Talk:Royal Holloway, University of London

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of Universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents 1 What's wrong with the word "College"? 2 Joan M. Hussey and the Bedford/Royal Holloway distinction 3 George Eliot 4 link removal 5 Student's Union POV Constant Reverts 6 Rankings 7 Alumni list 8 Notable Staff List 9 Notable members of staff 10 Changes to be made 10.1 Notable members of staff 10.2 Student Accommodation 10.3 Famous Alumni 11 Notable staff 12 Students' Union - seperate article? 13 University ratings 14 Frightfully middle-class

[edit] What's wrong with the word "College"?

Am I the only person wondering why University of London colleges are steadily dropping the word "College" from their colloquial names? We have "Royal Holloway, University of London", "Birkbeck, University of London", and "Queen Mary, University of London". "Queen Mary" is the silliest sounding because Queen Mary was so obviously somebody's name. "Thomas Holloway, University of London" or "George Birkbeck, University of London" would sound even sillier. What is wrong with the word "College"? The only sensible ones I can think of are Christ Church, Oxford and Peterhouse, Cambridge (and of course places called "Something Hall" - Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford, for example). These make sense because they do include a substantive - "Church" and "-house". Is the U of L trying to sound grand by having eccentrically named colleges? Maybe SOAS will become "OAS"?

Secondly, what's wrong with Bedford and Westfield, as in Royal Holloway and Bedford New College and Queen Mary and Westfield College? I admit that "The King's Hall and College of Brasenose" has been shortened to "Brasenose College", but that evolved rather more gradually.--AlexanderLondon 00:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joan M. Hussey and the Bedford/Royal Holloway distinction

Joan M. Hussey was active at both Bedford and Royal Holloway. I have added her as a significant member of staff because, although she does not fulfil the criteria for inclusion suggested below of being famous beyond academia, she was one of the most famous Byzantinists of her day and moreover she is still widely read today. Her importance in her field is second only to Norman H. Baynes and Steven Runciman.

However, I was provoked to wonder if there ought to be three separate articles to reflect the three institutions: Royal Holloway College, Bedford College, and Royal Holloway and Bedford New College (now known as Royal Holloway, University of London). As it is, Royal Holloway College redirects to this article, so that it seems to be about both Royal Holloway College and Royal Holloway and Bedford New College. There is therefore no distinction made between alumnae/i and staff of RHC and alumnae/i and staff of RHBNC, whereas there is a distinction made between those of Bedford and those of RHBNC. The implication is that RHBNC is in some way more of a continuation of RHC than it is of Bedford, which I suppose it is, given that it is at the site of the former RHC and Bedford has effectively been dropped from its name.--AlexanderLondon 00:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Eliot

Holloway was founded in 1879 and George Elliot died in 1880. How is it possible that she attended the college?

She probably went to Bedford College, which opened much earlier. It merged with Royal Holloway in 1985. Pcb21| Pete 11:31, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Picking up on this, what treatment should be made of Bedford College? Should it have a separate article or be redirected and incorporated here? I wanted to add an appropriate link to the article on Conrad Russell, but I'm not quite sure what to do. For the moment I've put "now part of Royal Holloway", which is a bit fussy. --rbrwr^± 20:58, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] link removal

Anon user removed link to: Anxiety in the UK, an article in The Guardian covering the recent racial attacks at Royal Holloway. User commented that it was: "heavily biased, one sided, flawed, irrelevant". I think such a claim of bias or irrelevance needs to be backed up. The attacks did happen, were reported and are an issue in the college. The college management has been issuing press releases detailing their interation with the ongoing police investigation, which led to arrests a few weeks ago. This Guardian article was linked beside another article from the same paper detailing the positive aspects of the college, so it is hard to see how a charge of bias can be held up. Pending further comment, I am reverting the changes. Seabhcán 13:15, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

-some idiot vandalized the page, changed it back to NPOV.

-the negative article is biased because it makes assumptions based on a selected few interviews and blows the situation out of proportion. Just because you link the biased article next to a positive one doesn't make it unbiased silly.

What you describe is standard writing for all newspaper articles. Please sign your posts. Seabhcán 23:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Student's Union POV Constant Reverts

I think there is some confusion as to the purpose of wikipedia and, by extension, of this page. It is emphatically NOT to serve as an advertisement for particular institutions, products or points of view. I believe this is clearly expressed in the editing guidelines. You state on the reverts page:

'This page needs to say more than info that's true about virtually every student union in Britain. Noting of views that are reasonably widely held (and backed-up by awards received) is legitimate'

To which I have three retorts: 1) Why does this page NEED to say more about SURHUL than is true for every other SU in Britain, except to serve as an advertisement for the SU and for Royal Holloway College? All it NEEDS to have are the FACTS about RHUL and the SU. This is an ENCYCLOPAEDIA, not a prospectus. 2) If you know that these views (i.e. POV) are widely held, then you must have canvassed at the very least a significant minority of the students in either the London area, or the whole of the UK, according to your statements. I would challenge you to demonstrate that this is the case. 3) My original comment explaining NPOV changes made (see below) clearly stated that if your claims as to perceived reputation could be SUBSTANTIATED empirically by e.g. external awards for the magazine, the student's union, or the end of term ball, then your statements would be valid. IF this is true for these things, then state the awards, who awarded them, and when they were won. That can only make the article better, which is what we all want.

Don't mean to start a big edit war over minor details, but it annoys me when wikipedia is used as an advertising medium- that's not what it's supposed to be.If your claims can be substantiated beyond your own point of view, then please put them back in- that's the whole point of wiki!

Cheers

(My original comment):

The Royal Holloway Students' Union (SURHUL) has a reputation for providing some of the best and most comprehensive on-campus social life, entertainment and student services of any students' union in the London area.

POV (see italics), removed it

SURHUL also publishes a student magazine called The Orbital, which is considered to be among Britain's best students' union magazines.

POV (see italics), removed it

The highlight of the social calendar at the college is the annual RHUL Summer Ball, which is run by the students' union and reputed to be among the best such events at any university or college in Britain. In recent years the RHUL Summer Ball has booked many high-profile talents, including well-known rock and pop acts such as Wheatus and Atomic Kitten, and comedians such as Ali G.

POV (see italics), removed it

It may be possible to substantiate the magazine claim (e.g. if it won an externally recognised award or similar) in which case put it back in. The rest (of the italicised portions) is opinion and is inapropriate. (In my day student's union reps were too busy drinking to find much time for contributing nonsense to internet encyclopaedias! Times have changed, obviously...)

[edit] Rankings

It states that RH was first for Physics in the UK ranked by the Guardian newspaper following on from the 2006 table. They are 2nd behind Queen Mary, University of London according to the report.

Again - when did RH ever come first in the Guardian for Physics? Can a citation be recognized? You have taken away the year 2006 and put in nothing. To make a statement like that will surely need a source.

I agree that this will need to be sourced, especially given how students deciding upon their university at the moment may be being misled by this article. Also, if you could tag the comments you make here, by leaving four '~'s after your comment, it would help make this less confusing, as it would be clear who said what. Zverzia 15:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks some of this article reads like an RHUL prospectus? Surely the purpose of a Rankings section should be to detail how a particular university has fared in a common ranking that's referenced on most pages on its fellow local and national universities, rather than just listing the particular ranking that shows the institution at its best? Timrollpickering 01:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You're not the only one, no. I think much could be trimmed from the article in the interests of objectivity. Badgerpatrol 02:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alumni list

Should be split up into who went to Bedford, who went to Holloway Ladies' College, and who went to RHBNC. Bedford College is a TOTALLY separate institution in a totally separate place (central London)

[edit] Notable Staff List

Can the poster please justify the inclusion of these staff members (beyond being their favourite lecturers). I have been associated with the college for some years and I have personally never heard of some of them (this of course does not mean anything in itself, hence the reason why I ask for justification). Notable members of staff should have found some fame outside the college in the wider world, or as media figures, or as EXTREMELY accomplished academics within their chosen fields (e.g. Royal Soc fellows etc. for scientists, other major national or international external awards etc.). Being a member of RHUL staff does not make one notable in itself. Of the list, I think we can accept those already with wiki stubs (just) although in my view it isn't at all clear cut whether they really ought to be in this encyclopaedia at all to be honest. Of these:

Cesarani- appears to be notable as a media figure, primarily through his association with David Irving Bradby- Does not seem to be notable beyond his basic academic duties but he has a separate page and who am I to argue! Champion- Once presented a TV series as I recall, probably merits inclusion on that basis. The other 2 are the poet laureate and someone who has received an external high honour for public service- obvious keeps.

On my 'delete' list-

Cowan- a senior member of the physics department but no more. A quick glance at their dept website does not indicate why he is notable. Unwin- as above. All I can tell from his website is that he likes a tipple. Google is not any more informative. If he is involved with wine as some sort of media expert then he may merit inclusion, although I can find no evidence that this is so. Rastle- Seemingly a relatively unimportant member of the psychology department and not obviously notable even in her own field. An obvious candidate for deletion.

Please bear in mind that I am not suggesting immediate deletion, but merely canvassing opinions. If no-one has come forward to explain the inclusion of these people in the next few days then I think it would be best to delete them. Of course if someone can subsequently make a case then the info can be reverted. As it stands this seems to be a rather embarassing case of vicarious (I presume) aggrandizement. Please feel free to comment, I don't want to step on anyone's toes. (Also note that I have similar problems with some of the 'famous' alumni, although this is less clear cut).81.157.183.114 21:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notable members of staff

I have deleted Cowan, as I do not see why he is notable beyond his status as an academic at RHUL- that alone is not enough. If someone can justify his inclusion here, then fair enough. I realise that there is a fine line to be drawn here, but I think including academics solely because they are people's favourite lecturers is puffery and degrades the article, which is not helpful to anyone. I suggest that unless RHUL academics are known in the wider world (e.g. as authors or commentators), or are e.g. members of distinguished learned societies (Cowan is not a FRS, for example) or have received high honours or external awards, then they are not of sufficient merit. Sections of this nature are not obvious in other UK academic articles, and I think it is really a bit of a licence for silly and wrong-headed inclusions based on subjective grounds. I note for example that ALL of the current notable members of staff are currently teaching at RHUL, despite the 100+ years history of the college/s. That is not encyclopaedic, and some inclusions in the past (see page history) have been ridiculous. I would advocate renaming and rejigging this section. For reference re suitability for inclusion, see e.g. biographies of living persons, academic guidelines, and notability. Comments welcome. Badgerpatrol 00:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

For example, I just added Michael Eysenck- his colloboration and association with his father arguably makes him notable in itself, but I believe his academic output is also of sufficient quality. Please discuss if you disagree. Badgerpatrol 03:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to be made

[edit] Notable members of staff

Regarding Brian Cowan, Head of Department of Physics, I don't consider he should be removed from the list of staff members. He is a leading professor in the field of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance and Relaxation. Unlike other academic fields, Physics is highly specialised and unless you are in the field you aren't likely to consider his achievements great! It should also be noted that in the article it is clearly stated that Royal Holloway's physics department is considered one of the best (and the best by The Guardian) in the United Kingdom and Prof Cowan has made significant contributions to attain this status.

There is no consensus currently regarding academics in Wikipedia, and therefore there is considerable room for leeway here (see notability and links therein). BUT- a few general rules of thumb would seem to apply. Firstly, being a success in a given field is not in itself a criteria for inclusion. EVERY Professor is by definition a success in their field. There are dozens if not hundreds of Profs at RHUL; will it improve the encyclopaedia to include them all? Or would it most likely lead to a profusion of vanity pages and POV articles? As for Cowan specifically- is he notable in any way OUTSIDE of his field? Many physicists are. And even within it (as you say Physics is quite a specialised field academically), would we expect another physicist in a tangentially related field working in another country (say, the US or Australia or France) to have heard of him and be aware of his work? I can't answer that, but a Google search may be revealing:

• "Brian Cowan" "Royal Holloway" = 106 Hits
• "Brian Cowan" "University of Nottingham" = 20 Hits
• "Brian Cowan" "University of Paris" = 25 Hits

In each case, large numbers of hits did not relate to the correct individual anyway. Google can sometimes be misleading- but whatever way you look at it, those are not impressive numbers. Apart from that, has Cowan received any high honours, inside of outside his field? Has he been, or do objective external sources consider him likely to be, awarded a Nobel Prize or Fields Medal, or indeed any notable academic prize? Does he have a knighthood or other honour? Is he a FRS? Has he been awarded an honourary doctorate? If so, I can't find any evidence. We should be careful about including people in this encyclopaedia simply because they are reasonably successful- many people are good at their jobs, but that doesn't make them notable. Badgerpatrol 19:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Student Accommodation

As noted due to works on campus there is a massive shortage of accommodation available in halls of residence. For the upcoming 2006/2007 academic year only the following qualify for halls (and are not necessarily guaranteed a place): Joining 1st year students, 4th year students (MSci only or students returning from years abroad), postgraduates and any that have received a scholarship to the university. It should also be noted that the areas (Egham, Englefield Green) surrounding Royal Hollway boast house and rent prices equivalent to central London despite being firmly outside of London.

I thought about including these points (and some other stuff, especially the allegations of racism and the recent spate of attacks around Englefield Green) in some kind of balanced 'criticisms' or 'local area' section. The reason I haven't done it is basically because I strongly suspect that it will lead to a lot of acrimony and will be constantly reverted. I should point out though that your list of eligible students is VERY extensive- if even most of those get a place in halls then the College can be fairly proud of its accommodation arrangements. There are very few (if any?) non-Oxbdidge UK unis that can afford accomm places to everyone that may want one, but I am not that familiar with the halls issue as it stands. If you want to include it and have sufficient awareness of the issue, then go ahead and be bold. Badgerpatrol 19:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Alumni

Sophie Neveu does not count as Alumni! If Wikipedia tries to add every fictional character mentioned in text it may run in to problems!

Many alumnae pages have fictional characters. I don't agree with it either, but I think we are in the minority unfortunately. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 19:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Surely it does not matter that this view is in the minority, for the majority does not decide what truth is. Sophie Neveu from The Da Vinci Code did not attend Royal Holloway in real life because she is a character of fiction. She certainly ought to be mentioned, as an indication of Royal Holloway's reputation, but not as an Alumni because she is not real. User:J Gez M, 17:48 23rd February 2006.

Jazzygm 17:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Although wikipedia technically does not operate along democratic principles, obviously we have to be mindful of the opinion of others. The article as it stands is perfectly 'true' in the sense that this alumna is clearly marked out as fictional. I certainly think it really would degrade the quality of the article to mention the character in the text, but as one amongst a list of alumnae it is tolerable. If you don't agree, feel free to remove it, but I suggest that someone else is going to revert back sooner rather than later and the whole exercise will be rather pointless. However, it is of course up to you. Badgerpatrol 19:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Now you put it like that that it does seem to make rather more sense. Therefore I suppose that it is true and as it is marked as fictional the character ought to stay. J Gez M, 23:19,24th February 2006.

[edit] Notable staff

I recently added Professor Nigel Saul (eminent History scholar, writer of the only recent biography of Richard II and former Head of the History department.) However, it was taken off. I don't know who thinks they are so important that they can take people's recent editions just because they cant be bothered to check or havent heard of them.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.13.152.158 (talk • contribs).

That would be me. I did "bother" myself to check extensively before reverting your edits, and invited you to discuss your reasoning on this page-thank you for doing so. Please explain why this individual is any more notable than many, many other members of staff, all of whom are accomplished in their fields. You may also wish to generate a WP account, or at the very least sign your comments with your IP address by leaving 4 tildes ~~~~. Badgerpatrol 00:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Inspired partly by this little discussion between 84.13.152.158 and Badgerpatrol, I created articles about both Professor Nigel Saul and Professor Anthony Stockwell and put links to them on this page. I believe that are more notable than the average academic, and have renown that goes beyond the college itself. Hopefully the articles explain this. Dorange 03:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't agree that they do have renown that goes beyond the college itself, or at least that goes beyond their specific discipline. They do not seem to be significant media figures, as far as I can see. However, they are almost certainly notable enough for their own articles- but it does not necessarily follow that they should be included in a list of RHUL's cadre of most notable staff. There are, what, a thousand or so academic staff members at RHUL? I would surmise that 1 or 2 hundred of those rival Saul and Stockwell for notability and impact. I would only place people in the notable staff category if we can demonstrate that they are significant figures OUTSIDE of academia- i.e. by way of significant media exposure or other high-level external recognition. As I state elsewhere, in my opinion this section is basically a licence for subjective and questionable inclusions (note that I'm not accusing you of that, and I appreciate you taking the time to comment and write the two stubs). I am thinking of boldly removing the whole section anyway, unless a set of acceptable and objective criteria can be drawn up. A list of 1 or 2 hundred "notable" academics is not going to work, and that is what we will wind up with eventually. Badgerpatrol 14:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

How come Justin Champion is notable when Peter Longerich is not? Entering his name into Google reveals plenty about him, and only him, such as his role in the David Irving trial. If he, as you said above, had a renown that only existed within RHUL, why is he on the German Wikipedia? Say this section is absurd all you want, but unless there is some clear guidelines as to who counts and who does not as a 'notable member of staff', it's a form of popularity contest. Zverzia 20:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I've ditched the section. Badgerpatrol 20:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe it should remain, in some form, although it may be given its own page. Look at Birkbeck's page, which has a longer list than the one here was. Is it not worth mentioning which academics of certain renown teach here? We don't have Stephen Hawking, but if academics are worthy of wikipedia pages (and not those created soley for the purpose of worship from adoring students), why should they not be linked to the institution they teach at? Is it not possible to decide upon either a criteria for 'notable academics', keeping the David Cesaranis and leaving out the Hugo Blakes (picking a random member of the history department), or to create a seperate page for them and link to it from this one? Is there any way of reaching a popular consensus? Zverzia 21:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: I've created an English Wikipedia page on Peter Longerich. Dorange 00:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Students' Union - seperate article?

The Students' Union section is bulky and largely irrelevant to the information about the college itself. The information within it is still useful, however. Should the content be moved to SURHUL and only a synopsis left in the main page? I understand there is some confusion on the notability of Student Union articles in the UK. Katy_Star12 12:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I had considered it, but I wasn't sure if it was notable enough on its own. I disagree that is overly bulky, however, as it still forms a vital part of Hollowegian life for many students and prospective students. Zverzia 13:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It isn't notable, and the split article would be liable for deletion. Unfortunately, there is a fine line between what is encyclopaedic and what reads as a recruitment prospectus for the College. I'm not sure which side of theline this article is at present.... Badgerpatrol 15:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The notability of English Students' Unions remains a subject of confusion on Wikipedia. The extremely vocal left-wing union of SOAS was nominated for deletion, yet articles on the SU of the Universities of Hull & Plymouth still exist. The matter was brought up at Talk:Students' union, but no clear consensus was reached. SURHUL is notable in the national context only through its continued use of regular General Meetings and corresponding detailed bureaucracy, as opposed to other unions who run the generally-more-popular Annual GM system. It may also appear on account of its sporting prowess, but there is little else to make it any more or less special than, for example, the University of Newcastle's Students' Union. In regards to your other point, I don't believe the current section on SURHUL is particularly biased, as it largely factual with only one or two dubious statements (such as on the bar Medicene). I don't think it needs to be trimmed, although I certainly would not advocate any further expansion, especially along the lines of listing previous sabbaticals as the Hull SU article does. Zverzia 17:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Where is the confusion? I would suggest that the main reason that none of the Unions listed on the SU talk page have been deleted is because (from what I can see) none of them have ever been nominated to AfD. The SOAS page has been nominated and was deleted, which tells its own story. Non-notable Wiki articles do not just disappear of their own accord. As for SURHUL- the last time I checked, it was not by any means the only SU to have regular (i.e. more than one a year) general meetings, although this may have changed, and it is perhaps the only one to hold them once a month. I doubt if this alone is sufficient as a claim to notability; sporting prowess (unless absolutely spectacular) is not going to help either. Much of the SU material now borders in my opinion on the trivial, but this is a matter of opinion, more or less. One more thing- Portsmouth and Plymouth are not the same city.... Badgerpatrol 23:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Erm SOAS Students' Union is still there - it was not deleted. Oh and Queen Mary Students' Union also still has monthly general meetings. Timrollpickering 02:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed! I think I must have missed the point that Zverzia is driving at then, although she might like to take a look at WP:DEL perhaps. Nominating an article for deletion means absolutely nothing in itself. Having said that, I still seriously question the notability of generic SUs (although it seems that that is not the consensus, and there appears to be no confusion). I agree about the SU GMs- I do not think RHUL is unique in any way. Badgerpatrol 02:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The Portsmouth/Plymouth slip shows up how tired I was yesterday evening! The point still stood, however, that generic SUs still had articles, and one or two had been saved from deletion, although not with any clear 'Keep' majority. In any case, SURHUL counts amongst these generic unions, perhaps even moreso through its apolitical status on national affairs, although how we differ greatly from Queen Mary Students' Union with its article is unclear. It would appear to me that various users have created pages on SUs without consultation as to whether they deserve them, and those which are for minor universities have not been noticed as much as, for example, that of SOAS, and these are used as cases to justify the larger SUs to be kept. In any case, such a discussion is more appropriate for Talk:Students' union than here. As far as this discussion on SURHUL goes, it is generic enough not to be notable, although I still believe it needs no trimming down where it is (but bear in mind I am biased as I've edited much of the section). Incidentally, I shall putting a photograph of it up sometime soon, although only one! Zverzia 15:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University ratings

(I'm posting this to all articles on UK universities as so far discussion hasn't really taken off on Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities.)

There needs to be a broader convention about which university rankings to include in articles. Currently it seems most pages are listing primarily those that show the institution at its best (or worst in a few cases). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#University ratings. Timrollpickering 00:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frightfully middle-class

I didn't enjoy my time at RHC, I'm afraid. It seemed full of over-privileged Sloane Rangers, talking about having 'morning rooms' in their houses and going on ski-ing holidays. They all seemed to be called either Emily or Sophie: the girls weren't much better.Dolmance 17:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)