett School of Architecture also needs a mention. Secretlondon 19:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Wiki entries exist for both Slade School of Art and The Bartlett, but aren't that informative. This raises the question of at what point individual departments (or research centers) should have their own entries or be mentioned on the main page. Someone recently added the "Clinical Operational Research Unit" to the main page (see above), which hardly seemed to merit an entry. --stochata 15:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it depends a bit on history etc. The Slade was founded independently and was absorbed into UCL, while the CORU is just a department. Justinc 17:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

the Slade School is very important historically for art eduction, just look at the list of artist to come out of it Artlondon 11:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Alumni Page

Fellow Internet Nerds,

I have added an Alumni section which I think given the status of this university is much needed and adds some interest to the page. I have added only those I know of please continue the process.

Thanks--195.93.21.101 00:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with this page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_College_London_people#Famous_alumni

PRB 10:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Kings Playing Football with Jeremy's head

This is false and I have edited it as such. One of my jobs at ucl whilst a student was to provide tours around the campus for prospective students and so I got training in the history of UCL and told interesting stories to tell. The story of the head whilst funny/interesting is completely false. It seems to be one of those things which gets told so many times that it becomes accepted fact, so deserves a mention but I have edited the text so that it is clear that it did certainly not happen.

-- I have edited out the part where it said "This is almost certainly not true", as it is a very long running rumour/legend, and can almost certainly not be proven either way. To say "Certainly not true" is opinion. Darren

Founding and development

The long section entitled Founding and development really needs splitting up into shorter sub-sections with suitable titles. This will make future edits easier, and is also more pleasing to the eye. As this is somewhat "off topic" for me, I trust someone else will find time to make these improvements. DFH 18:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Campus networking

Why does the "Campus Networking" section go into so much detail, about the price of internet vouchers, the structure of usernames, and so on? This is surely only of interest to students at UCL, who are provided this information in their packs of documentation and on the UCL web site. I've found no other university or college with this level of detail. (JRL)

-Voted to remove because this is not of relevance to anyone but those members of the university who have more accurate information provided in other methods. This content was originally added by an unregistered user [3].

Auto Icon

I have removed the addition to the article that states that the Jeremy Bentham auto-icon was sold on ebay with a reserve of 7.1 million and that it did not reach that amount. The Auto icon was never sold on ebay officially (perhaps it was a joke) and the auto-icon cannot be sold on ebay by UCL to cover any budget deficits. This is because of two things one: UCL is not in a deficit (UCL is actually one of the most profitable UK learning institutions of 2006; because they are so frugal) and second: because the auto-icon does not belong to UCL outright, but to a foundation. Jeremy Bentham and the Auto-Icon are part of UCLs regulations - he must be present at all meetings of the heads of university. It is most likely that this ebay sale as a very amusing joke, in which case it should be re-written as such and placed in the trivia section. This claim must however all be supported with fact, a source for example and unless it is so, I will continue to revert when it is re-added to the article. Harry Harris 11:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the ebay sale (blatantly sounds like a student prank in response to UC's recent financial problems) but I believe the story about JB being wheeled out for college meetings is apocryphal. Badgerpatrol 14:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No really, they wheel his body into the boardroom and they bring his head up from the safe and put it on the desk ;) Harry Harris 10:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't even want to have a guess at which bits they might use as paperweights... ;-) Badgerpatrol 00:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I work at UCL and attended a lecture by Negley Harte and John North, the authors of the official history "The World of UCL 1828-2004", at the time that edition was published. They insisted that the story about the autoicon being regularly wheeled into meetings was a myth. It only happened at the centenary (1926) and sesquicentenary (1976) of the College, and doesn't happen today.The autoicon was loaned to a museum abroad a few years ago, and I passed by while they were removing it from its display case to be packed for shipment. This was done with enormous care because of its fragility - not something that could be done on a regular basis. 86.142.178.106 15:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's obviously a myth- the above interchange was tongue-in-cheek. Badgerpatrol 19:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The Ebay sale has never taken place but was in fact suggested in The Cheese Grater Magazine in October 2006. Nonetheless - UCL IS in deficit. Clearly the College is not as frugal as Lord Harris would like to think, a recent London Student article highlighted the fact that the operating budget was passed in June of this year with a £10 million deficit in mind. The Finance Committee minutes are freely available online at www.ucl.ac.uk and they too confirm this. In fact the large number of disgruntled staff can also confirm that UCL is in the red - after all 15% of them will be losing their jobs because of Malcolm Grant's efforts to reverse the fortunes of the University. False Light

Sorry I cant let that one go unrefuted. Firstly my comments were about the falsesale of tha auto-icon. I however was right in saying that UCL has for a long time been in surplus and will be by the following financial year in a surplus again.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/finance/report_accounts05/report_account05.pdf

In 2005 UCL had a 4.4 million surplus. It is in fact one of the most financially stable members of the University of London and it is widely supposed is the only member who may be able to buy out the UL properties in the coming years. They have recently spend a vast amount of money on new building projects such as the panoptican. The UCL finance division predicts that by 2007 UCL will have a budget surplus higher than anything it has ever had.

As for this 15% of staff losing their jobs, its completely ridiculous, I would like to see some evidence that supports that statement. The 15% actually refers to staff costs - not job losses. UCL is committed to reducing its expenditure on ancillary staff by 15% - that doesnt mean firing 15% of its workforce, that means reducing wages by 15% or letting a small amount of staff who are not needed go to raise that 15%. If they fire any staff it will be because they have been far too greedy in the past year demanding increased wages when they actually recieve one the highest salaries for many of their job categories in the UK! Furthermore its considered courtesy to sign name and date using tildes, when you reply to a discussion. Harry Harris 10:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Complete and utter nonsense. We'll start with the job cuts - to call academics too greedy is foolish. Pay rises for lecturers amount to a 3% increase over the last decade - this is minimal when compared to the rate of inflation and rises in other similar job sectors. The only greed I detect is the fact that when the bill for top-up fees was introduced, at least a third of the money generated was promised to lecturers to go towards their pay. Presumably it lined the pockets of the Vice Chancellors of UK universities instead.

Moving on to the 15% job cut proposals. You obviously haven't been doing your reading properly - the reform proposes that 375 jobs must be cut by 2008 in order to prevent financial losses. Hardly the "small number" of staff you suggest. I will admit to being wrong about an actual 15% loss of staff, that was an oversight when I replied in the discussion. Nonetheless - 375 will have a detrimental effect on services, facilities and courses. If UCL is as frugal as you claim it to be, perhaps the College Executive should reconsider blowing £0.6million on its bland corporate logo.

Finally, UCL IS IN DEFICIT. URL: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/staff/committees/finance-committee/

The latest Finance cCommittee report, viewable by all UCL Staff and Students clearly states that the College is operating at a loss. Indeed, they even had the foresight to propose a £10.1 million deficit for the next academic year. 88.109.27.14 14:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

£600,000 is completely justified for a new logo! I mean it took like 3 minutes to draw and instead UCL could have purchased 40,000 new books for their libraries. How can you not love UCL in every way? LordHarris 00:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Third oldest university debate article

I have now created Third oldest university in England debate to try to explain all the debate about whether it's Durham, KCL, UofL or UCL. This was mainly because attempts to explain it on the individual articles were getting out of sync (e.g. both the Durham and King's articles were asserting the claim as fact in the main article, whilst a footnote on King's mentioned the point of the Charter and was added to by an anonymous user asserting that the London School of Economics proves an institution doesn't need a charter to be a good university!). I think it would work best if the detail and explanation for this is kept on one page. Please come and help enhance the article. Timrollpickering 16:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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 00:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Bentham's role

The article claims "The philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748 - 1832) is considered to be the spiritual father of UCL as he played a major role in the development of the college. Whilst he is often credited with founding the college, Jeremy Bentham played no part in the establishment of the institution." So he was heavily involved in its development but not its establishment - what does this mean he did exactly? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lfh (talk • contribs) 14:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

first to admit women?

The line "It was possibly the first to accept women on equal terms with men (the University of Bristol also makes this claim - as both were admitting students to University of London degrees at the time, it is quite possible that this was a simultaneous action)" sounds like its a claim that hasn't been verified and it seems really quite odd to give a speculative explaination of the inconsistency in the UCL and Bristol pages. UCL claims that it "bec[ame] the first British educational establishment to admit women on equal terms with men" in 1878 http://www.ucl.ac.uk/about-ucl/history Whereas Bristol claims that it admitted women on "an equal basis" in 1876 and was the first to do so http://www.bris.ac.uk/university/history/ It could be pointed out that the University of Bristol wasn't founded as such until 1909, so UCL was the first university to admit women on equal terms as men but the former University College Bristol was the first educational establishment to do so (which...would suggest that that UCL's claim is incorrect). However, its made obvious later in the same Bristol page that classes and academics were gender segregated at the time ("the first woman lecturer, taught ladies during the day") and that there was no halls of residence for women until 1909, so depending on what is thought to count as "equal terms", UCL's claim might be more accurate if its terms were more equal. Anyways it does again just seem weird to speculate that it was a "simultaneous action" as part of the UoL and this is from their websites, clearly not the case.

Looking at the relevant bits of Negley Harte's The University of London: An illustrated history (page 126 onwards) women were admitted to degrees in stages by quite a campaign throughout the 1860s and 1870s. In 1869 separate exams were initiated for women and following a supplemental Charter in 1878 women could be admitted to degrees in all faculties. The first non-sexist exam was in 1879 and the first women graduates in 1880. Page 132: In 1878 University College became the country's first co-educational institution... followed by details of how women had been gradually integrated since 1868 (slowly bringing the lectures into the college premises), with from 1871-2 gradual mnoves were made towards mixed classes, first in art and political economy.

My semi-stab in the dark is that Bristol in 1876 was doing segregated teaching, albeit with identical entry requirements, wheras UCL in 1878 seems to have been an actual co-educational institution. Timrollpickering 20:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

UCL buildings

Is the list of "notable" buildings, actually significant or is it just every university building that exists? I fail to see how student residence buildings are "notable". If no answers I will remove them from the list next week.

It is not a list of every building, but a comprehensive list of UCLs largest buildings and the main departments and student residences. They are notable in being a major element of the University College Built Environment, which is why they are on this page. Next time please sign your name and new comments go at the end of a talk page. LordHarris 16:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Template

I have made a new template to link university articles together.

Because the UCL article was getting too long, I have aslo created a seperate page for the large UCL history section. LordHarris 14:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Faculties?

I suggest there should be a category which lists the names of faculties/departments UCL has (with URLs directly linking to the UCL faculty website). UCL is an academic institution and it seems that the wikipedia page does not talk much about the academic aspect of the uni at the moment... Many thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.82.219.167 (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Position of [edit] links under Firefox and Safari

I don't know if this is just a problem with this page, or with MediaWiki styles in general, but when using Firefox (PC or Mac) or Safari on the Mac, the [edit] links do not appear by the section headings from "History" to "Museums and collections", and then a bunch of them turn up in the middle of the "Campus Networking" section. Rueful Rabbit 15:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed the problem by putting the images within a <div> tag as recommended at WP:BUNCH. Rueful Rabbit 15:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to LordHarris for fixing my fix by removing the right-allignments on the individual images. Rueful Rabbit 16:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

merge of Bentham Club

I think that the Bentham Club page can be expanded rather than merged. 16 scholar and 4 news archive, and 6 worldcat hits for "Bentham Club". There is further room for expansion by including "Bentham House", with 2 news archive and 49 google scholar hits distinct from those returned by "Bentham Club". John Vandenberg 01:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Feel free to remove the tag and expand the article. Part Deux 01:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Alumni section

The current alumni section (within the main, not the UCL article) doesn't look quite right. It's all very well and good that Coldplay and Ricky Gervais went to UCL but there are far more important people that should be mentioned first I would have thought. The university is an academic institution and I think alumni who are more famous for things related to what they actually studied at the university should take precedence, as should their impact on history. Hence Gandhi, Bell, and Crick should be upfront. Coldplay and Gervais can be mentioned in the paragraph but after the more deserving, please. The Cambridge article does not begin by mentioning Hugh Laurie and Eric Idle.--Zoso Jade 23:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

UCL main page

I'm sure UCL used to redirect to this article with a link to a disambig page. I think it's pretty clear from Google/ Yahoo that this is the primary use of the abbreviation as well, in fact some of the other wiki articles referenced don't even mention this contraction. What do other people think about redirecting UCL to here and just having a disambig link for other uses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.179.31 (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"[UCL] is a fully independent university"

I am not sure of the validity of this statement. I think "[UCL] operates as a fully independent university" is closer to the truth. However, it is still officially a college of the University of London. The ability to award degrees does not change this; there are Oxbridge colleges that also have this ability but no one would refer to them as fully independent universities. For UCL to be fully independent it would have to do what Imperial has done and completely sever ties. This statement is inaccurate and I will change it, unless someone can come up with a valid argument for UCL's independence.--Zoso Jade (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Which Oxbridge colleges can award their own degrees? None that I know of. See Recognised Bodies. No Oxbridge colleges on there. They are Listed Bodies, so can offer a course leading to a degree, but they do not have degree-awarding powers. That power is vested in the universities themselves. At least, that is my understanding.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"London University" or "University of London"?

In the history section it states that when it was founded it was founded under the name "University of London", are you sure this is correct? I have a book in front of me that states and I quote

Gradually a group of liberal politicians and wealthy merchants came together and in 1826 established the new London University which was to provide an education in "Mathematical and Physical Science, Classics and Medicine"... It was in the days preceding the establishment of London University that De Morgan first met Frend and was introduced to his family...

— page 81 of A History of Mathematics Education in England by A.G. Howson (1982)

Having re-read a few pages on I have found a reference to the creation of the University of London, I'll put in the quote

London University was essentially the creation of Whigs and nonconformists. In order to counter its influence, a rival institution, King's College, supported by the Tories and the Established Church, opened in the Strand in October 1831. Initially, neither of the rivals was empowered to grant degrees, an unsatisfactory situation. After attempts to persuade the colleges to unite had failed, a royal charter of November 1836 created the University of London as a body with powers to examine candidates and to award degrees. To avoid confusion with this new body, the older college adopted a new name, University College. This move, which placed the examining in different hands from the teaching, was to have a great but far from beneficial effect

— page 94 of A History of Mathematics Education by A.G. Howson (1982)

Either I have misunderstood this book or there is an error somewhere. I haven't just corrected in case someone has evidence that contradicts with this, thanks, A happybunny 19:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The establishment of University College, called at first the London University...

— page 24 of Memoir Of Augustus De Morgan by Sophie Elizabeth De Morgan

I found this today while looking for something completely different so thought I would add it. In the same book however I did read it being refered to as University of London also, however it could be possible that it was also refered to as the University of London although it was officially called London University, much in the same way the University of Manchester is sometimes refered to as Manchester Univeristy. A happybunny 12:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Good question and it's possible there's no definitive answer. It is very common in the UK for universities to use both forms (for example a lot of organisations at the University of Oxford use "Oxford University" in their official title) and normally nobody ever bats an eyelid (although some recent corporate rebrandings to "Foo University" have provoked backlashes and insistences on "University of Foo"). And of course the institution founded in 1826 didn't have a charter so just what constitutes the "official" name? (University use isn't necessarily the best to go by - a lot of institutions use a variant from their charter title.)

I can take a look through Negley Harte's history of the federal UofL to see what was being used in any of the sources quoted/shown. Timrollpickering 19:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There is an image of wikipedia dated 1827/1828 entitled London University - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:The_London_University_by_Thomas_Hosmer_Shepherd_1827-28.JPG not sure if that helps. But at least thats two sources that state London University. LordHarris 21:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

In case you haven't guessed yet, I'm actually looking for info on Augustus De Morgan, I've just looked at the Wiki page for him

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_De_Morgan#London_University

and it explains it quite well. If we are convinced yet that it should be London University feel free to correct it, I would do it but when it comes to writing articles I spend along time trying to word it correctly and I don't have the time right now, I am still open to being told I am wrong however. thanks, A happybunny 22:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

An invitation to the foundation ceremony for the College have it as the "University of London": view image

GA nomination

I have made a lot of edits recently to improve and expand the article. Firstly I hav elinked most of the articles on UCL, that were within the template, actually to the UCL page. I have also created sections and linkages to other UCL things such as the union, the hosptial, filming etc (I created a new page about filming at UCL). I have added references for everything I felt needed a reference and have answered the citation requests. I have done a general tidy as well, renaming some sections as well as creating some new sub sections such as the library subsection. I have also tidied the museum/collections and the notable buildings and departments subsection. I have also made the campus networking section more concise, as it was extremely long. I have also archived the talk page. I now feel that the article is up to GA criteria and have nominated it to be reviewed.LordHarris 01:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

GA pass

The article is very well written, comprehensive, and cited properly. However, I would strongly suggest that the 'sidebar' of images be at least partially moved to the gallery at the bottom of the page-as it looks a bit intrusive. Other than that, this article deserves GA. ErleGrey 23:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I will put some images in the gallery. Thank you for the review and the GA status. LordHarris 22:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

First non-religious college?

The opening paragraph has been amended recently to include "and the first to be founded on a non-religious basis". What does this mean? The first in England? The UK? The world? Obviously it can't mean the first in London - that would be obvious as it was the first college of all in London.

Rueful Rabbit 20:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I *think* it was because it was an alternative to King's College London,which at the time exclusively Christian or Protestant.(and possibly similar at Oxford University and Cambridge University.) That's what they told us at any rate! Paulbrock 22:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC) (UCL Alumnus)

No, King's College was founded in 1829, three years after London University (as UCL was known in 1826). The only other universities in England in 1826 were Oxford and Cambridge, and debatably Durham, all of which were religious institutions. Should the phrase read "and the first to be founded in England on a non-religious basis"? Rueful Rabbit 00:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC) (UCL staff)

UCL information on Google Earth

What determines what appears in the information box when you click the little marker on UCL in Google Earth? It appears to be extracted from the Wikipedia page. How does it decide which picture to show? The current one is the rather ugly one of the Petrie Musuem, rather than a nice one of the UCL Portico. Rueful Rabbit 22:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Google Earth will include (I think) up to three images along with the article intro for any geotagged article. It will only include images from the Commons, because those are guaranteed to be available under a free licence. The Petrie Museum photo is the only one here currently on Commons, although I notice that there are other photos here eligible for moving to the Commons. — mholland (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Three photos of the main building

Isn't it a bit much having three of the same building? Unusual Cheese 13:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Those three photos are presenting three different pictures, Main building in general, at night and in the snow. I think they are quite fine. Niaz bd 14:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Accounts for more than 40% of the Russell Group's research funding"

This rather outlandish claim is made prominently in the second paragraph of the article. The given citation makes no such reference. Does anyone know where this came from? From common sense, it's highly unlikely that UCL alone accounts for 40% of the research funding of a group of 20 universities, which also includes Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial, KCL etc. I'm almost positive it's not true, but thought I'd post here before I removed it, in case anyone can enlighten me. Oudweg 21:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

References

Something is corrupted in the references, so that only the first few are appearing. Can someone rectify this - I dont seem to see whats wrong with the format? LordHarris 19:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Done - just an incomplete reference template. — mholland (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. LordHarris 17:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"the oldest multi-faculty constituent college"

What does this mean? Did UCL adopt faculties before KCL? --86.1.110.71 (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Other specialist colleges in the UoL (e.g. Heythrop College) are technically considerably older than UC (albeit obviously they have not been a part of the federal system since their inception). UC is manifestly older as an institution than KCL, there's no ambiguity about that. Badgerpatrol (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

However Birkbeck is three years older than UCL and is definitely multi-faculty - its specialism is in the delivery method not the academic content. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a fair cop, I never knew that; in fact I was never happy with that wording (it was a compromise edit [4] to satisfy a KCL propagandist ;-) which always seemed a bit clunky. Change as appropriate, Tim. Badgerpatrol (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct casual use of name

Today Lord Woolf was on Radio 4, when he mentioned his time at "University College". He did not say "University College London", "UCL", or "University Colllege", but "University College", lacking the word "London", not abbreviated to mere letters, and with the emphasis on "College" rather than on "University". I suppose "University College" might be taken to mean University College, Oxford (though this is almost ubiquitously called "Univ"). Might one understand that if the former Lord Chief Justice calls it at "University College" the other variations, "University College London", and perhaps to a greater degree "UCL", are more plebeian locutions?--Oxonian2006 (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've heard "University College" used be a few at UCL, usually longer standing academics or a few who've apparently learnt from somewhere that it's the "correct" form (I take such claims with a pinch of salt as very often it's based on personal interpretations of documents and not on the official style guide). The names of a lot of the London colleges are regularly subject to branding exercises that try to get a consistent form in place and very often provoke backlashes and people going out of their way to use a particular form in protest when previously they wouldn't have bothered. But presumably Woolf is just using a more old fashioned form that was far common in his days there (when the usual rendering for most colleges was "Name of College, London" and many often dropped "London" in casual speech). Timrollpickering (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

University_College_London#Academic_Reputation

The Thomson ISI section is completely lifted from the UCL website, as the reference indicates. Why not go to the original source? Ah... I know why! Because the original source has not been spun in such a way as to put UCL in the best light. This version shows how UCL is the best outside north America, the second best in Europe, and so on. Why not show that it is the nth ranked in the world? What is there at the moment is not untrue, but it is advertising for UCL. We all know that UCL likes to claim that it is better than Oxford and Cambridge, and here's the evidence it needs to prove it. I think this is known on Wikipedia as boosterism and POV. Please can we have a more faithful exposition of the evidence, not one spun by UCL for its own ends?--Oxonian2006 (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that your totally unbiased take on things, Oxonian? Badgerpatrol (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I should say that my view is informed rather than biased. I am in the position of being able to compare the experience of studying at both Oxford and UCL and I can say that, as the colloquial expression has it, there is no comparison. But on the point of the use of sources I can say that it certainly does seem to be an uncritical approach. If you wanted to know how the British media covered the Falklands War would you rely solely on the account of British media coverage given in the memoirs of Margaret Thatcher? (She may not even comment on it, I am just making up an example.) No, of course not. You would go to the British Library at Colindale to read the original newspaper accounts; you would consult audio and audio-visual material held in the archives of the BBC and other broadcasters. Then you would ask questions about each individual source, such as the political views of writers and editors. All universities do this (though it must be said the better universities naturally do it less). The most crass examples are those one sees on advertisements on the underground (at least that is where I see them). The University of X asks you to study there because it is rated the best in the UK. Only when you read the small print do you discover that it is rated best in the UK in the student satisfaction survey, or it was rated as having the best online learning resources, or something else equally marginal to its actual quality. Then to say, "X is the best university in the UK", would be to use that source uncritically. You would say, "According the X's own advertising, such a survey rated it best in the UK for this aspect. Further research shows that The Times rated it overall 90th in the UK, The Guardian 91st, etc. There are also over five hundred American universities whose academics were more frequently cited in peer-reviewed journals". The UCL article is, like so many university articles on Wikipedia, just advertising for UCL. By all means include this information, but put it in context; go back to the source, ad fontes; tell us what the original source said, not what UCL said that it said.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that the information in this section as it stands is derived from UCL's own advertising or a press release, but I confess that's not how it reads to me. However, I suggest then that you compose a table comprising the rankings if every UCL science department in the Thompson citation index survey, and include that, rather than the selected list that is now included, and reference it clearly to the original source. Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It is hard to see how you can fail to read the section as being derived from UCL's own advertising or a press release. The reference given in the article is this page: 'Research powerhouse: UCL top-cited in UK', UCL website, 15 July 2008. That seems conclusive to me. Alas I have tried via Athens to log in to the website that contains the original source and I just get a blank page.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that the direct Comparison to Oxford and Cambridge is somewhat superfluous (this is an article about UCL after all). The highlighting of research in certain areas I don't however see as a problem. Characterising the strengths of a particular institution’s research is a large part of its "Academic Reputation" i.e. UCL has a reputation for conducting excellent medical research. Also Oxonian, I could add that your experience of studying at these schools may not inform your oppinion as much as you think about international research citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rely Day (talk • contribs) 17:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

First secular British uni?

Though they had ecclesiastical origins, the Scottish universities did not require the religious tests that debarred nonconformists from Oxford and Cambridge, and so attracted many English students – for example Erasmus Darwin, whose grandson Charles Darwin was brought up in Unitarianism but baptised and educated Church of England, and who went to the University of Edinburgh before dropping out and going to Cambridge. It may also be worth noting that London University along with private medical schools attracted many Scots medics when it opened, notably the anatomist Robert Edmund Grant whose views were anathema to the established church. . . dave souza, talk 12:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Famous alumni

Surely, if it's neccessary to give famous alumni in the main article Trevor Lock's noteworthiness is debateable compared to UCL's handful of Booker, not to mention one Nobel, prize-winning authors. He's a comedian who's recently had fringe success: they're authors who've been celebrated in academic and literary circles for decades. Considering he's referred to as a 'comedian' by his Wikipedia article, it's hard to see how Lock even qualifies as an 'important author'.

Rankings, etc...

This article reads as if the only important thing about UCL is its position in the league tables, and the organistions it is party to. No doubt, league tables are important but must it be the first thing to appear after the introduction? I fear editorial decisions like these are made by present and former UCL students, in an attempt to make clear the academic standing of our institution lest it come under question by others. Read the articles on other 'peer' institutions, and you will see that they are much more modest and focused on the history and activities of the institution.

n.b. I'm a UCL undergraduate. 212.183.134.209 (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're trying to say, but the articles for Imperial College or King's College are "boasting" much more ostensively and UCL seem rather conservative in this comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.92.41 (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The table in the article appears to be shrinking, so might as well stick a pre-edit back-up here:

UK University Rankings

	2011	2010	2009	2008	2007	2006	2005	2004	2003	2002	2001	2000	1999	1998	1997	1996	1995	1994	1993
Times Good University Guide	7th	5th	7th	6th	5th	6th	6th	6th	11th	5th	5th	5th	5th	5th	7th	8th=	4th	4th=	4th
Guardian University Guide	5th	6th	7th	5th	-	4th	7th	6th	5th	7th
Sunday Times University Guide	4th	4th	4th	6th	5th	5th	5th	5th	5th	5th	8th	6th	6th	5th	5th
Independent Complete University Guide supported by PricewaterhouseCoopers	9th	8th	8th	6th
The Daily Telegraph					6th				7th	7th
FT									5th	5th	4th	4th	4th

83.104.51.74 (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Page overhaul / ideas on how to move forward

I've now re-organised the page, following the guidelines set out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities and generally followed by UCL's peers (particularly in the U.S.), added some more information (mainly in the new Organisation and administation section), and done a bit of a general tidy-up.

In my view there is still a lot of room for improvement on the page, particularly in the History section (which I feel needs expansion and ideally subdivision into centuries) and the Notable buildings sub-section (which I feel needs tidy-up and perhaps slimming down). The Organisation and administration section could also do with a proper Central administration sub-section.

However I feel strongly that the page should be a collaborative effort so I will not make any more substantive changes until others express their views on how to take the page forward. It would be great to work towards Featured Article status in time.Rangoon11 (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Excessive Boosterism

Relating to some comments mentioned on this discussion page, there is quite of boosterism going on in this article which needs to be removed. I tried to put a more neutral pic, however, Ragoon11 reverted all my changes. I believe that the lead should reflect the summary of history, key memberships, and rankings (if necessary at all) and don't promote UCL. However, we can see now lots of biased expressions such as "most highly-ranked", "elite", "prestigious" just in one paragraph. Furthermore, the lead states only international rankings which put UCL in a favourable position (UK league tables show absolutely a different picture). I'm not going to fight with editors who are apparently directly or indirectly connected to King's but there are real problems with several uni articles (I noticed UCL, LSE, King's at least) which need to be addressed as soon as possible. 188.223.81.158 (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly thanks for coming to the talk page. To take your issues in turn:

- The lead is factual and cited. UCL is one of the most prestigious universities in the world, and that is cited. UCL is one of the most highly ranked universities in the world, and that is cited.

- Regarding which league tables are referred to, this article will be read by people from all over the world, not just the UK. To describe UCL's position in global league tables in the lead therefore seems most appropriate. To avoid the possibility of bias the position in all three major international league tables has been given, not just the most favourable to UCL. UK league table positions are detailed in the Rankings section, there is no attempt to hide them. The lead is designed to give a flavour of the university only.

- The word 'elite' in relation to the Golden Triangle has already been deleted, although this is almost certainly a fact I accept that the word 'elite' evokes negative feeling in some and could be misleading.

- I personally have NO current connection with UCL.

- Since you are so keen to suggest that editors of this article are connected with UCL, perhaps you would like to describe your connections with University of Durham, where you have been actively editing.

The lead to the Durham article currently states that Durham is 'a prestigious collegiate university' (with no citation) and includes a quote from a newspaper that Durham is "Long established as a leading alternative to Oxford and Cambridge". Rangoon11 (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It's sensible to delete information about rankings completely from the lead. Also words "prestigious" and "highly ranked" are very subjective unless they literally appear in a reliable source not connected to UCL marketing department. From my standpoint, highly ranked uni in the UK are only Oxford and Cambridge but their articles don't have such phrases in the lead. 87.194.84.46 (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Look at the citations before deleting them. Your opinion on the prestige of Oxford, Cambridge and UCL is that of one person, the broad consensus of the media is in clear disagreement with you. UCL is prestigious. Fact. Get over it and try and improve the site of whichever third-rate institution you went to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.190.146 (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no intention of getting into further arguments with an editor who tries to insult members of Wikipedia community. Good luck with your edits. 87.194.84.46 (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Good luck improving the rankings of Durham. Perhaps start with the Wikipedia article, its pretty poor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.190.146 (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Lists of names

Lists of names in this article should be sourced in accordance with WP:BLP. As there is no way of constantly maintaining linked articles, this applies to names which have a Wikipedia article as well as those that do not. Any name listed with no verifiable citations should be removed. Refer to WP:NLIST for guidance. Fæ (talk) 09:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

2010 Student fees protest

It is my firm view that an entire section devoted to the 2010 Student fees protest is completely inappropriate for this article, being undue coverage, recentism and soap boxing. In my view a single sentence in either the History or Student life section would be appropriate, and maybe a couple of sentences in History of University College London.

The comments of others on this issue are invited. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

So the legal staff of the Uni going to court to get an order to evict students is an every day event? your wish to delete is an attempt at censoring out material so as this page only shows the Uni in a good way. Student17665 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Student17665 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

In the context of the entire sweep of activities of UCL, this event is of very, very minor consequence. I have no problem with a very brief reference to the event, proportionate to its significance. However I am strongly opposed to an entire section, which does not conform with the Wikipedia policy of Due and undue weight and is recentism to the point of using the article as a soap box.

Your comment about censorship is irrelevant, my objection to the section has nothing to do with arguments about objectionable or offensive content.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Who are you to decide that it is "of very, very minor consequence" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Student17665 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

As well as being uncivil, that is a spectacularly poor line of debate, since it simply begs the obvious response of 'who are you to decide that it is not of very, very minor consequence?'. Please explain why, in the context of a major £700m + turnover university with hundreds of departments and units, 8,000 staff, over 20,000 students and an almost 200 year long history, the incident that you are concerned with is of such great importance to warrant an entire section in this article. Please explan why you feel this incident more important than, say, the establishment of University College Hospital in 1834, the bomb damage caused to UCL in the Second World War, or UCL being granted its own degree-awarding powers in 2005? Rangoon11 (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I've locked the article for three days so that this dispute can be resolved without ongoing reversions. Please consider getting some outside input during this period, such as a third opinion. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This is ridicules censorship here, of cause it has to be included. A university goes to court to get an order to eject its own students from the building is not "of very, very minor consequence". You are the only editor who feels that it should be ignored or hidden away so it cant be seen. It has received considerable coverage in the print and on-line media, the whole student fees protest is one of the biggest political issues of the year. Student17665 (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The general UCL article has to encompass all viewpoints over a wide span of history without giving undue weight to recent events. A detailed article (probably with some of the photos available on Flickr) about the protest at UCL and the eviction may be worth publishing at Wikinews which can then be referenced to by this article without running into the undue weight problem. As for the protests in general, 2010 UK student protests appears sufficient and could also be linked to by this article. Fæ (talk) 09:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how ignoring a major 3 day court case where the admin of the Uni want to remove students is "encompass[ing] all viewpoints over a wide span of history" the bit I added was two sentences and quote. Student17665 (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to re-propose the change on this talk page first? I would support a factual statement about the eviction of proportionate length. Sources such as The Guardian[5] might be helpful. Fæ (talk) 10:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

this is what was added :

2010 Student fees protest

Main article: 2010 UK student protests

“ We stand against fees and savage cuts to higher education and government attempts to force society to pay for a crisis it didn’t cause. Promises have been broken, the political process has failed and we have been left with no other option. We stand in solidarity with all those fighting these cuts nationally and internationally. These cuts are a product of ideology and not necessity. Join us!. ” — Statement from those occupying UCL.,

As part of the protests against the coalition government's plans in 2010 to increase student fees, as many as 200 students occupied the Jeremy Bentham Room and part of the Slade School of Fine Art for over two weeks stating that they were protesting against "savage cuts to higher education and government attempts to force society to pay for a crisis it didn't cause." In order to evict the students the university authorities went to the Central London County Court to obtain an order that would allow them "to forcefully remove the protesters" .

Student17665 (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest this could be a sub-section under Student life. The "occupiers’ statement" seems unnecessary and could be dropped along with the footnote to revolutionarycommunist.org. I have fixed some spelling errors in the original. Fæ (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I propose that the following text be added to the 21st Century sub-section of the History section, rather than the Student life section, since this concerns the university as a whole, not just Student life:

As part of the protests against the UK Government's plans to increase student fees, around 200 students occupied the Jeremy Bentham Room and part of the Slade School of Fine Art for over two weeks during November and December 2010. The university successfully obtained a court order to evict the students but stated that it did not intend to enforce the order if possible.

The quotations are in my view completely inappropriate. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support above proposed version from Rangoon11. Fæ (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

also support as it is better than nothing, glad to see that Rangoon11 has accepted his position of wanting nothing was unacceptable censorship Student17665 (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Heenal Raichura

Heenal Raichura is continuously being inserted and then removed from the list of notable alumni in this article (and not just by me). My own view is that, although I don't question the achievements of Ms Raichura and have no problem with her being included in the List of University College London people article, I do not feel that she (yet) merits inclusion in a list which is supposed to be a brief selection of the most notable UCL alumni over the span of the institution's entire history.

I would be grateful for other people's thoughts on this issue since it keeps coming up again and again and is, of course, inherently subjective.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Since there has been no response to the above request for comments in over a month I shall now be deleting Heenal Raichura (again) from the notable alumni list. I am, of course, still very happy to discuss this issue should anyone subsequently wish to debate it. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem with her being in the list, and since it is again only you who wants this deleted, she should stay until others also feel that she should go. Student17665. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Student17665 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Any reasons? Rangoon11 (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason being that Rangoon has nothing better to do in life, spending all his time on this matter,and has taken over the entire UCL wikipedia page as a personal crusade, and want to impose his own judgements on others which are dictatorial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.126.69 (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Can Rangoon deny the fact that Dr. Heenal Raichura is an alumna of UCL and that even UCL has in its magazine accepted her achievement? So arguments put forward are ridiculous and questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.126.69 (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"....... list which is supposed to be a brief selection of the most notable UCL alumni over the span of the institution's entire history" - meaning the only brief list which Rangoon would like to be on the wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.126.69 (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Date of charter

I have just made an edit re the dropping of the comma from "University College, London" to "University College London". This was a by-product of the Royal Charter granted in 1976. The article previously misdated this charter to 1977, citing a (now redundant) UCL webpage which did indeed say 1977. I have left that citation in, but have added a reference to the full text of the charter, also from the UCL site: the charter is clearly dated by regnal year as 17 November, 25 Elizabeth II, which converts to 1976. It seems extraordinary that UCL can have got the date of one of their own key constitutional documents wrong, but there it is. GrindtXX (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Coat of arms

Since the coat of arms is "no longer used in any official capacity", I don't think it should be used here at all. I studied at UCL for four years and never came across this even once so have no association with it. My main reason for wanting it gone is that Facebook uses it on profiles and it just looks odd. 62.173.69.98 (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the comments of 62.173.69.98. Please replace the terrible coat of arms with the official logo! (Tommcd (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC))

I wonder for what degree the anonymous user above read at University College? Not history, I assume. The criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is not that something is in current usage. Wikipedia records historical as well as current information. The fact that this particular person 'has no association with' the UCL coat of arms (if indeed it is a coat of arms) is not sufficient reason for its being removed. Being a graduate of UCL, and having certain emotional attachments to some things to do with the college, does not confer ownership of this article. If he or she is really upset that it is used by Facebook then that is something to take up with Facebook, not Wikipedia. I agree that the "coat of arms" is terrible, and I that's probably because it isn't actually a coat of arms. Just look up some articles on heraldry and you'll understand what I am talking about. What seems to be on that shield is the crest, which is quite another thing, with a couple of laurel branches either side and a motto stuck underneath. I suspect that UCL did at one time use a proper heraldic achievement, i.e. something on a shield, and above the shield the crest, and the motto underneath the shield. Does anyone know about this?--Oxonian2006 (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I have been looking into this, though without a lot of success. However, Negley Harte and John North, The World of UCL 1828-2004 (3rd edn, 2004), p. 154, illustrate a version of this badge (i.e. the embowed arm holding an olive wreath, on a torse, all within another olive wreath, and with the motto beneath), not on a shield, and describe it as "The Union's crest, with the College motto". UCL Union was established in 1893: the illustration isn't dated, but is a traditional engraving, and I'd imagine almost certainly pre-1914. I've seen versions of the badge on a shield on mid-C20 semi-official publications (dinner menus, sports programmes etc), though I can't give references. Pace 62.173.69.98, a version of it (not on a shield) does currently appear prominently at UCL, painted over the back entrance to the Bloomsbury Theatre (with the letters CCB: I don't know what that means). My current hypothesis is that the badge was originally adopted by the Union, from there was borrowed by sports clubs etc (who were probably the ones who put it on a shield), which led to its being used in various unofficial and semi-official contexts, and perhaps occasionally even officially by the College. I'd guess that state of affairs lasted until roughly 1970, when UCL started to tighten up on corporate branding and first adopted a logo (the predecessor of the current one). As Oxonian2006 says, the crest-on-a-shield breaks all the rules and conventions of heraldry, and can certainly never have been the subject of a formal grant of arms. That hypothesis needs confirmation, but I doubt I'm far out. If so, the "coat of arms" has all the status of an unofficial and now-abandoned logo, and certainly has no place in the infobox. It could arguably appear much further down the page, under Logo, arms and colours; although personally I'd relegate it to the History of University College London article. For the moment, however, I'll see if I can find any more hard evidence. GrindtXX (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I have now made an edit incorporating what I've found so far. Still not really satisfactory, though. GrindtXX (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding UCL Institute for Global Health

Am I right in thinking that the only way to get the UCL Institute for Global Health to appear automagically in the "academics" box at the bottom is to create a Wikipedia entry for it with the appropriate category (University College London|academics) included? Winelight (talk) 11:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong. If you click on the small 'E' at top left of the box, you'll find you can edit the template, and simply add the IGH in the appropriate place. Of course, if you want to create an article for it (even just a stub), and link to it from the template, so much the better. GrindtXX (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah many thanks. Winelight (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Panopticon

Panopticon (UCL building) redirects here. It's not clear precisely why, other than a common connection through jeremy Bentham. Is there some specific structure that should be identified as inspired by, or linked to, the main Panopticon page? jxm (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This refers to a building which was planned about 7-8 years ago to occupy the vacant lot on Gordon Street next to the Bloomsbury Theatre. It was (mainly) going to house museum and manuscript/archive storage and exhibition facilities, and the plan was to display Jeremy Bentham's auto-icon in pride of place. And it was going to be called "The Panopticon" (get it? "see-all", for an exhibition space ... all very pretentious). However, although the plans got to quite an advanced stage, funding couldn't be raised, and after the 2008 crash the whole scheme was officially scrapped. So this redirect is pretty meaningless now, and should probably be deleted. GrindtXX (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

OTOH, it's may well be a useful tidbit to include, if we can find a suitable citation for this topic. jxm (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Animal testing

According to the daily mail [[6]], this university was connected with inhumane testing on cats. I believe that this information should be included in the Wikipedia page for this university. I would hope that someone who cares about cats can help bring this to the public's attention through this wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dananos (talk • contribs) 10:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

"Admin Staff"

The infobox lists "Admin staff" as 11,000 - this seemed a "little" high so I checked the source and as far as I can tell this number is all staff on payroll (i.e. including academic, technical etc. staff) given on page 2 (PDF page 5) of the source. Probably someone should check this out and if needs be change the infobox to read, simply, "staff"? 128.40.76.3 (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Shortening Introduction

Compared to other university introductions, UCL's introduction is too long. I believe it should be shortened to include only the information that may give a good summary of the university. For example university rankings are usually not mentioned in most of the university introductions, nor are details such as research income. It is good to give some information about university partnerships, but they shouldn't be too long, that they make the introduction too cluttered to read. For example the long list of partnerships of UCL can be summarised in a line or two. Information about associations with LERU, G5 etc can also be included elsewhere but do they make the introduction more insightful? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.50.99 (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletions reverted pending proper discussion here. The lead is not overly long for an article of this size and is well structured. If the leads of some other universities are much shorter it is likely that they are too short. The lead is supposed to be both a summary of the article and a standalone overview of the topic. The present lead does that well and has also been stable for a long time.86.160.160.148 (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

If a survey of other similarly ranked university is done, they do not provide details of the rankings in the lead. Similarly a list of associations is already provided in the sidebar and also in a separate section, so there is no need to specify it again in the introduction. Keeping these considerations the previous edit was proposed. 144.82.182.73 (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

As noted the lead is supposed to be a standalone overview of the topic and a summary of the article. Looking at the leads of other universities one sees quite a lot of variety. Those of Imperial College London and King's College London both include rankings. However many leads appear undeveloped and too short. The UCL one is actually very good by comparison to most and also remains factual without resorting to the type of hollow boosterism found in many.

Different people will always have slightly different ideas about emphasis but in my view including specific information about rankings is particulaly useful for UCL because many are unlikely to know its ranking unlike say Harvard where it would be assumed to be top 10 or even top 5. This information helps people to understand a university which is less well known than its rankings and size might suggest, as a result of its rapid development over the past 10 years.86.160.160.148 (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Considering your points, the current lead with some trimming of the list of associations and updated lead (with Rank and Grant Museum) seems acceptable. 144.82.167.23 (talk) 09:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Alumni

The beginning of the Notable People section contains a paragraph conveying no useful information, but is nevertheless done in a biased, un-encyclopedic way. Firstly, describing famous people by their achievements without giving their names is uninformative and poor style. Secondly, the term 'father of the nation', used twice, is not well defined and not a universally agreed epithet for these people. Thirdly, by including only some of the famous alumni, the paragraph is incomplete and makes assumptions about their relative contributions.

IMO, the best solution is simply to delete the paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.31.126.147 (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The mosaic of pictures, of famous alumni, is very large, with no clear understandable criteria of why some are included while others excluded. It will be better to have a smaller list of alumni that can be representative of a particular domain. 144.82.163.191 (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the gallery is fairly representative of the people whom are associated with UCL for notable reasons. Who do you think is left out? Obviously this is always going to contentious as it is difficult to measure whom actually contributed to the university the most in light of their achievements. Galleries are a reasonable way to present images, provided imo they don't grow too large (more than 2 rows would be my limit). The alternative is to place images beside text as before but far less can be added this way.

Also, I've added the names of individuals to the first sentence to make this clearer for people who might not know who was e.g. responsible for the discovery of the noble gases. Aloneinthewild (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

"Oldest college"

UCL is not the oldest college in the University of London. It was established later than several other constituent colleges (Birkbeck, Heythrop, arguably St Bartholomew's Hospital), and received its royal charter later than Kings'. Benjamin M. A'Lee (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Possibly there needs to be a better definition of what defines the birth of an institution. Different definition can lead to different results, but UCL, as the oldest constituent is well cited across other publications and so the fact need not be deleted. UCL is the oldest continuing unit of UoL founded in 1826. The provided examples have not held their existing form and character continuously since before 1826. The closest constituent to UCL is King's College London that was founded in 1829 and received its royal charter earlier than UCL. Birkbeck was preceded by London Mechanics' Institute and Birkbeck evolved out of it. Heythrop while has a credible claim at being the oldest college, but in its current form (located in London) it has only been sited in London since 1970. Similarly, St Bartholomew is a sub unit of Queen Mary University, which itself has evolved in its current form out of several mergers. 144.82.209.165 (talk) 10:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that there is so much debate over what constitutes 'oldest' suggests to me that it's inappropriate to make the unqualified claim that UCL is the oldest in the first paragraph of the article. Benjamin M. A'Lee (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

For example: if you're going to argue that because Birkbeck's name has changed over time, it's a different institution, it should also be noted that when UCL was founded it was called "London University", and it only became "University College" after the charter was granted. (UCL is also the result of several mergers; should we claim that it has only existed since 2012, the date of the most recent merger?) Benjamin M. A'Lee (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

UCL was the "first university institution established in London", and apart from wide support from external citations, this statement in itself supports the claim that UCL can be called the oldest constituent of UoL. Birkbeck's predecessor, London Mechanics' Institute though founded in 1823 wasn't established as a university institution and Birkbeck has evolved into a university institution over time. Heythrop has a valid claim to be called the oldest constituent college of UoL as well, and there is no reason only one of the two constituent colleges can be called the oldest. UCL is the oldest constituent college of UoL that has stayed close to its present form since 1826, while Heythrop is the oldest constituent college of UoL when considering it as an entity since 1614 that has moved different countries and locations eventually moving to London in 1970 and tying in with UoL in 1971. The debate of being oldest is less of a factual debate, and more of a conceptual one, and a conceptual debate should not deter from maintaining a long supported claim that has many external citations and considerate reason. 144.82.190.131 (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it even means to say that it was the 'first university institution established in London', given that (as already noted), it wasn't a university for a number of years after its creation, due to its lack of a royal charter. If that's the sole criterion then it cannot claim to be any older than King's.

I'd be perfectly happy with "oldest founding member of the federal University of London", or something along those lines, but the simple claim of "oldest" is either simply false or requires too many conditions. "oldest if you discount all the ones that are older" is not so impressive, particularly coming from an anonymous user on the UCL network. Benjamin M. A'Lee (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

There has been a long consensus that UCL is the first institution for higher education in London. Berkbeck and Kings established as higher (not adult) education institutions only later. Heythrop, moved to London later in 1970. That gives credibility to UCL as the oldest constituent college of UoL. This claim is well supported in other mainstream media and further substantiated in the article. 81.110.181.26 (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Then the article should say that it's the oldest institution for higher education in London (which is true), and not that it's the oldest constituent of the University of London (which is false). You are defending a claim that, while true, is not the one that is being made in the article. Benjamin M. A'Lee (talk) 09:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

University College, London

I know the ignorant will sadly still do it, but please will editors stop writing "University College London" in articles that describe events when it was called "University College, London", as it was until very recently. Wikipedia is not revisionist. We use the title of things at the time, not now. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Define 'very recently'. And define 'called'. University College London has unambiguously been the legal name since at least 1979 when the college was reconstituted as an independent body by act of Parliament. Between the 1900s and then, UCL had no separate legal status from the rest of the University of London - and in any case, branding and university names are not really consistent when you look in that period.

This historical text (published by the University of London in the 1900s) refers to "University College London", "University College" and "London's University College": http://www.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/resources/1912historicalrecord.pdf

The text also quotes in full an act of parliament, the "University College London Act 1905" which has no comma in it, and the 1836 Royal Charter of the university, which just calls it "University College". The book published in 1929 to celebrate UCL's centenary is called "University College London, 1826-1926". No comma. http://ucl-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo_library/libweb/action/display.do?tabs=detailsTab&ct=display&fn=search&doc=UCL_LMS_DS000495117&indx=1&recIds=UCL_LMS_DS000495117&recIdxs=0&elementId=0&renderMode=poppedOut&displayMode=full&frbrVersion=&dscnt=0&dum=true&frbg=&scp.scps=scope%3A%28UCL%29%2Cprimo_central_multiple_fe&tab=local&dstmp=1418911275603&srt=rank&vl%28freeText0%29=University%20College%20London%201826-1926&vid=UCL_VU1&mode=Basic

While UCL has undoubtedly been referred to with the comma a lot in the past - maybe even *mostly* referred to with a comma at certain times - I think it's highly dubious to claim to say it was ever the legal title or even the official style.

I'm not going to change this myself as I work at UCL, but I think the evidence is pretty clear that it doesn't belong in the lede of the article. (Perhaps lower down, something like "often historically referred to as University College, London" would be more appropriate.) Uclmaps (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)