Talk:Liverpool Hope University

Merseyside High‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Merseyside, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Merseyside-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.MerseysideWikipedia:WikiProject MerseysideTemplate:WikiProject MerseysideMerseyside articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Higher education Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

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 22:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sport[edit]

I have added association football to the list of sports and changed "ladies' hockey" to womens' hockey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ausseagull (talk • contribs) 07:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent removals[edit]

I have twice removed the section Professorial Profiles from this article. No doubt the information linked to is very good, but this article is already very list-heavy, and the section consists of nothing but external links. I am also concerned about the History section: it has a distinctly POV flavour, and maye even be a copyright violation. I have tagged it for cleanup. If anyone would like to re-add anything I've removed, please discuss it here first. Thanks. — mholland (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2007 (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. Otherwise, they should remain deleted.

Ohconfucius 09:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope's Global Charity[edit]

I wonder if we should mention the global partnership with SOS Children: http://www.hope.ac.uk/about-hope/hopes-global-charity.html which recently was restructured and discussed in the Times http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=405063&c=1 and other places.

I am conflicted so I am suggesting it here per WP:COI. --BozMo talk 09:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV/bias[edit]

In the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise, work from Liverpool Hope University in the theology and social work departments achieved the seconded highest grade, 4*. Some work in computer science, psychology, education, music, and English was graded 3*.^[1]

This is a misrepresentation of the university's 2008 RAE results. http://submissions.rae.ac.uk/results/qualityProfile.aspx?id=22&type=hei indicates that the majority of work submitted by the university was given 1* or 2* grades—it's not acceptable to highlight only the positives. I've rewritten this paragraph in an attempt to summarise the results more accurately.

It would also be appreciated if certain editors were to stop removing the (cited) paragraphs about staff redundancies and league table standings, the latter of which seem to be considered appropriate for inclusion in pretty much every other article about a British university. 82.46.181.60 (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://submissions.rae.ac.uk/results/qualityProfile.aspx?id=22&type=hei

Beatles[edit]

They have a degree program in Beatles music.[1] I'm in another universe. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of removals[edit]

I removed the following section from the Ranking section of the article;

"Liverpool Hope University withdrew from the university league tables three years ago because it found them fundamentally unsatisfactory. The institution does not believe the league tables compare like with like because, unlike tables in other countries, they group together every institution, regardless of its size, type or character. No other University in the country holds this view. Look at the table below and make your own judgement why they withdrew from the tables!

Some of the work from two of Liverpool Hope's departments scored the highest possible grade in the most recent Research Assessment Exercise. 5% of the work assessed in the categories of Theology, Divinity and Religious Studies and of Social Work and Social Policy and Administration was described under the RAE's criteria,.^[1] as showing 'Quality that is world leading in terms of originality, significance and rigour'. A number of submissions from other Hope departments was assessed as '...internationally excellent in terms of originality, significance and rigour'.^[2]"

The first paragraph makes a very specific claim about motivations. Without a citation and a more neutral phrasing, this has to go. I realise that the last two lines are a recent insertion, but if they reflect a sentiment expressed by a citable author, then that should also be included.

The issues with the second paragraph are the most important. It's exceptionally POV to talk about "some of the work" receiving the highest grade, with no mention of the overall grading. By cherry-picking the positive results, the section is fundamentally NPOV.

I suggest including an overview of the various rankings, good and bad, the dates at which the university withdrew from the rankings, and any reliably sourced, published explanations for this withdrawal.--THobern 03:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

References

^ "RAE 2008 : Quality profiles : Introduction". Rae.ac.uk. Retrieved 23 October 2011.
^ http://submissions.rae.ac.uk/results/qualityProfile.aspx?id=22&type=hei

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Liverpool Hope University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liverpool Hope University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070703014657/http://education.independent.co.uk/higher/article2715127.ece to http://education.independent.co.uk/higher/article2715127.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://submissions.rae.ac.uk/results/qualityProfile.aspx?id=22&type=hei

[2] "RAE 2008 : Quality profiles : Introduction". Rae.ac.uk. Retrieved 23 October 2011.

[3] ttp://submissions.rae.ac.uk/results/qualityProfile.aspx?id=22&type=hei

[1]

[1]

[2]