Talk:University of Bradford

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

old commetns[edit]

I'm glad the comment about the Animatronics course has been taken away. I am actually on this course, and have been for the last 2 years, so it's far from a failure.

The Biki bar has closed. However, richmond is sliding down the hill, damn subsidation!

When did the Biko move from the first floor of the Richmond building to the ground floor (or alternatively, when did the Richmond building sink 30 feet into the ground)? Guinness2702 2005-07-25T14:35 (BST).

That's an inaccuracy. My father was at Bradford in 1966 and the student union bar was on the first floor. The student union shop in the Richmond Building did move from the first to the ground floor recently, but now both it and the Biko are closing down for several months due to construction work on the building. User:NRTurner 2005-08-28T21:41 (BST).

What exactly is this "bliz" that students enact upon the red-light district on Longside Lane every couple of years?

I don't know what that's supposed to mean, so that's one of the POV bits I've just excised from the article. ColinFine 17:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Removed something which is appears to be a contribution from somebody who has no idea what an encyclopaedia is. ColinFine 22:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University ratings[edit]

(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 23:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

I have ejected the links below frim the main article as being in violation of WP:EL. If these are refences to contents in the main article, they should be included as such, in a format acceptable to WP:FOOT.

Ohconfucius 06:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the main student union link as it reasonable to include as a separate entity to the university, the other sports & societies ones belong on the union article and are probably left-over from before it was split off. --Nate 09:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Added chancellor (2nd link) as a ref --Nate 09:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Union section[edit]

The BSC section is good but is far to long to include as a whole, it dwarfs the rest of the info on the union. Is also not a major part & of the union's activities. --Nate1481( t/c) 14:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm maybe someone should write more about the student union other activities then!!! :) I have moved the BSC to its own page, and before anyone has any more moans about merging everything back into the main uni page, there are plenty of other film societies out there. I feel it's important not to loose this info. You may think it's not a major part of the Union, but it is when it's running! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maniac Pony (talk • contribs)

The BSC hasn't been active in some time, I had no problem when it was part of the union article but after that was deleted including the whole thing is too much. --Nate1481( t/c) 14:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be aware then that it was reformed last year (officially through union council, and is once again operating as a society. Albeit there were no actual showings before summer due to the roofing work in the great hall. --Maniac Pony 16:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know it had re-formed good luck with it used to be really good, some mention is needed but the section is to long winded as is. --Nate1481( t/c) 17:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed text about BSC, as now found on its own wikipedia article. Maniac Pony 10:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fair trade[edit]

This was removed,

Despite this [[Nestle|Nestle]] [[vending machines|vending machines]] are still common in university buildings.

I'll have a look next time I'm there but unless they've been removed over the summer it's still true, would pictures do as a source? --Nate1481( t/c) 09:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give locations, and I'll check their status with catering? There's a few random vending machines still in situation but no longer stocked / in service, but no-one's bothered to get rid of them! Not aware of any myself, but don't vist all campus areas! My edit comment ended up slightly gobledygook, you can for example still buy a kitkat in Chesham, however IIRC the uni does not have to be 100% fair trade to gain the status. Nestle is irrelivant, whilst they are controversial, their appearance makes them no less fairtrade than mars or cadbury's would. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maniac Pony (talk • contribs).

Sports centre one did but as I said this was abut a month ago I last looked. I think the one at Dennis Bellemy reception still did too, at the least had a kit kat logo on the side. --Nate1481( t/c) 13:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chancellor Information[edit]

Although the recently added text concerning Imran Khan's biography seem to be well referenced, they appear biased to focus entirely on purely negative aspects of the chancellor. As individual sentances they appear NPOV, but as a whole are aimed at discrediting the subject. I do not wish to get into an edit war as mrsatrellis has already tried to remove the comments, but agree with the point that these should be on Imran's biography page if anywhere. It appears that they have been placed within the university article as the writer could not add them to Imran's own pace as it is locked. Perhaps someone with more wikipedia experience can comment or suggest they be moved to the talk page for discussion? Maniac Pony 16:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manic Pony: Imran Khan was installed as a Chancellor on 7 December, 2005. In March 2006, four Bradford students were arrested and detained under the Terrorism Act 2000, on suspicion of terrorism-related offences.[1] In 2007, all four were tried and found guilty of possessing material for terrorist purposes.[2] In June, 2007 Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf's members chanted "Curse Rushdie, Long Live Osama (Bin Laden)"[3], and in July, 2007, Mr. Khan[4] calls American President George Bush to be #1 terrorist of the world.[5]
Wikipedia is NOT a PR space for Bradford University where University staff and well-wishers present only "sanitize" information. Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox
University of Bradford has to be highlighted as a place which celebrates a terrorist supporting [6] and a terrorist supported [7] Chancellor.
Chancellor_(education) is typically a ceremonial position. If University of Bradford simply ignores the facts on the ground about its Chancellor, and does not find anyone else to hold this ceremonial position, especially when four of its students are convicted for terrorism by a British court, then it sends a very clear message to the world, that is, "we are clueless, and we don't care."
If you think that all these facts are "biased" or, as mrsatrellis suggested, "trivial", then I don't know what critical evaluation of any subject matter is. M12390 04:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
M12390 you appear to have an agenda here to attack Imran Khan and discredit the University. The detailed information on him belongs in that article not this one. The student arrests deserves a mention and it should be leftin, but beyond stating that Imran Khan is contravecial it's going too far. If you want it included on his page post it on the talk with a request for an admin to add it. --Nate1481( t/c) 10:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nate1481 You claim to have "Masters Degree in Pharmaceutical Studies from the University of Bradford" in your profile, which makes you biased to start off with. You have time, money and reputation involved with this university. Whether I have an agenda or not is utterly insignificant compared to your agenda of deflecting not-so-peachy data related to the university, you got a degree from. So please refrain from accusing others to "have an agenda", and refrain from removing sourced material which is VERY relevant at this stage of University of Bradford's existence. You vandalism is noted, and will be reported to admins if needed. M12390 13:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I graduated from there 3 years ago, I still have some links but primarily with the student union sports clubs, and a certain level of nostalgia. How time money and reputation come into this I don't know, but it is not neutral to deliberately portray the university as a institution that promotes terrorism. Details of his personal life do not belong here they belong on the article about him after being re-worded to remove the emotive undertones. --Nate1481( t/c) 13:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.s. You quoted WP:SOAP earlier, this swings both ways, this is not a place to deliberately degrade the reputation of Bradford either. --Nate1481( t/c) 13:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nate1481's words are biased because he is associated with Bradford by holding a degree issued by the the University.Neutral Ray
So I'm incapable of being neutral? I have not tried to hide my association or denied it, I simply feel that this is not the place to discuss Kahn's other affairs. If I was being a POV warrior i would not have supported the inclusion of the section on the arrests. Personally I have some problems with the way the university is currently run, shifting the term dates and other actions have not been in the best interest of the students, I do however dislike it when someone tries to hijack an article, especially one I care about, for their own agenda. As another editor pointed out, are we also going to include all the controversial actions of Harold Willson? --Nate1481( t/c) 15:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nate1481 It is pretty sad that in your attempt to defend the reputation of an institution that, in your own admission, you "care about", you are engaging in emotionalism, and may I suggest, "academic dishonesty." Forget about Imran Khan's personal life. We can take that out from the narrative. The fact remains that terrorism is a grave issue for humanity today. And it appears that any place where young people congregate, Madrasa or University, could be subject to terror recruitment. The arrest and conviction of four students may turn out to be insignificant or aberration for Bradford, but the fact remains that Imran Khan has been a Taliban Supporter for quite some time now, which is obvious from his passionate statements in their favor, and their statements in his favor. If you read Urdu, I could have forwarded you many many news reports from the Pakistani media which establish such link in pretty much black and white, and they are not just accusations by third parties.

As far as Wilson, if someone thinks that any of his actions profoundly affected the University, then bring it on. I don't have any problem with that. M12390

I have removed the material about Imran Khan (again). The Chancellor's private life is absolutely irrelevant to this article, unless there is an established, scholarly opinion that his personal views have influenced the University in some definable fashion.
Per WP:REDFLAG, exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and I have seen none which support the inclusion of stuff like "Mr. Khan allegedly fathered a girl out of wedlock" in this article about a university. — mholland (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mholland and others please read this what Imran Khan had to say and preach "US should keep it in mind if it dared to attack holiest places of Muslims, it will stand effaced on the map of world, he warned. Over one billion Muslims will become suicide bombers across the world in the event of US attack, he added.[1]

And what he had to say about Taliban "Taliban inclusion necessary for success of Pak-Afghan Jirga: Imran Khan"[2]

Taliban leader Imran Khan said that the Taliban should be included in the Afghan-Pakistan Jirga if a lasting peace is to be expected. Khan also said that Iraq should not permit the U.S. military to remain, that diplomacy with Islamic militant groups would be better for the Country as a whole. Khan also said that Pakistan should end its alliance with the United States as well. [[3]]

I strongly think that Imran Khan's extremist views and guidance would influence the UOB students, as we have seen in 2006. Neutral Ray —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutral Ray (talk • contribs) 05:23, August 24, 2007 (UTC) Neutral Ray 05:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Neutral Ray[reply]

I see nothing wrong with attempting to maintian a neutral point of view in an article I care about if you are only allowed to edit articles you don't care about, that's the end of wikipedia. If people want to know about Imran Khan they can read the page on him, the information is sourced but but does not belong here. You seem to have repeatedly ignored the fact that I agree the student arrests are relevant and as they are currently phrased fine, they shoudl be included--Nate1481( t/c) 08:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with Neutral Ray's view that the chancellor's views would influence students, the chancellor of the university would have very little involvements with student other than a handshake on degree day. it is the VC who leads a university. The chancellor has no political involvement (certainly not in the case of Imran Khan), who i believe rarely even turns up to events. The individual political views of the chancellor do not necessarily match those of the university itself, and no-one has presented any evidence to say that the university supports the chancellor's personal views on the matter. Personal matters and political views should therefore be on his own page, the appear to have bene dumped here as M12390 cannot edit Imran's own article. Mrsatrellis 10:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mrsatrellis: I think that both you and Nate are very emotional and protective of Bradford. I did not add the information on the Bradford University page because I cannot edit Imran Khan page. I can edit that page. Here is proof http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imran_Khan&action=history

I am adding information on the Bradford University page because this is where the information rightfully belongs. Imran Khan's extremist views are a liability to Bradford, and that has more to do with individuals, and the very institution, Imran Khan affects, than Imran Khan himself. If I went with your logic, then the information on Bradford Riots should stay in Bradford Riots' page and not on Bradford University page. If we go with your logic then the atom bomb information should stay in atom bomb page, and not on Hiroshima or Nagasaki site.

Neither you nor Nate nor others, who are objecting to my data, have any logical leg to stand on. I have no problem removing the information related to his extra-marital affairs. Imran Khan's extremist views stay. M12390 10:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M12390 reasoning is flawed. The single sentance on the riots affecting intake are correct, but I wouldn't expect to have a paragraph of information about the riots themselves on a page about the university. A link should suffice to the article about the individual or event. Concerning other edits I have suggested, I do admit to links to the university, and have not made them from a position of bias, but have remove certain content as I feel they are not relivant to the university today. I would go as far as suggest that for most insitutions the chancellor is a celebrity figurehead. In Bradford's case the current chancellor might turn up and do the odd graduation or opening, nothing more. His political views don't have any relivance to the university itself. Maniac Pony 13:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your are referring to this:
The Bradford Race Riots of 2001 lead to a sharp fall in applications to the university, but the situation has improved since and in 2005 undergraduate applications from home students was up by 35% on the previous year.
It mentions the riots in the context of a direct affect on the University. It also goes into no detail, just links the article. Have there been any changes in applicant statistics since khan became Chancellor? If so that would be relevant. --Nate1481( t/c) 10:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nate, installation of an extremist, nay terrorist-supporting, and terrorist-supported, Chancellor, in itself, is a VERY relevant. Attempts to "sweep under the carpet" of the existence of such Chancellor is VERY relevant. Terror warnings do no good AFTER terrorism has been committed, and the culprit has been convicted in a court of law. Come on now!!!

This is NOT U of B's approved PR page. It is a Wikipedia page. If you alma mater has descended to the level that it could not find anyone other than Imran Khan as Chancellor, then that is VERY VERY relevant. M12390 11:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no objection to saying that the party he is part of is controversial, but the level of detail is inappropriate, unless there is reliably sourced evidence that it has affected the university it should left out. This is not an anti-terrorism soap box. --Nate1481( t/c) 11:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation[edit]

I have reported M12390 for a 3 revert rule violation here --Nate1481( t/c) 11:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected[edit]

Lots of people have been edit warring over this page, so I've protected it for 5 days, or until you can agree on a consensus version for the page. Some notes:

  • I have protected The Wrong Version (TM), so said protection is not an endorsement of the current version of the page.
  • Personal attacks and vague accusations of conflict of interest based on alma mater are not productive.
  • Poorly sourced material about someones personal life, especially material that would constitutes libel in real life needs a rock solid source.

I'm not a content arbiter, but it you can't reach a decision here then I suggest you seek dispute resolution and/or file a request for comment about this article. --Haemo 01:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the Chancellor's views do not belong here - my opinion[edit]

I removed the material earlier, stating that the point of the section on Chancellors is to state who has been the Chancellor, not everything any of them have been involved in. Most university Chancellors who've been in some political or religious role have controversies. Sticking purely to current Chancellors in the UK there are the following potential controversial ones: Timrollpickering 02:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A lot are current/former members of one parliament or another, and so aside from any individual controversies, they will often have voted (or abstained) on some controversial thing or other during their time
  • Aberdeen has Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, former Governor of Hong Kond and (I think) cross bench peer
  • Abertay Dundee has the Earl of Airlie, a former Lord Chamberlain and member of the Lords
  • Bath has Lord Tugendhat, former Conservative MP and member of the European Commission
  • Brunel has Lord Wakeham, a former Conservative cabinet minister
  • Cambridge and Edinburgh both have the Duke of Edinburgh, well known for his controversies and gaffes
  • Canterbury Christ Church has the Archbishop of Canterbury ex officio - and the current Archbishop has been caught up in controversies in the Church
  • Cardiff has Lord Kinnock former Labour leader and European Commissioner
  • Chester has the Duke of Westminster, but I don't see the university article listing his use of prostitutes or his claim to know where Osama bin Laden is
  • Coventry has Lord Plumb, former Conservative Member of the European Parliament and President of the European Parliament
  • Cumbria and York St John both have John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York who has spoken out on a variety of subjects such as accusing the BBC of being afraid to criticise Islam, the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay or poverty
  • De Montfort has Lord Alli, a gay rights campaigner (controversial in some quarters), who voted to keep fox hunting legal (controversial in what are usually other quarters) and his company produced the revival of Crossroads, which stirred controversy of a rather different kind
  • Dundee has Lord Patel, a cross bench peer
  • Essex has Lord Phillips of Sudbury, a Liberal Democrat peer who sort of "resigned" from the Lords and has been outspoken in opposing ID cards, counter-terrorist legislation and the volume of legislation
  • Glamorgan has Lord Morris of Aberavon, former Labour Cabinet minister
  • Glasgow has Kenneth Calman, who was the government's Chief Medical Officer at the time of the BSE Crisis (when government advice was controversial)
  • Greenwich has Lord Holme of Cheltenham, a Liberal Democrat peer
  • Heriot-Watt has Baroness Greenfield, a cross bench peer
  • Hertfordshire has the Marquess of Salisbury who variously opposed sanctions against Rhodesia, resigned a junior post in opposition to government policy on Northern Ireland and subsequently stood down from the Commons over the Anglo-Irish Agreement, later served as Conservative Leader in the Lords and caused no end of problems over negotiations on the future of hereditary peers leading to the humiliation of his party leader and his own sacking, and took "leave of absence" as he felt the rules for declaration of financial interests are too onerous
  • Huddersfield has Patrick Stewart, a lifelong & public supporter of the Labour Party so possibly supported a few controversial causes
  • Hull has Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone, former Conservative Cabinet Minister who was not without controversy when in office
  • Leeds has Lord Bragg, an outspoken author & broadcaster and a Labour peer
  • Lincoln has Elizabeth Esteve-Coll, who generated controversy as director of the Victoria and Albert Museum
  • Liverpool has Lord Owen, former Labour cabinet minister, leader of the Social Democratic Party, leader of a "continuity" SDP and envoy to the former Yugoslavia who caused no end of controversy in many fields, especially the last
  • Liverpool Hope has Baroness Cox, a former Conservative peer expelled from the party for endorsing UKIP
  • London has the Princess Royal who has been in a few controversies over the years
  • Manchester has two (a product of the merger) - Anna Ford who famously throw wine over a TV-am executive & MP, and got involved in some other controversies - and Terry Leahy, whose article hasn't yet got much controversy listed
  • Newcastle and Oxford both have Lord Patten of Barnes, former Conservative Cabinet Minister, Governor of Hong Kong, European Commission member and head of the commission on policing in Northern Ireland that replaced the Royal Ulster Constabulary, all posts that generated controversy in his career
  • Northumbria has Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, a former head of the Metropolitan Police and whilst I can't spot any individual controversies yet listed on his page, the Met often has someone somewhere attacking it for whatever reason
  • Open has Lord Puttnam, a Labour peer and film producer (who was criticised "what some saw as a condescending attitude toward the Hollywood film industry" when he was Chief Executive of Columbia Pictures)
  • Queen's has George J. Mitchell, a former US Democrat leader in the Senate and US Envoy to Northern Ireland, chairing the negotiations that led to the Good Friday Agreement, and he was not always universally popular with every party during his time there
  • Reading has Lord Carrington a former Conservative cabinet minister whose actions in office, particularly the settlement in Zimbabwe and lack of preparation for the Falklands War (over which he resigned) were not without controversy
  • Sheffield Hallam has Robert Winston, a Labour peer but also one of the scientists best known amongst the wider public in the UK who has invariably spoken out on controversial matters
  • Southampton Solent has Lord West of Spithead who has just been brought into the Government as a junior security minister - invariably he will be involved with controversial government policies in that role
  • St Andrews has Menzies Campbell, current leader of the Liberal Democrats
  • Staffordshire has Lord Morris of Handsworth, former head of a key trade union - again a position not without controversy
  • Strathclyde has Lord Hope of Craighead, a life peer who has also held several legal posts
  • Surrey has the Duke of Kent, who served in the army and there were accusations his unit wasn't sent to Northern Ireland to prevent a Royal being put in danger (shades of the controversy over Prince Harry today), though it's not clear if this is true
  • Sussex has Lord Attenborough, a Labour peer as well as an actor & director
  • Teesside has Lord Sawyer, a Labour peer and former party general secretary, and former leading trade union official
  • Thames Valley has Lord Bilimoria, a cross bencher in the Lords
  • Wales has the Prince of Wales, who has been outspoken in several areas and drawn controversy for others
  • Warwick has Nick Scheele, "an advocate of private funding for universities and strong links to business" - areas of controversy in universities
  • Westminster and Wolverhampton both have Lord Paul, who is I think a cross bencher
  • York has Greg Dyke, former Director General of the BBC who resigned in the aftermath of the Hutton Inquiry, and during his time in the post provoked other political controversy over allegations of bias

...and there are many others who are from the media or business who have probably been equally controversial but so far that information hasn't yet made it onto Wikipedia.

Nor is the Chancellor the only post in a university that can be held by prominent people - there's also the Pro Chancellor, the Rector and various other posts.

And of course this is only the incumbents - many a past Chancellor has been just as controversial if not more. To name but just two, Oxford's past Chancellors include William Laud and Oliver Cromwell, each as controversial as the other at the time and since.

Now at a glance I don't see these controversies listed on the university articles. If an individual's appointment has generated notable controversy that can be sourced then it is worthy of mention, or if the individual has been controversial in a relevant field but the university article is not the place for listing opinions of the Chancellor that do not have a direct bearing on their role. Timrollpickering 05:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chancellor's Information should belong here[edit]

Wikipedia is encyclopedia and its all about information. We need to give some information about Chancellors same as we did for each department of the school. Neutral Ray 04:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Neutral Ray[reply]

Departments and faculties are directly relevant to a university (although I think the level of information given here is overkill and bordering on a prospectus!). The Chancellor's opinions are not. Timrollpickering 05:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know that Chancellor is not directly relevant to a university. Timrollpickering for your information Chancellor is head of a university University_chancellor.Neutral Ray 06:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Neutral Ray[reply]
From Chancellor (education):
In most Commonwealth (or former Commonwealth) nations, the Chancellor is usually a titular (figurehead) non-resident head, often with a Pro-Chancellor as practical Chairman of the governing body ("The Council"); the actual chief executive of a university is the Vice-Chancellor.
Trying to say who the one single "head" of a university is can be a little confused because of the set-up, but in the UK the person people would regard as the "head" of a university is the Vice-Chancellor - the day-to-day chief executive. The Chancellor's role in the life of the university often does little more than turn up to graduations and the odd other ceremony (and sometimes not even that) and has virtually no de facto role in the direction of the university.
If Khan is controversial (which as I've pointed out above is far from unique amongst university Chancellors) then that belongs on Khan's article not here. Not only do the other university articles not detail every controversy involving Chancellors past and present, but articles on countries, states, counties, districts, cities etc... do not have the controversies of the heads, whether titular or de facto, on the article. Ken Livingstone's numerous controversies are on his own article, not on London, or for that matter Mayor of London and Greater London Authority. Listing Khan's controversies here is soapboxing. Timrollpickering 07:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the departments secitons could do with a clean-up. Haven't done it as while not good it not actually bad and I wanted to spent my time else where. If you feel that such information is relevant you should start a discussion at WP:Universities, to an overhaul of the normal layout. On another note, as Bradford was (is?) a 'Centre of Cricketing Excellence' would Khan's cricket and coaching style also be relevant? --Nate1481( t/c) 08:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A related discussion seems to be talking place here:Talk:Imran_Khan#Probably_libellous_section_heading_removed --Nate1481( t/c) 10:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Press Association (2006-03-06). "Anti-terror police arrest four in Bradford". The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-07-31.
  2. ^ "Extremist students are sentenced". BBC News. 2007-07-26. Retrieved 2007-07-31.
  3. ^ Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Support Osama bin Laden
  4. ^ Controversies Around Imran Khan
  5. ^ Imran Khan Consider Bush to be #1 Terrorist of the World
  6. ^ Imran Khan has Soft Corner for Taliban
  7. ^ Taliban Support Imran Khan Against Musharraf

Requesting edit[edit]

{{editprotected}}

Haemo acknowledges that he (of course) protected The Wrong Version. But in this case, the version is not simply wrong; it is defamatory, and potentially libellous. The claim that Imran Khan is "a Taliban leader" is based on a single reference, of doubtful provenance, and is not backed by any independent evidence. As such, it has no place even on his biography, much less on an article about an independent institution. I request that this phrase be removed from the article. RolandR 20:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with RolandR that this claim should be removed as soon as possible, for obvious BLP reasons given the weak evidence for a very serious, probably libellous claim.--Slp1 02:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tend to agree; poorly sourced material should be removed, and I have done so. Discuss it, and get some rock-solid sourcing for it for inclusion. --Haemo 03:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<libel removed>[edit]

A comment here has been removed, as it is potentially libellous. FCYTravis 05:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accuse me of bias all you want, but the fact remains that you have one dubious source for your claims that he is a "Taliban leader". In fact, the Associated Press specifically avoided calling him as much. Your "quacks like a duck" argument is classic original research. --Haemo 05:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being critic of Anglo-American foreign policies, particularly their so-called war on terror should not make one a pro-taliban terrorist nor a fundamentalist. Remember Imran khan is a former UK-based playboy. His political opponents, rightwing and leftwing, use this fact to undermine his manifesto for change in Pakistan - and God knows there is a need for such change given the corruptions they are all involved in there. You can clearly notice such attacks on the Chancellor on this page from British/Pakistan-based contributors many of whom are supporters of secular and anti-Islam People's Party and the various factions of Pakistan Muslim League who have used Islam to manipulate the masses of the country for their own selfish and nefarious ends. The military is also complicit in this given General Musharraf and his compatriots (Indians immigrants) in the Sindh-based Mohajer Qaumi Movement (Immigrants National Movement) whom Imran has criticised and opposed as a terrorist organisation. MQM's leader Altaf Hussain is a refugee from justice and controls the group from his ondon hideout.

Incidently, from my reading of the history of Bradford University (I read for a degree there in late 1960's and I'm now an engineer in Australia) it was called Bradford Institute of Technology, immediately prior to being given Royal Charter, and not Bradford Technical College which by now was a separate institution. User:Tariq Khan Hassanzai 21:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rampant peacockery[edit]

On what planet does the Psych dept have an "impressive reputation"??? It is consistently near the bottom of the departmental rankings (except possibly for NSS - which says nothing about it's academic reputation) and drops further every year. Famousdog (talk) 07:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, as I suspected, this article reads like a brochure. I've tagged some of the worst examples. Perhaps some reliable, third-party citations will stop me from cutting all this promotional fluff. Famousdog (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Uni PR department do seem to "correct" thinks quite a bit, please do remove any obvious stupidity, if in doubt over a spesific point post a message here & some people will give you feed back. --Natet/c 11:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on University of Bradford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:University of Bradford/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

.
  1. Requires more comprehensive inline references using one of {{Cite}} template
  2. Some sections need detail rather than just a heading
  3. May be could have summary and sub articles for things like the schools as seems to dominate the atricle
Keith D 10:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 10:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 09:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Bs programs[edit]

Want to know about bs program your university 92.96.174.32 (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Bradford&oldid=1206571271"