Jump to content

Talk:King's College London/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Foundation date

When was KCLSU founded? UCLU, founded 1893, claims to be the oldest in England, in direct contradiction to KCLSU's claim to be the oldest SU in london...--Si 17:12, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

in light of this page, I'm changing the article.--Si 17:17, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

I've no idea about which student union is older, but that link is just an older copy of Wikipedia's content (note how similar the pages are). -- DrBob 17:34, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Created by a duel?

From Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington:

As Prime Minister, Wellington was the picture of the arch-conservative, though oddly enough the highlight of his term was Catholic Emancipation, the granting of almost full civil rights to Catholics in the United Kingdom. ... Lord Winchilsea accused the Duke of having "treacherously plotted the destruction of the Protestant constitution". Wellington responded by immediately challenging Winchilsea to a duel. The duel is also one of the reasons for the founding of King's College London. On March 21 1829, Wellington and Winchilsea met on Battersea fields. When it came time to fire, the Duke deliberately aimed wide and Winchilsea fired into the air. He subsequently wrote Wellington a grovelling apology.

Anyone know how that came to lead to KCL being founded? Timrollpickering 20:13, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Don't believe KCL is largest college of the University of London

I always thought UCL was larger than KCL and was highly dubious of the claim in the article. Some net research have brought up the case against the article:

KCL has never used any claims of being the largest college in any literature I have seen.--PTSE 03:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Latest figures are ~21,500 registered students for KCL and ~19,000 for UCL. Figures pulled from student union election data c. Jan 2005 and while numbers have changed, HEFCE data is available which still reflects KCL being larger than UCL (not to hand) - hence KCL has largest delegation to University of London Union also. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.32.2 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 29 December 2005 (UMT).
Okay, thanks for the info. Can you dig up a weblink to the HEFCE data? Their website is full of jargon and is a bit of a nightmare. --PTSE 00:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay it was on the HESA website: [1] for 03-04. Do a search on the page for King's College London and University College London. I think these are latest official stats. 21,315 registered ~6,400 postgrad and ~14,900 undergrad @ KCL, UCL has total 20,240 registered with ~8,300 PG and 12,000 UG.
Would people please remember the above when editing the statistics in the info box? Most tedious! The latest is 6,970 PG and 14,995 UG, total of 21,965 [2]

Second oldest college in UofL?

At the risk of igniting the flames on this one:

King's College London in London is the largest and second oldest college in the federal University of London, with 21,500 registered students. King's was so named to indicate the patronage of King George IV.

Exactly what is the criteria for the order of ages of the colleges? Birkbeck has a foundation date of 1823, Heythrop 1614, (possibly Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry 1785, though that was the Barts end and it's now part of QMUL so maybe not one to dig in on), Royal Academy of Music 1822, Royal Veterinary College 1791, St George's 1733 and UCL 1826. Is there a formal criteria for the age of a college (in which case a lot of the foundation dates on the relevant pages need qualifying) or is this an urban legend from the lengthy debates between KCL and UCL over which is older? Timrollpickering 13:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I suspect the age thing is also related to when they actually joined the University. King's and UCL were the first 2 institutions, and the others joined later, so they are younger in terms of University history, but older as independent institutions... David Underdown 11:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget St Thomas' and Guy's Hospitals were founded so early, and are now part of KCL.. but the compromise above sounds fine.—the preceding unsigned comment is by Coffeelover (talk • contribs) 23:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Got to disagree with the latest version: "...second longest member college...". I see what you are trying to say but it is not coming out right. How can it be the second longest member when it was one of the founding members? It is the oldest member college but not the oldest (or even second oldest) college. Also, the term "longest" is ambiguous and doesn't have to mean age. I suggest it is changed to something similar to the UCL intro, i.e. "...is one of the founding colleges that make up the University of London" --PTSE 03:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
My current connection is slow so I'll come back later to dig out the link on this one, but I seem to recall from a discussion about "England's third oldest university" on Talk:Durham University, citing the "official" KCL history, that KCL did not dive straight into the federal university at first, preferring to offer either its own AKCs or Oxbridge qualifications, and that it took a little time to fully begrudgingly accept the federal institute. That suggests to me that UCL rather than KCL is the first member college (in the same way that in the US Delaware is the first State of the Union) and that KCL is the second. Timrollpickering 17:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd forgotten about this one but the specific references are as follows:

Talk:Durham University/Talk:Durham University/Archive 1#The Centenary History of King's College London

Specifically:

Establishment of the modern University of London: Almost the first problem which faced the new principal of the college was [...] the issue of a charter, dated November 28, 1836, establishing a degree-conferring university in London. (p. 131)

King's College would not combine with its undenominational fellow [UCL] to form a single degree-conferring university; the government could not contemplate the absurdity of setting up simultaneously two degree-conferring universities in the metropolis; the only possibility, therefore, was to withhold the privelege of conferring degrees from both of them, and to establish a separate and independent degree-conferring authority whose diplomas would be open to either. [...] The authorities in Gower Street [(UCL)] having intimated their acceptance of the government's terms, the government issued two charters simultaneously on November 28, 1936. One of them conceded to the Gower Street institution, under the title of "London University College", the incorporation which it had so long sought. The other set up, under the title of "the University of London", a new body of "persons eminent in literature and science, to act as a board of examiners, and to perform all the functions of the examiners in the senate house of Cambridge." (p. 132)

The council of King's College, indeed, looked with most unfriendly eyes upon the new examining university; and, probably, but for the urgent needs of the medical department, it would have had nothing to do with it at all. [...] King's College held indignantly aloof from the arts degrees of the new university, encouraging the brilliant boys in the school and the general studetns of the senior department to pass on to Oxford or Cambridge. [...] Only gradually, as King's College students insisted upon taking advantage of the opportunities and priveleges open to them, was the boycott broken down. (pp. 133-136)

Timrollpickering 15:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Userbox
This user attends or attended
King's College London.

Just to let you all know there's now the userbox {{user KCL}} you can add to your user page, which will add you to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: King's College London. --Daduzi talk 16:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

University Institution

The word Higher Education Institutes is a confusing one which may mislead someone. In fact, King’s or UCL or Imperial or LSE, all are University Institution. All the colleges, schools or institutes of University of London are basically Institution with in the university. As, University of London is a Federal University, there is no provision for the students to get in directly. In past it was possible but now it has been abolished. I have done some search on the web and got to know few info about Uni of London. I will put them in the Uni of London page later.

So, I have changed the HEI term and replaced it by University Institution. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 10:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Golden Triangle G5

The University of London (UoL) has no authority to state who is entitled to be classed as a 'Golden Triangle' institution. Indeed, it is in its interests to increase the number of its institutions that it classifies as being included, especially as ICL will be leaving UoL later this year, and LSE and UCL threatening to do the same. If LSE and UCL also left, the UoL would have none of the G5 institutions remaining, and therefore it is attempting to impose the Golden Triangle badge onto Kings (who have stated they want to remain as part of the UoL). This is a biased source which cannot be relied upon.

My Previous Confusion that I posted at UCL's discussion page "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(Talk • Contribs) 06:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)"

Finally I got the solution. 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 [3]

Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 06:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

History of King's College London

Recently I have gone through lot many web pages and got to know an extraordinary and thrilling history of King’s. But, unfortunately this article lacks at that point. It failed to present King’s history in a proper way. Don’t we incorporate some other sorted points and dates ? Rivalry with UCL can also be included here. What do you think guys ? Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 7:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There are good sources that could be used also.Coffeelover 17:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Fourth oldest university

86.140.115.200 added the claim that King's is the fourth oldest university in England which was subsequently removed by 194.74.160.114 without comment. As 86.140.115.200 correctly stated King's often uses the claim to be fourth oldest in its press releases [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Furtermore a glance at the other old universities in the UK supports the assertion:

  1. Oxford: 1167
  2. Cambridge: 1209
  3. UCL: 1826
  4. KCL: 1829
  5. Leeds: 1831
  6. Durham: 1832
  7. Manchester: 1851
  8. Nottingham: 1877
  9. Liverpool: 1882
  10. LSE: 1895
  11. Birmingham: 1900

I've reverted the change, and unless 194.74.160.114 can offer a good reason why this statement is incorrect I recommend we keep it in. Daduzi 22:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It all depends on what you count as a University.
UCL was founded in 1826 as 'the University of London'; but with no charter or legal recognition.
KCL was founded by royal charter in 1829, and opened in 1831; but was it a 'university'? Many organisations, not only universities, can be chartered; KCL's website only says that "The charter conferred upon the College the status of a self-governing public corporation with a legal personality and established an administrative framework." Like UCL, it didn't award any degrees until after it became part of the federal University of London in 1836 - its students went on to the sub-degree 'Associate of King's College' qualification or to degrees at Oxford or Cambridge.
Durham was founded in 1832, by Act of Parliament specifying it as a University; it then received a royal charter in 1837, the same year its first students graduated.
Leeds traces its history back to the founding of the Leeds School of Medicine in 1831; but did not call itself a University until it became part of the Victoria University in 1887; it became an independent university in 1904.
So yes, that list above is one possible chronology (though your Leeds date is a bit dodgy - I'm not sure why the Leeds School of Medicine (1831) should be considered a university, but not the much older Guys and St Thomas' schools of medicine incorporated into King's). By another one (going by earliest legal recognition as a university) Durham puts itself third. I suppose it's possible that King's may be fourth by ALL commonly-used methods of estimation.... TSP 00:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Erm when has KCL ever actually been a university? Since 1836 it has been a college of the University of London and before that wasn't it still just a college? Timrollpickering 00:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Well King's (like all UoL colleges) exists in some sort of weird grey area between a college of a university and a university in its own right. The King's website itself reflects this confusion where on the same page [9] it contradicts itself: "King's is one of the oldest and largest colleges of the University of London" compared with "King’s is in the top group of universities for research earnings". It should also be remembered that the "fourth oldest university" claim originally came from King's itself, clearly King's sees itself as a both a university and a college (as does UCL, for that matter). Daduzi 05:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I've modified the article. The term "Higher Education Institution" (HEI) seems to the most common catch-all phrase and it's better to use this than "university".
As for the founding arguments, I'd be fascinated to know who has supposedly deemed, and by what authority, the charter date to be the crucial point, especially as even the history book that King's regards as definitive doesn't say "a university was founded in 1829". Also to throw a real cat amongst the pidgeons, how distinct was Wales back in the 1820s? Would a contemporary have not used "England" to mean rather more than the current usage of the term? Timrollpickering 23:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem with using the term HEI is that could be seen to include teaching hospitals and technical institutes, and there were many of those around before King's founding. As for the question of Wales, Wales has never been considered a part of England as far as I'm aware and in any case it doesn't really matter: the distinction is clear now and so Welsh universities can't be considered English universities, even if they were in the past. --Daduzi talk 03:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
There was a time when "England" often really meant in modern terms "England and Wales" (and even the wider UK - for instance Andrew Bonar Law, a Scottish Canadian with strong Ulster links and distinctly not English, said he was "Prime Minister of England" in the 1920s; see also the A. J. P. Taylor quote on the Oxford History of England page). The habit of confining the use of "England" to, say, the land where you (or parents/grandparents) had to be born to qualify for the football team is quite a modern practice. Wales traditionally was rather subsumed into the Union, unlike Scotland which retained a distinct edge. It's really a bit of a side point, although Lampeter does very occassionally come up in searches for "third oldest university", but one that deserves at least consideration in all these debates since one needs to be clear whether we mean "England" now or "England" at the time. Timrollpickering 10:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

(reindenting)I think the general rule is that it is assumed modern day borders are being talked about. So, for instance, a reference to "the oldest building in Austria" would generally refer to the oldest building in modern day Austria, rather than the oldest building in the countries of the Austrian Empire. On that basis I don't think we need to worry overmuch about whether or not Wales was considered part of England at the time King's was founded. I stand corrected on my earlier historical assumption, though, thanks for the info. --Daduzi talk 18:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not entirely happy with the term "higher education institution" (for the reasons outlined above, namely that it could incluyde teaching hospitals and technical institutes of which there's many that are older than King's or indeed UCL). There must be some alternate wording we can settle on that accurately reflects the claim. --Daduzi talk 20:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

And once again footnotes trying to explain things get modified, throwing in stuff about the LSE not having a charter (when the LSE is not technically a university and this is a crucial distinction in all this!) and the three pages drift out of sync. Would it be better to have a page for something like Third oldest university in England debate that could set out all the arguments for Durham, King's and UCL (and for that matter others like Manchester - whose current logo says "Est 1824" - Lampeter, Nottingham and any others that get thrown about), rather than trying to keep at least three pages all singing from the same hymn sheet without bias on a very convoluted topic? Timrollpickering 16:37, 9 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)

Picture

Cornwall House is alright, but a picture of the Strand Building would be perfect. Anyone have one? --Coffeelover 10:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

-- Agreed, the picture isn't exactly the best one of KCL. Could someone upload an image of the library or the Strand Building?

I've uploaded a good picture of the Strand but I couldn't replace it with the image of Cornwall House. This is the URL could someone expirienced please replace it with the Cornwall House image. Ozgurgerilla 01:43, 26 April 2006 (GMT)

-- A great picture to include would be of the college chapel, which is celebrated and ornate. Another might be the great hall entrance (if someone could remove the motorbikes habittually parked there. Zach Beauvais 23:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the college chapel would be a great picture because King's wants to be respected for its religious tolerance and a chapel which represents a religion isn't the best. Maybe the the South Range of Strand I've seen it today and it looks amazing! Ozgur Gerilla 02:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

--It would be good if there was a picture of the Guy's campus as it is one the main campuses. Anybody got any pics?

--There is a new version of KCL's logo which includes 'University of London' term. In the KCL page, it is named as kings_logo_v2.gif. Can we replace the old logo by the new one ? Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 06:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

---There are some pics of chapel and campuses on http://www.kcl.ac.uk/college/history/campuses/index.html. Somebody could have look to see if any could be added.---

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)

Another problem is the ratings in terms of the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) tests. The article, under "Departmental", states first that 5 is the highest rating, then that 5* is the highest. In fact (and I will try to track down my source soon) the highest rating is 6*, which means that the Dept in question has achieved a 5* rating in the last 3 consecutive RAEs. Even if, for lack of sources, we do not include the latter point, we should at least try for some uniformity in the article about what is the highest attainable grade in an RAE. Chrisfow 00:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Famous King's People

I have started working on Famous King's People section. Hope to get constructive ideas and advices. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 09:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The easiest available source for alumni and academics is Category:People associated with King's College London and its daughter cats. You could go through and take a selection of names (but please, not all) from there. Please check, as you go, that each person you add to the list is verifiably an alumnus or academic; in the case of alumni, WikiProject Universities recommends adding graduation date and degree, where available. — mholland 14:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually I am not going to add all the names of the alumni here as there is already a separate article on them. What I am trying here is to give an idea on King's alumni and academician. I have a plan to divide King's People into three different sections: 1.Nobel Laureate 2.Famous Academician and 3.Alumni. These three sections will only contain people with so called 'Celebrity' image. Rest of the people will be listed in the main King's alumni/people article. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 17:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

King's Logo Version 2

I tried to add the current logo of the college which is used every where including webs and publications. But unfortunately it does not look good though the file quality is pretty fine. I think it is getting stressed. Is there any one who can solve this problem ? Thanks in advance. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 09:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If you enter the parameter image_size beneath image_name in the infobox, you can override the default size: set it to the width in px of the image you're using. I have reverted to the 'old' logo for the time being, as your replacement is marked for speedy deletion because it has a permission-only copyright tag on it. I'd be glad to help you with the copyright/sourcing, but the new logo is very similar to the old logo. — mholland (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Student Exchange

There are numerous at King's - is this section necessary? It omits more than it includes. Dieschoenemuellerin 08:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation?

KCl is also a chemical and it got really confusing for me. Please put a disambiguation page or a "did you mean" or what ever for KCl element. Link for the element is Potassium chloride. You might be thinking why i didnt do it myself, but last time i did it, it got deleted by someone. So please do it for me.-- Penubag  07:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

reputation

ok, i realise that these pages aren't meant to be an advert BUT king's has one of the best reputations in the country, it is a highly prestigious uni with professors who are world renowned. i think there should be a section which deals with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.100.170 (talk • contribs)

See [10]. Badgerpatrol 13:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I think Badgerpatrol is quite correct. Ranking section of King's was prepared by me and I tried to be neutral while making the segment. I added four rankings there and all of them shows the actual reputation of King's. Moreover, I added Nobel Laureate and Famous People segment which also acts the same. I think, a separate Reputation segment is unnecessary. We know, King's is one of the most prestigious institutions not only in Europe but also in the world and any one can understand this fact if he or she just goes through this article once. Regards, Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 11:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

University in its own right?

King's calls itself a university. It has degree-awarding powers and has signalled to the University of London its right to use them. How is it not a university in its own right? https://www.kcl.ac.uk/about/governance/acboard/

194.74.160.114 17:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a constituent college of a federal university. Holding degree awarding powers doesn't automatically bring university status - most of the large colleges are seeking them.
A lot of the colleges are seen as de facto universities on a par with actual ones and may use the term "university" quite casually, but de jure they are not. Timrollpickering 18:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Since when has Wikipedia favoured de jure definitions over de facto ones? For that matter, what is the de jure definition of a university in the UK? --Daduzi talk 20:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this "de jure" and "de facto" application does seem rather odd. It's obvious that KCL is a university and a member of the federal University of London, just as UK is both a state and a member of a confederation (EU).

The EU is a union of countries, not a state in its own right. As for King's, when has it ever been granted the title of "university" in its own right? Timrollpickering 16:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I have debated in World Universities Debating Championship and saw many famous debaters getting trapped by their own logic. Here Timrollpickering is now in a same situation. How? Let me explain. What you said, EU is a union of countries not a state in its own right. I do agree with your logic! and this logic is enough to prove King's as a university in its own right. Actually University of London is a federation of universities (as you showed EU). EU is not a country by its own right but its members are. Similarly, institutions with in the University of London Federation are universities by their own right! It's your logic, not mine. :-). Now, let me show my logics. King's College London (KCL) was established by a Royal Charter 1829 with the support of Church of England in their own tradition. KCL isn't the only institution established in this way. Columbia University was established as King's College by a similar Royal Charter which was later renamed to its current name. From 1954 - 1976 Columbia performed as King's College. Canada's most famous university, University of Toronto was established as King's College in 1827 again by a similar Royal Charter and changed its name in 1849. Not only these two universities, lot of other famous universities established by the British Kings with the title of college are actually universities in their own rights. This list includes, Ivy League universities - Harvard University as Harvard College, Princeton University as College of New Jersey, Brown University as College of Rhode Island. It is noted that all those universities just renamed their titles not gained the university status. Moreover, Dartmouth College is a Ivy League university though it is still titled as college. It is true, Royal Charter wasn't given only to the educational institutions but also Cities or Companies. But, whenever it was given to an educational institution, it was a university in its own right, might be titled as College. In this way KCL is a university in its own right, formed by a Royal Charter, considered as a university by the newspapers while making the university ranking, a founding member of the Russel Group of Universities, considered as a university in case of funding, gets scholarship quota for ORS or Dorothy Hopkins scheme as a university and so on. I believe this explanation covers the status of University College London, Imperial College London, Trinity College Dublin, University College Dublin and other such colleges who are actually universities in their own rights. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
King's may now hold the power to award its own degrees but it doesn't actually do it. The federal university does. When it does start awarding its own degrees, it will be reasonable to style it a university. By the way, Trinity is not a good example as it is in fact the one and only college of the University of Dublin (in fact, it often (usually?) styles itself "University of Dublin, Trinity College" or similar). Badgerpatrol 15:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I do agree. Trinity is also considered as the synonym of University of Dublin. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
No, Trinity is the University of Dublin. There are no other colleges or institutes. Badgerpatrol 16:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The issue of whether or not an institution has or uses degree awarding powers is a bit of a red herring. A lot of institutions were granted the degree awarding powers (and immediately changed their names) some years before they got university status. Look for instance at University of Chichester - "Chichester Institute of Higher Education" until 1999 then gets the powers and becomes "University College Chichester", then in 2005 the Privy Council accord university status and it becomes the "University of Chichester". Whether or not the privy council has conferred university status is surely the crucial point. Timrollpickering 19:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Also true. The description "university" has a very specific and protected meaning in the UK (although this has been eroded a bit in recent years). My understanding was that the conferment of degree-awarding powers had necessitated a petition to parliament to change the status of the relevant colleges- if this hasn't been done, then they aren't universities, full stop. Badgerpatrol 00:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes I know, Trinity is the University of Dublin and that is why they are synonymous of each other. Trinity's official page has a nice and long history of Trinity and they used this term 'synonym' there.Anyway, let's give it a full stop and talk about King's. Article on Imperial College London says it is a university. University of London's official web-page also addressed Imperial as university and wrote Consistently rated in the top three UK university institutions, Imperial College London is a world leading science-based university whose reputation for excellence in teaching and research attracts students (11,000) and staff (6,000) of the highest international quality...[11]. University of London also wrote about Queen Mary, Queen Mary is a research university, with over 80 per cent of research staff working in departments where research is of international or national excellence (RAE 2001). It has a strong international reputation, with around 20 per cent of students coming from over 100 countries.[12]. How do you defend these statements? Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 14:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, it's just that your argument seemed to be that Trinity was a somehow a component of a larger multi-college federated institution. It isn't, and so the example is not really relevant. (As you are ware, but to avoid any confusion to others, University College Dublin is NOT related to Trinity or the "University of Dublin" but is actually a college of the completely separate federated National University of Ireland). Let me at least be very clear- the UoL colleges have almost all the trappings of universities, are the size of universities, and resemble universities in almost every way. They (and the federated colleges in Wales) are often conflated with universities in everyday language (although the students and staff themselves actually rarely or never refer to the institutions as "universities" in everyday speech, as you will be aware if you are an alumnus). But if they have not had the legal status of "university" conferred upon them by parliament then they are not universities. Tim contends that they have not, I'm personally not clear as to what the current status is (although I'm inclined to cede to his expertise here), things seem to change on a very frequent basis and I no longer keep up with it (I personally also see awarding their own degrees as important- as far as I am aware, no London college currently awards its own degrees (maybe Imperial?), although I stand to be corrected). As for your particular sources (and let me be clear, it is certainly true that the colleges are often labelled as universities in the media) the Imperial reference is actually to a story detailing their exit from the federal university anyway (!) with the input you relate being clearly contributed from the Imperial Press office, not the UoL. The QMC news story, if read in context, clearly labels QMC as a constituent college (Queen Mary is one of the leading colleges in the federal University of London). To be honest, this more than anything probably reflects the prevailing political situation- Imperial et al. are global academic powerhouses and are keen to leave, whilst the less prestigious colleges (QMC, RHUL, Goldsmiths, dare I say it, King's) are not quite so keen to become fully independent. As Tim rightly points out, there is a difference between what is actually a university under the law and what to all intents and purposes is considered to be a university on an everyday pragmatic level. In some sense, both points of view are correct here. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 15:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Several of the colleges (most if not all of Imperal, UCL, KCL, LSE and QMUL - QMC is out of date usage now) either have been granted or are in the process of obtaining degree awarding powers. Different colleges are taking a different approach - some seem to want them just in reserve or for tactical reasons but others most definitely starting to exercise them. (It's a slow process as existing students are enrolled for UofL degrees, however Imperial at least is offering current students the option to take an Imperial degree.) However this is not the same as taking legal university status which would be a sign of leaving the federation - indeed when the proposed Imperial-UCL merger was announced back in 2002 the use of the word "university" in the first press release was immediately seen as a sign that the combined institute would go it alone. (On the wider point about colleges preferring to stay in the federation or become universities in their own right this is complicated - and indeed ascribing a single view to a college is questionable.) Timrollpickering 15:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
First of all I would like to thank both of you for your active participation in this long debate. Actually it s a fact that King's is not an independent university rather a constituent college of the UoL. I have my cousins at King's and QMUL. Whenever they talk about those institutions they use to address them some time college and sometime university and they even do not bother about the fact university or college. QMUL student union page also address QMUL as Queen Mary College/Queen Mary University and UoL official page also address it as college and university in the same article. It actually indicates that these colleges are so big and so prestigious (I can not agree that only Imperial has the global reputation. It is really hard to imagine the popularity of King's and UCL in Asia if someone just do not come and see the real picture) that they can act like a university. Actually these colleges are treated like a university while providing them different facilities. That is why we propose the term 'University in its own right'. And about Trinity, I already agreed that Trinity is the University of Dublin. I have applied to Trinity as a PhD student and in all the official forms and other documents they wrote University of Dublin, Trinity College. Besides, their webpage also shows the same title. So, it is a proven fact that Trinity is the Uni of Dublin. Interestingly, if you have a look on my post second time (I did it to yours and found it), then you can see we are debating on Trinity but actually saying/supporting the same thing! Anyway, it was really nice talking to both of you and hope to meet you again in some other article or who knows, may be in this article again! Regards, Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 08:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, nice talking to you- I think you kind of missed my point re. your reference to Trinity, but it isn't worth labouring. I didn't say that only Imperial has a global reputation, I said Imperial et al. ("et alii" = "and others"). It is unambiguously true that the LSE, Imperial, UCL and perhaps King's are globally renowned for the quality of their teaching and research, although I wouldn't say that about any of the rest, to be absolutely frank (excellent institutions though they all are). Your point seems to be that the status of the colleges as either "colleges" or "universities" is ambiguous- I agree that that is the case on an everyday level, but perhaps not de jure. Thanks for the chat, Badgerpatrol 09:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

On 01/08/07 King's emailed all its students, informing them that new students enrolling from September 2007 onwards will graduate with degrees awarded by King's - not UoL - and that students graduating from summer 2007 onwards had the choice of degree awarded by either UoL or King's. King's has called itself a university in press releases/publicity material etc for some time - it's basically a university affiliated with the UoL rather than a constituent part of the latter. 194.74.160.114 19:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I am a prospective King's student having an offer to join in this September though I altered my starting session one year and planning to start in September 2008. However, I am regularly receiving e-mails and hard documents from the King's authority and they never sent me any such document that says King's will award their own degree to its newly enrolled students. You might mix up this information with Imperial. Imperial says, they are going to award their own degree to its newly enrolled students from 2007. Students enrolled before 2007 will get the chance to select their degree between UoL and Imperial. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 03:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The anonymous user is correct about the degree awarding powers - several colleges (also including UCL) have obtained them and the University of London has amended its statutes to allow colleges to award their own degrees while remaining constituent colleges of the university. King's is one of the ones that will actually be exercising them, but students who enrolled before 2007 have to still be offered the UofL degree as that is what they signed up for (but they can voluntarily opt for a King's degree instead). If the King's press office is using "university" to describe King's then frankly they're being a bit naughty, though as their main market is not up on the intricacies of the UofL then I can understand why they're doing it. (And it's not as bad as some - Cardiff used "Cardiff University" as a public brand for five years before leaving the University of Wales and Swansea is currently similarly flying false colours.) For King's to be a university in its own right it would need both independence from the University of London and the formal conferrment of the title "university" by the Privy Council which is not automatic upon getting degree awarding powers. Timrollpickering 10:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Interesting! I didn't know that. Is there any formal move from King's side that shows they are preparing to leave UoL? Would you please add some references so that we can put this information in the main article? Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 12:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The future of a college within the UofL is a very complicated subject, with numerous claims, counterclaims, bluffs, doublebluffs and so forth that make it difficult to easily summarise. Most of the information I have has been picked up orally, having spent the past year as a University of London Union officer, rather than from formal press releases and the like though those were undoubtedly produced. Timrollpickering 13:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Endowment

Are there any more recent figures regarding King's endowment? Also the web reference to the 2005 accounts no longer works. --Jamesmh2006 18:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Nomination

I have nominated King's College London article for GA. Please provide your constructive criticism regarding KCL article so that editors who are working here can improve it further. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 07:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

GA's cannot have {{trivia}}. Either integrate the trivia into prose, or if there really is a good reason for a trivia section (which is highly unlikely), remove the template. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


Good Article Fight

Dear Wikipedians, You may know that this article was nominated for GA last year but failed due to the presence of Trivia section. In recent days, some of the Wikipedians worked massively on this article to make it a strong candidate for GA. This article is almost prepared for GA nomination except some minor errors. Please have a look at this link: Good Article Check. This is an automated script that helps WP to find faults in any article. Please try to fix erroneous stuff (as much as you can) and then we'll take our final step, GA Nomination. Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 16:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What is you opinion of my addition to 'Notable Alumni' (with references) that the influential trio of geographers Professors Stamp, Linton and Wooldridge all studied at Kings? This was deleted almost immediately by User:Jamesmh2006 (who refuses to respond to questions on the subject) with the misleading edit summary 'fix tags'. Pterre (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you should add them again. Unfortunately User:Jamesmh2006 removed content with false and misleading edit summery in past as well (look at history). Since he is contributing massively and regularly on Wikipedia, I hope in future he will be more rational and honest while editing any article. I would like to thank NAHID for his contribution and kind attention on this article. It would be really nice if you contribute at least at a random basis. I have been trying to improve this article for a long time but I never found any true helping hand to give me advice or help me jointly. Could you please point out different flaws that you think should be fixed immediately? That may help me to make it a strong candidate for GA. Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 11:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Few words for the reviewers

1. It is well written:

It's prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct. It also follows manual of style guidelines.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

84 citations have been added. We carefully avoided all the original research or references that are biased towards self-promotion. Plenty of third party references are added to keep its neutrality. References with dead/moved links are removed using automated scripts.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

Yes it is. It provides an overall picture of King's College London, starting from its history, structure, reputation from a neutral point of view, research, student union and activities to alumni and a comprehensive list of Nobel laureates who were member of this institution.

4. It is neutral:

Yes it is. Some of the issues were challenged (see above debates) and later modified as per consensus. We tried to maintain neutrality and verifiability through citations and also recommendations from non-active editors.

5. It is stable:

There is no edit war going on. Last edit war occurred few months back though a minor one. A word (member) was challenged by a non-active editor who kept changing it with college. Later, we (who were against this opinion) back stepped and accepted his opinion and it is still written as college in the lead.

6. It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images:

Plenty of appropriate free images are used to illustrate this article.

On that note it is mentioned that I nominated this article for GA last year but it failed due to the presence of a trivia section. We fixed it, and also cleaned many other issues so that it can meet GA criteria. In case you feel that any kind of modification is required, please write your suggestions and recommendations here in the talk page and allow me for a single day to fix them. Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 17:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

  • Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?


  • If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?


  • Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?


At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008 GA Review

The requirements for a Good Article are as follows:

1. It is well written. In this respect:

  • Some minor spelling errors. Run this through spell check again to verify.
  • Try to expand the “Schools of study” section into something containing more than a list.
  • The People section jumps immediately into a subsection. This is not accepted practice. There should be something written between the beginning of a section and the beginning of a subsection; a link to a main article is not acceptable.
  • The entire Statistics section seems pretty Trivia-like and really attempts should be made to integrate this information into other sections of the article. Some of it also seems redundant in that it has been mentioned elsewhere in the article.
  • Remove that blue infobox from the “See also” section. It is inappropriate for it to be placed there.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:

  • There are entire sections that still lack citations: Campuses section (all subsections except for the refurbishment subsection lack citations) and there are no citations on any of the libraries except for in the introductory paragraph. You need more citations to support some of these statements.
  • Again, the sections on undergraduate courses and postgraduate courses lacks citations.
  • Introductory paragraph of Student’s Union section requires citations to back up these statements
  • Competition with UCL section lacks citations
  • Good job in ensuring that all notable alumni are cited
  • Please add citations for the Notable Academics. Please try and stay away from lists within the article. If possible, turn this section into prose.
  • The Commercialisation section lacks citations.
  • King’s in fiction and movies section lacks citations.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:

  • Yes

4. Does the article maintain Neutrality?

  • Yes.

5. It is stable. In this respect, it:

  • The article is stable with no recent edit wars.

6. It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images. In this respect:

  • There are several images that all appear to be allowable.
  • I would try to place the photos in the appropriate sections. For example, the photo of Guy’s Campus is showing up in the WaterLoo campus section.
  • There are a few photos that really don’t seem to belong. For example, the images of the statues aren’t illustrating anything about the buildings, which is what the photos should be exemplifying. I would remove these as this is an article on KCL, not Sappho Classical sculpture

In conclusion, with the article as it now stands, I am going to fail this article. There is still a lot of work to do, a lot of citations to add, and some tweaking to be done with the content. But you’re getting close. will381796 (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A few additional comments worth mentioning:
The 'citation needed' tags are huge red flags regarding lack of citations, though will found a few more areas.
The lead section is very short, and could be expanded to better summarize the article. There are an unusually large number of citations in the lead itself (proportionally to content), which is somewhat of a red flag. The lead should be a summary, and, while citations are not discouraged here, they should be used only when absolutely necessary, favoring a summary of other material in the article and the citations should be placed on that information, not in the lead.
'Academic reputation' has very little text and two big tables. I don't think the historical ranking information is all that notable, and the tables seem to be putting extra weight on something that some may view as having a certain bias, which could be an WP:NPOV issue. Suggestion: drop the tables entirely, and add a brief summary of the academic reputation and rankings with only the most recent data to a section on academics.
Some manual of style issues with unnecessary bold text.
Lots of subsections, and several with very little text -- could be a completeness/comprehensiveness issue. Consider utilizing primarily main sections only, and use subsections only when there's a lot of information to talk about in a particular topic.
'Schools of study' has several external links within article text. External links should only go in the 'external links' section.
The 'external links' section should be the very last section. 'References', and 'Further reading' (change from 'bibliography') should be placed immediately before 'external links', in that order. Place 'see also' before 'references'.
Too many subsections under 'people' -- looks very disorganized. You might consider adding this to a separately linked article.
Overall, Will hit the big stuff. But I do agree with his decision to fail the article. I'd probably rate this at the early B-class stage at this point. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for reviewing different issues of this article. I am going to fix each and every points mentioned above gradually. But at the same time, I would like to draw your attention to few sections for further comments:
  • First of all, ranking section. Initially I prepared it as a text paragraph but later people started to create tables in other articles and all on a sudden I found a table in this article too (check UCL or Imperial article). Though I strongly support text instead of tables.
  • People are more interested to insert random name in the people section instead of preparing this article properly. There exists a separate KCL people list. I am planning to remove most of the names from the main article since they are already present in that list.
  • When it comes to listing the names of people in any article, if its unsourced I will immediately remove it from the article as a possible WP:BLP violation. When it comes to living people, EVERYTHING needs to be sourced. will381796 (talk) 01:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't I put the main article link at the top of the respective column? Previously I followed UCL (GA article) in this regard. Comments needed.
  • Its fine to have the link to the main article IF it is followed by some type of prose. If you look at the UCL article, all of the section headings, even if they have a link to a main article, also contain some sentences followed by, if needed, a header for a subsection. The KCL has the Section heading, followed by a link to the main article, followed by a subsection heading, with no actual written words present in that main section. This is what I mean when I said that only a link to main article is unacceptable. I also am halfway leaning towards putting the UCL article up to be reassessed as I don't think the current version meets GA standards right now. will381796 (talk) 01:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I have already removed many claim that violates NPOV. Could you please be specific so that I can remove all of them.
I didn't find any NPOV issues and I thought the article did a good job of remaining neutral. will381796 (talk) 01:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Is there any spell checkers for WP so that I can fix spellings? Pleas let me know.
  • Not that I know of, but you can copy and paste the article into a word processor and run spell check in that program. Then make your changes, copy and paste back here into the text box. That's what I do anyways. will381796 (talk) 01:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Try Firefox as your Web browser (it's free) - this highlights misspellings as you type. Variants available including US and UK English. Using a word processor needs care - you should not paste text from MS-Word due to character set issues. Pterre (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Once again thanks for your (both) review. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 21:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

RADA alumni

I have removed the RADA alumni section from this article. RADA alumni are certainly not considered to be, nor do they consider themselves King's alumni. RADA is merely administered by King's. Besides, RADA already has its own article and it's own list of notable alumni, therefore I see no reason why it should also be included here. 79.75.242.170 (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Surprised to see RADA article seems to have no alumni list at present. ??? Wingspeed (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Franklin-Wilkins Building

J. S. Mill famously or notoriously argued that proper names have no 'connotation' but 'denotation.' Then, the name "Franklin-Wilkins Building" should only denote the named building, but connote nothing else. In practice, however, it may connote whatever I inevitably have in mind in addition, say, good-evil for "Franklin-Wilkins."

To those who know the DNA history, the name Wilkins may sound like a name of shame rather then fame! and the joint name Franklin-Wilkins like a forced reconciliation, or worsely like a covering-up of what may have been shamelessly conspired to snatch at DNA by Crick and Watson of Cambridge, secretly with Wilkins of King's College.

The more explicated, the more disgusting, suggesting the worse morality. The popular mind reading capacity of the college authorities conerned is so doubtful, which should be most resolute to avoid any little academic misconduct. From the DNA history, we surely learn no lesson but Machiavellism of science. Are we all right indeed to do so? --KYPark (talk) 09:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me make it very simple; make it just "Franklin Building" instead of "Franklin-Wilkins Building". For people like justice most, and they may not like Wilkins to be their guardian angel. What was once ill done cannot be undone. This may be beyond the charity of Christianity. --KYPark (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Alumni discussion

How would it be possible for Keats to have attenden Kings College London, as mentioned in the article? He died six or so years before its founding in 1829. Unless he posthumously attained a degree here or his ghost is reading for a much-belated PhD., I can't see how this could be likely. Zach Beauvais 23:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of the Alumni claims on this page are pretty tenuous. In order:
- Sir James Black - staff, not a student
- Maurice Wilkins - staff, not a student
- Sir Charles Scott Sherrington - staff at St Thomas' Hospital
- Sir Frederick Gowland Hopkins - student at Guy's Hospital
- Florence Nightingale - founded a nursing school at St Thomas' Hospital
- John Keats - I can't find any connection
- Sir William Gilbert - actual student
- Thomas Hardy - student of a sort - he took evening classes in French at King's
- Michael Nyman - actual student
- Rory Bremner - actual student
- David Bellamy - I can't find any connection (he went to Bedford College, but that's now part of Royal Holloway, not King's)
- parts of Bedford College were absorbed into King's and some students, notably Biochemistry, were awarded King's College, University of London degrees.
- Gary Lineker - actual student (briefly)
- Martin Bashir - actual student
- Desmond Tutu - actual student (postgraduate)
TSP 02:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Keats studied at Guys, so would now be classed as a King's alumnus by extension [13].Daduzi 00:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Something serious seems to have happened to a huge chunk of the latter part of the alumni list - scores of "geologists". Included, for instance is Evelyn Underhill - theologist at a stretch, possibly, but not geologist. Just stumbled across this list by chance. Somebody with an interest able to fix??

P.S. I also (see above) was amazed to see Keats on this list. Wingspeed (talk) 00:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


Since I see no evidence that anybody visits Talk:List of King's College London alumni, I'm posting here a conflated version of my comments there. The situation is quite grave.

Have the concerns expressed by others above been addressed? Does the list, for example, still include former teachers at King's?

The very first name on the list, Alfred Barry, is not a former pupil of King's but of King's College School, not the same thing at all. He later became Principal of King's but is an alumnus, rather, of Trinity College, Cambridge, as his WP entry makes clear. King's College School, far from later merging with King's - the sort of justification used to include the likes of Keats in the list - moved from the Strand to Wimbledon in 1897. This one example is symptomatic. A former teacher or administrator is not, by the dictionary definition, an alumnus.

The list in its present form manifests symptoms of chronic listitus, rather than an appropriate concern to inform. The additional somewhat juvenile territorial urge to include at all costs those who once studied at institutions later absorbed into King's renders it at best highly confusing and, at worst, profoundly anachronistic. Its effect, in other words, is the converse of the proper function of a work of reference: the increase, rather than the alleviation, of ignorance. Wingspeed (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:King%27s_College_London/Archive_1&oldid=732248321"