Talk:Golden triangle (universities)

message: 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 bd 06:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm highly sceptical about KCL's inclusion. It can be said without much debate the LSE, ICL (as specialist institutions) and Oxbridge and the very top four universities in the UK. UCL is next. But KCL has been overshadowed in recent years by the likes of Warwick, York, Durham, Bristol etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.252.222 (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonesense. KCL has a global reputation, in North America and Europe and Asia. Its name is taken to mean quality. The likes of Bristol et al cannot be deemed as equal. Not in academic reputation and marque value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.142.147 (talk) 02:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay the use of the term "Golden Triangle" is confused because AFAIK there is no official definition or even general agreement on just what the London angle encompasses. Everyone seems to include Imperial and UCL, but beyond that it depends upon the individual user's preferences/biases. I've seen it limited to just Imperial/UCL as well as being used for the full University of London (some other college faculties rank just as highly as some Imperial/UCL ones), with various combinations of colleges in between. Timrollpickering 16:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Golden Triangle

message: I believe that, the term "Golden Triangle" actually refers to the universities with the most research funding (by far), rather than the most prestigious universities, (the 'golden' part refering to money)...meaning Oxford, Cambridge, UCL and Imperial, with Kings sometimes being included (having considerably less research funding than Oxbridge UCL and Imperial, but considerably more than the other unis), but LSE never being included as it doesn't have exceptional research funding despite its prestige.  
A guardian article here defines it this way:  
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,,968896,00.html 
"The golden triangle of Oxford, Cambridge, University College London and Imperial College, show no sign of slowing down in their race away from the rest of the sector when it comes to research funding. "
Including Oxford, Cambridge, UCL and Imperial but excluding KCL ad LSE.  
A New Scientist article here defines it this way, also not mentioning Kings College London or LSE.  
http://www.newscientistjobs.com/insider/article.action?article.id=insider132&focusId=u
Here, Bristol University Vice Chancellor Professor Eric Thomas again, refers to the "Golden Triangle" as the best funded universities
http://www.bris.ac.uk/university/vc/financial-times.html
"Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial, University College London and, possibly, Kings College London - the "Golden Triangle". ", notably excluding LSE and indicating that Kings College London's status in it is questionable.
The grouping of universities refered to as the "G5" (Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial, UCL and KCL) as a sub-group within the Russel Group, refers to something different.  
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/events/hecu3/documents/frederico_matos.doc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoJoyInMudville (talk • contribs) 02:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LSE does have exceptional funding - it has the highest funding for social sciences (hence its place in the Russell Group) but because it doesn't do science (where most of the money is) its total funding level is significantly lower on the lists. One could interpret it either way. Timrollpickering 08:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This point about research funding is correct, and on that count KCL is certainly a leader: its research revenues are around £100m annually.--Duncan 12:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golden Triangle refers to research funding... 

message: It is interesting what is written below. I think that most people would agree that SOAS has a much stronger reputation than King's. (So, too, does the Courtauld Institute and the Royal Academy and Royal College of Music). Maybe they are considered too small to be golden triangle candidate? Maybe their smallness means they get less money.--AlexanderLondon 20:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think that most people would think that SOAS has a much stronger reputation than King's College. King's College was a founding member of the University of London, is much larger than SOAS, has greater funding than SOAS, and is a member of the Russell Group. It is commonly referred to as being in the "Big Four" of London universities, along with UCL, London School of Economics, and Imperial College. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.233.155 (talk) 07:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If entry requirements are considered SOAS would not be equivalent to KCL given that it's entry requirements are low. History at KCL for example requires AAA at A-level I believe as opposed to BBC-BCC at SOAS. SOAS and the other named institutions are also very specialist, their research is not as broad as KCL. Subject rankings for KCL are very high and overall it usually comes above the other institutions. --Disillusioned- 14:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: KCL and SOAS

message: How should we relate to the rise of manchester after its merger? UCL, for examples, refers to a 'golden diamond'  and this useage is widespread . It's also interesting that UCL tries to introduce a further qualifer: performing well in research funding across all areas (to reduce the standing of Imperial's science focus, LSE's leadership in social science and KCL's focus on medicine and the humanities. --Duncan 12:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the first page of the Google search includes one page talking about the Triangle becoming a Diamond and another talking about the Diamond being shattered! To be honest we're dealing with terms that have never been official or completely defined (i.e. the London angle) - a lot of the usage seems to be in specific subjects so in, say, the sciences (where this term seems to be most popular) the inclusion or not of LSE is irrelevant. One has to wonder if the term is really used to raise or diminish the relative standing of institutions as part of institutionalism egotism. Timrollpickering 12:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golden Diamond? 

message: I think the best approach would be simply to use the following as a criteria:
:1. Location i.e. Oxford, Cambridge and London? (if yes 40 points)
:2. Research Funding Total (if in top ten then 40 points)
:3. Overall reputation (if in top ten in university league tables (normally the Times) then 20 points) 
Based on the above then, Oxford, Cambridge, IC, UCL would get 100 points.  KCL would get 80 points (1+2).  LSE 60 points (1+3). SOAS 40 points (1).  My own opinion is that SOAS ought not to be included since being in London is not a reflection of excellence on its own, but whether LSE or KCL can and should be debated.
FYI: I am fortunate enough to have studied at Cambridge, Oxford, King's and for a few courses at UCL. Having come across this term during lectures, I decided to create this article some time ago. I had presumed that the UCL Provost quote would have sufficed, however, understandably there has been some confusion and bias. I also think it is worth pointing out that he also intimated that Royal Holloway was also a fitting college, although I notice that has not been mentioned.  
The above criteria is not meant to exclude universities or colleges, but to highlight a few highly successful institutions, with abundant resources from the public purse and a worldwide reputation equivalent to the IVY league in the states.  Just like being outside the IVY league (MIT, CalTech and many others) does not mean the university is rubbish, being outside the Golden Triangle is no bad thing either.
I have no preference which Universities or Colleges are included, I leave that for others to decide.
Hope this helps.
89.240.47.87 (talk) 03:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for GT 

message: Below is the only quote found that seems to be fairly definitive wrt which institutions are part of the Golden Triangle...
'True, there are varying levels of dependence upon the University in terms of
services and “the brand” of the University of London; dependence is predictably
higher among the smaller Colleges. But the federation also includes several
university institutions that are world-renowned in their own right, and for whom
the existence of the University of London tends to be a source more of confusion
than of strength. 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”. So too Royal Holloway
College, which claims its place amongst the top 10 universities in the 2001
Research Assessment Exercise.'
...This was Malcolm Grant, Provost of UCL.  If we are to use the criteria mentioned before, which I agree with, then Queen Mary is not included, recently or otherwise as a GT member.
This is not to say that QMW is not an excellent institution, it is just not a GT institution.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.24.253 (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Queen Mary should not be added.... 

message: Message copied from Talkpage of Rangoon11:
Don't bother changing back the correct version of the web page to your laughably incorrect one.  If your not going to be factually honest with the site, then get out of it!!!!!!  As the founder said at the Berkman Law Center at Harvard University one evening in the first half of 2005, Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia of facts that can be corrected by anyone on earth so long as the corrections are verifiable by any reliable source(s) that can be checked.  Your version of the web page is not only intentionally incorrect, but also devoid of any factual source to back up what you say.  I checked the Columbia University website and it doesn't even come close to what your count of the Nobel Prize winners was.  Spread your falsehood on a blog and not on an encyclopedia that requires verifiable facts from reliable sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.132.234 (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm only going to say this once: Thetruthnow2012/24.5.132.234, I have already corrected the error which I think you correctly pointed out, so stop reverting for the sake of reverting. This article is about the five UK universities, so stop trying to make your WP:POINT by adding an irrelevant list of universities with Nobel Prize winners. Also, please read Wikipedia's manual of style guidelines on WP:PEACOCK and find out why the sort of language you are using is not objective and certainly unencyclopedic. - Yk3 talk ~ contrib 23:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golden Triangle (UK universities) 

message: I have made a very big edit to the article removing the summary of each university, that is not needed, this article should be on the group as a whole. Mtking (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Bold indeed. Won't revert because I agree with you in principle. — Yk3 talk ~ contrib 02:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not an edit that I would have made myself but on reflection I support it. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with this as well. If we want summaries of the universities involved we have them at their respective pages. There is simply not enough information on the idea of the golden triangle to have separate sections for each university in this article. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BOLD|BOLD]] edit to show how the article should look 

message: As someone who has not come across the phrase outside of Wikipedia, this article seems a bit dubious. However there are quite a few mentions of it, before the article itself was created. If anyone wants to improve this article (and perhaps clean up some of the discussions above about the London corner), this search could be a good place to look. -- Fluteflute Talk Contributions 18:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: I propose we include the US News World top 400 ranking to the world ranking overview since it is one of the more popular rankings from North America, are there any objections to this ? ( I am not sure to what extend the THES Reputation Ranking is just a subranking, I thought it was conducted independently of the general one and I think since a lot of the debate her is exactly about Reputation it might be relevant ? I will look into whether it is indeed just a subranking once I get the time and would appreciate other views ) Hypatia (talk) 11:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the THES methodology the Reputation ranking is not just a subranking. It seems reputation does not actually factor into the general ranking Hypatia (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reputation seems to be a part, albeit a small one, of the main ranking: . I think an argument can be made for inclusion but the line has to be drawn somewhere and I think the main THE ranking is sufficient. Note that there are also all of the subject rankings, again I think this is best dealt with in the articles of the individual institions. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Reputation factor you refer to for the main ranking is obtained via a different methodology as far as I understand. I am not sure we would make the article much less readable by having one more column, so I think we should have it, but I do not have a very strong view as it might on the other hand give over due weight to one ranking provider. ( THES seems to be the one that is generally being taken most serious though ) Hypatia (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you want to add it I wont revert it as I don't feel that strongly on it either, although I lean towards not including. Rangoon11 (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah its the most popular ranking indicator for the United States, so that makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.239.124 (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Rankings 

message: This comment is based upon (and it is in reference to) the "01:21, 9 September 2018‎" version of the article ... which was the most recent version when this section was added (or "started"). 
=== The Map or "picture" captioned "Locations of 'golden triangle' universities." === 
The one I mean is is the first map [or "picture"] in the article. Each of the 3 names 
* Cambridge 
* London and 
* Oxford 
in that map or "picture", is out of place (some more [and more egregiously] than "Oxford"). Each should be closer to the red spot (or red star) that it serves as a label for. 
=== The positioning of the name "London" is especially misleading === 
While all 3 of the names listed above are misplaced, the location of the name "London" is ... the most confusing. It is true that the name "Cambridge" is positioned too far from the red spot for Cambridge; -- and hence, at first, it might seem to a first-time visitor to (or reader of) this article, to NOT be associated with ANY of the red spots (or the red star) on this map. 
But now, the name "London" -- which belongs near the red star -- is extremely close to [it is almost touching!] the red spot for Cambridge! Because of that, a first-time reader -- especially if [like me] not familiar with UK geography -- might think that the name "London" there, seems to correspond to the red spot that it is closest to. That would be wrong. 
The name "London" actually corresponds to the red star. (right?) So ... it should be closer to that [closer to the red star] than it is to either of the other vertices of the triangle! (right?) This is not rocket science...! 
I actually stared at this for quite a while, and even resorted to comparing the map or "picture" to this map from "Google Maps" in order to figure out what was actually intended here. Perhaps someone familiar with UK geography would not have found it so difficult. But ... please do not let that be an excuse for lazy editing (and "hard to figure out" -- or even confusing -- labeling). 
=== Suggested Changes === 
I do not know how to edit, to cause these "suggested changes" to happen, but I can describe them. 
# The name "London" should be much closer to the red star that it is intended as a label for. Also, it should NOT be so close to the red spot for Cambridge. 
# The names "Cambridge" and "Oxford" should each be much closer to the red spot that it is intended as a label for. Ideally, they should be so close to the [correct] red spot, that they are almost touching that red spot -- (just like the name "London" is [now] almost touching the red spot for Cambridge). 
# The name "London" should probably be BELOW (instead of above) the red star that it is intended as a label for. This would put that name further away from the red spot for Cambridge, which would be a step in the correct direction. 
=== I hope this helps === 
Thanks for listening (reading). 
Any comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 06:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have a look at it – it certainly didn't used to look like that, so possibly it was vandalised at some point and nobody noticed… Robminchin (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fixed. Old versions of the page now look the same, so I suspect the code placing the labels changed. Fortunately this could be fixed by simply removing a lot of the cure on the page previously needed to put them in the right place! Robminchin (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you! --Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map [picture] is wrong  

message: Thanks for listening (reading). 
Any comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 06:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have a look at it – it certainly didn't used to look like that, so possibly it was vandalised at some point and nobody noticed… Robminchin (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fixed. Old versions of the page now look the same, so I suspect the code placing the labels changed. Fortunately this could be fixed by simply removing a lot of the cure on the page previously needed to put them in the right place! Robminchin (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you! --Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  I hope this helps 

message: --Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case closed 

message: Hi all, 
Apologies for the mistakes with the school crests. I understand now that UCL does not have a current crest, and that the crest of ICL should not be included because of fair use/gallery view.
In that case, would it be reasonable to remove all of the school crests? It seems odd that the column, which doesn't directly contribute knowledge about the Golden Triangle, to only be partially filled in.
Pinging User:Robminchin for advice here. Thanks in advance!
ChunyangD (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem an odd column. It's been there since before I became active on this page, so I don't know the original rationale, but there doesn't seem any very good reason to keep it – particularly, as you say, because only 4 of the 6 actually have coats of arms that we can use there. Robminchin (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apologies for the late reply. In that case, since it doesn't provide any value to the page, I will apply WP:BOLD and go ahead and remove it. Please let me know if you have a better idea for it in the future! And thank you for your help :) ChunyangD (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  University Arms 

message: An IP editor has proposed changes to the lead. The proposed changes remove information about the disputed membership of some of the institutions from the text, giving an absolute listing of the member institutions in the editorial voice rather than describing the dispute.. This presents an unbalanced view in breach of WP:NPOV, Stylistically, it also unnecessarily uses a list format for information that can be given in prose. 
The contentious edit had been reverted, per WP:BRD. I invite the IP editor to join this discussion rather than trying to restore their favoured version. Robminchin (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes to the lead 

message: Ffflixxx, 5a1amm60, I notice that you and others have been Wikipedia:edit warring since at least January about whether to link C9 League or Double First Class University Plan to this and other articles about university groupings. Please can you discuss the issue on a talk page and provide references to Wikipedia:reliable sources. See 
first addition,
second addition,
third addition,
fourth addition. TSventon (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  C9 has been replaced by Double First Class Universities 

message: The short list of member institutions in the lede was removed by @Robminchin citing MOS:EMBED. However, MOS:EMBED does not prohibit short lists in article lede sections and Robminchin didn't add much of an explanation why the list should be removed. I added the list for simplification because the bulky paragraph that follows just causes confusion to the reader. A reader (or at least those readers who want to gain a quick and superficial understanding of the topic) will just want to skim the lede, get to know, in simple terms, what the golden triangle is and what the (typical or most commonly assumed) member institutions are. Again, of course this is to some extent subjective, the paragraph is just long, bulky and confusing and at the end of it, the membership institutions may not be fully clear reader to the reader if, on the one hand, the first part of the paragraph says "these are the typical members" and the second part says "although these sources say A isn't, these sources say B isn't and these sources says that sometimes C and D are members too". My suggestions are 3 options, either:
1. Insert the short list again in the lede.
or
2. Split the long and bulky paragraph in two.
or
3. change the explanation to short, concise prose of the 6 typical/most commonly assumed members and add a separate "controversies" section into the article where all the bickering and wrangling about different sources stating different members can be written about until the cows come home. 2A01:8B81:4802:E000:517C:C551:14BC:D3C (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There doesn't seem to be any good reason to use an embedded list for this, when the information can be perfectly well presented as prose. The paragraph is not long or bulky, and clearly lists the typical members at the start. That different sources give different members is reality, and WP:NPOV means we need to reflect this. This has been discussed at length. We cannot simplify things by presenting something that is not neutral. Robminchin (talk) 04:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed short bullet point list of member institutions in lede