Talk:University of Luton

message: Someone (a resident of Luton) incorporated much advertising material from the university website into the page.  There is a full re-write on the temporary page.  Feel free to add to this. - Pilatus 23:11, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

message: We seem to have a tricky problem with this page. Most of the the editing seems to be being done by people who (for what ever reason) solely add negative views of the University and people who have a connection with the University (I guess as staff or students) who want to see the University presented more positively. A lot of editing is done anonymously too. Nobody seems to be writting from a genuinely independent viewpoint. The University isn't perfect by a long way but it isn't universally awful either. Pages on other UK universities don't seem to attract such strong feelings even when they're similar institutions to Luton.
Anyway, I'm afraid I have reverted the last editing as it really is factually inaccurate. No staff were made compulsorily redundant. I think about 100 choose to take voluntary redundancy during the restructuring of 2003.
Perhaps we can discuss how to achieve a balanced article on the talk page rather than just accumulating positive and negative views. And of course we'll need a new University of Bedfordshire page on the 1 August 2006. Presumably we'll then redirect this page to that one? - Pdean 08:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance! 

message: If Pdean really is an employee of the University of Luton, he seems to be remarkably unfamiliar with the recent history of his own institution.
He writes on 10 June 2006:
'Anyway, I'm afraid I have reverted the last editing as it really is factually inaccurate. No staff were made compulsorily redundant. I think about 100 choose to take voluntary redundancy during the restructuring of 2003'.
According to a Freedom of Information Act deposition (signed by the 'University Secretary' and dated 12 April 2005) which I have in front of me, the University made 64 members of staff compulsorily redundant in 2000-01, and completed voluntary redundancy agreements with 18 staff in 2002, 13 staff in 2003 and 46 staff in 2004 (the latter at a cost of c£2m). This information is now included.
Incidentally, I have checked all the other material on this page against the extensive archive I hold on Luton, and it appears to be factually accurate.
Pdean asks for veracity and truthfulness. I totally agree with those sentiments. However, he ought to head his own words and refrain from editing out information that is a correct and relevant part of the record.
NT
15/06/06
PS I have amended the statement about Luton QAA teaching assessments to fit the facts.
The reports on Luton that are referred to can be viewed at
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/reports/instReports.asp?instID=H-0026 and
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/reports/archive/oldInstReports.asp?instID=H-0026
Readers may wish to know that many - perhaps most - departments in UK universities scored highly in QAA subject reviews at this time, one reason why they were subsequently discontinued.
:The wikipedia is an encyclopedia and has well established policies for editors primarily based around the concept on Neutral Point of View. So, it would not be appropriate for me or anyone else directly associated the University to post endless good news stories into the wikipedia and we have not done that.
:However, your editing (which seems to always be anonymous) appears to be written from a very clear POV. For whatever reason, you wish to present the University is as negative a light as possible. That is contrary to Wikipedia policy. You don't apear to have collected FOI information regarding redundancies from every UK University and posted it to their wikipedia articles and therefore it must be assumed that you have some particular grievance against Luton. You are of course entitled to your opinion but you should not use the wikipedia to pursue your agenda - it just brings the wikipedia into disrepute.
:It would be better if this article were written and edited by people who have no direct link with University and with no POV to peddle. I am refraining from editing this article because I am biased. I think you should do the same. - Pdean 05:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not how Wikipedia works. The selective use of facts is POV. You are not editing in accordance with Wikipedia policy. A balanced view of the growth and contraction of the University would also report the times when the University has expanded - not particularly interesting to most readers but would be consistent with Wikipedia policy. I have not and will not speculate on your motives. Your actions give the impression that you are using the wikipedia as a vehicle for expressing your viewpoint. Anyway, I'm no longer optimistic of making much further progress on this via this discussion. I'm minded to refer this to informal mediation by an independent editor (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal) - could we agree on that? - Pdean 13:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I have requested informal mediation. I won't post anything further here until there's been some input from that process. - Pdean 17:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  University of Luton - the facts 

message: Res ipse loq.
NT 21/06/06
195.93.21.134 16:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re the above discussion 

message: In adding my last comment, I see that I accidently erased Ideogram's last message. I apologise for this. He urged anonymous contributors to register.
195.93.21.134 16:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Register 

message: I see that I should also apologise to Pdean, as I appear to have cut out some of his words too.
I believe he that wrote that his withdrawl from the discussion was without prejudice.
I hope he will rectify my mistake.
195.93.21.134 16:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apologies, too, to Pdean 

message: Pdean, do you wish me to close this case?  Ideogram 17:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this process has run it's course. As a final suggestion I would ask NT to register an account so that any contributions are attributed to a single author. And, on reflection, I am not planning to edit the article any further as I'm concerned that that would be counter-productive. If the article appears to be developing thoughtfully and I feel I can make a useful contribution within the wikipedia context then I will. Thanks for your input Adam - your patience with us has been admirable! - Pdean 21:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will close the case.  Ideogram 21:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Close mediation? 

message: Today, I have
1. added in information about the recent QAA Subject Engagement reports concerning Luton;
2. added in one or two comments on the QAA 2005 institutional audit report (necessary in the light of Pdean's earlier anxieties);
3. tidied up and expanded existing remarks about Luton's performance in the Times Good University Guide; and
4. added one or two phrases to clarify citations (e.g Ive noted that the QAA is the government's quality watchdog, as I imagine many outside the UK will be unfamiliar with this fact).
Regarding the QAA Subject Engagement reports, I have tried to obtain these from the QAA, but have been told: "the reports are confidential to the Agency, the institution and the Higher Education Funding Council" (letter, 20 October 2004).  I am aware that Luton has from time to time quoted from what it claims are these reports on its website, and implied that they are positive re teaching. Hence my formulation in the article. Perhaps other contributors could indicate as to whether they agree that I have been fair here?
Regarding my citation of the Times Good University Guide, and my judgement that it should be referred to as 'respected', I note that Michael Shattock, (ex-Registrar at Warwick University and currently professor at the UK's Institute of Education), comments as follows:" The Times offers the longest running and statistically the most respected annual league table, increasingly relying on data made available through HESA [the Higher Education Statistics Agency], as well as from RAE scores" ( Michael Shattock, Managing Successful Universities (Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2003), p. 7).
Of course, I recognise that league tables always invite controversy. For the sake of balance, I have included Mr. Ebdon's comments of June 2006. I must say that, to me at least, these seem puzzing. Is it really credible, as Mr. Ebdon seems to claim, that the authors of the Guide 'adjust criteria' in the way alleged? Anyway, I have e-mailed Mr. Ebdon on 19 June 2006 and invited him to expand on his allegations, and when he replies I will adjust the entry as necessary.
NT
195.93.21.134 09:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing on 25 June 2006 

message: I see that I have referred to QAA 'Subject Engagement reports'.
This is a colloquialism.
The reports in question are actually called 'Developmental Engagement reports'.
Jargon!
I have adjusted the entry.
NT
195.93.21.134 09:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oops