Talk:Edge Hill University

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edge Hill 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/20150617014611/http://www.edgehillsu.org.uk/teamedgehill to http://www.edgehillsu.org.uk/teamedgehill

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 00:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Declaration of Interest

I'm doing some paid consultancy for the university, and they've asked me to help them get this article into better shape. I'll request substantive changes on this page, in line with WP:COI and WP:PAID, rather than editing directly, but I plan to start with some uncontroversial gnoming, including the removal of the {{COI}} template, whose documentation states "...if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start a discussion, any editor will be justified in removing the tag without warning.", since no such discussion has been initiated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• I also have three or four alumni to add, starting with Simone Magill. Since these are independently sourced, and hopefully uncontroversial, I'll add them directly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Advert tag

The {{Advert}} tag was added by a vexatious IP editor (they also accused good-faith editors of being morons, fascists, and of committing vandalism; and were blocked) in February 2022, without explanation.

The article has undergone major revisions since then.

Please remove the tag. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done this has been a problematic page for some time, but now appears to be fundamentally factual - Arjayay (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Tackling the Blues

Please add the following, as a final sub-section under "Research":

=== Tackling the Blues ===

The university won the 2022 "Mental Health and Wellbeing Award – University Sector" Educate the North award, and (together with partner organisations Tate Liverpool and Everton Football Club's charity Everton in the Community) the North West Coast Research and Innovation "Tackling Health Inequalities" award, for their Tackling the Blues programme, a sports and arts-based initiative that works to improve the mental health of young people.

References

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Hi, I'd like to add these, but do you have secondary sources? These are all primary ones. Secondary sources would do more to show notability. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused by your request. Postgraduate Studentships is not a primary source, and neither is The Guide Liverpool. The other source is independent of Edge Hill Uni; and is the awarding body, so typical of sources used to support statements about awards in other articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Likeanechointheforest: In case you missed my reply. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Must have had a brain fart! These sources look good, but is it possible to create more description of what the program actually is, so it feels less like a promo? Likeanechointheforest (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

hat is promotional about calling it "a sports and arts-based initiative that works to improve the mental health of young people"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)"

It reads more like a press release than an encyclopaedic entry, it's not that specific section, but more the addition overall. Encoded  Talk 💬 08:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't read like that to me (obviously; or I would not have suggested it). Please can you give an example of how you think it could be rewritten so as not to appear so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I’m usually easily troubled by promotional text (even subtle promotional text), but I must say that here I’m not too bothered. The element to the request that concerns me most is that the edit’s single sentence is far too long and the parts in relation to the two awards need to be split into separate sentences.

I agree with user:Likeanechointheforest that further info on what the project involves would allay concerns of promo and also be informative for readers: i.e. make it more about what the project actually is, rather than the awards that it won. At present it seems like the detail on the project has been tacked on almost as an afterthought.

I’ve no doubt that the request was not intended to read that it was about the awards, but I think that is how it has come across. I suspect that could easily be resolved to the satisfaction of all.

E.g. start with In 20XX the university launched its Tackling The Blues programme. This is a sports and arts-based initiative attempting to improve the mental health of young people by [I think the info in relation to how it goes about this is very important].

And then In 2022 the university won the 2022 "Mental Health and Wellbeing Award – University Sector" Educate the North award for the programme. It subsequently won the North West Coast Research and Innovation "Tackling Health Inequalities" award (together with partner organisations Tate Liverpool and Everton F.C.'s charity Everton in the Community).

Hopefully these notes are of assistance. Axad12 (talk) 06:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd support inclusion of this content with some more information about what they are (such as Axad12's suggestion). Encoded  Talk 💬 22:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I added Tackling the Blues to the history section, and one of the awards, but not the other. I sourced its foundation with a research paper. Postgraduate Studentships seems uncontroversial for the North West Coast Research and Innovation Award, but I couldn't independently source the other award. I've found that consensus is to not include an award if the only evidence of it is the awarding body and the recipient announcing it. If there is an independent announcement that I missed, please ping me. Closing request to clear queue. STEMinfo (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Apologies but I have reverted your recent changes as they are clearly contrary to the consensus above. Also reopened request. Axad12 (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The idea that awards must be independently sourced is not a point of policy (as observed above by Pigsonthewing). If it was a point of policy it would be virtually impossible to find sourcing for the great majority of academic awards (and awards in a great many other fields outside of sports and entertainment). I see no objection to both awards being included as long as further clarification is provided about the activities of the initiative in question. That appears to be entirely in line with previous comments by likeanechointheforest and Encoded.

I would urge Pigsonethewing to provide the text to complete the suggested text above, and then as far as I can see there is a consensus for that text to be implemented. Axad12 (talk) 03:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

A Google search reveals the following link which gives an overview of the initiative [1].

I'd suggest that the missing element of text ought to be completed by something along the lines of as follows:

"[attempting to improve the mental health of young people by] promoting mental health literacy and assisting schools to develop approaches to wellbeing".

That would be an over-simplification, but it would be better than having no info at all. Further detail would, I suspect, be undue. Axad12 (talk) 03:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12: I implemented your exact suggestion, but with a source. STEMinfo (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

That would only be true if your definition of the word 'exact' involves

a) not adding the suggested additional material about what the initiative actually does

and b) only adding 1 of the awards rather than 2.

Both of those elements were part of my suggestion, both have been supported by other users, and neither were included in your recent edits. Axad12 (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I added the award that could be sourced. There's nothing stopping you from adding the other award, if you can find a good source. And I added info about what the award is for, which was your recommendation. I'm trying to clear the COI backlog. If you want to stay on this one and keep it open, feel free, but your exacting interpretation of properly sourced info might discourage people from using the edit request process going forward. STEMinfo (talk) 05:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Decision making on Wikipedia is done via WP:CONSENSUS, not by ignoring consensus, gaslighting other editors, and then claiming that the justification is that you are trying to clear the COI backlog.

If that is your definition of clearing a backlog then I suggest that you either slow down or stop.

Also, I've already stated that I'm fine with the sourcing that the requesting editor provided, so your final sentence above, suggesting that I have an exacting interpretation of properly sourced info, is based on a very faulty reading of this thread.

Here are some comments taken from the discussion above:

user:Pigsonthewing: The other source is independent of Edge Hill Uni; and is the awarding body, so typical of sources used to support statements about awards in other articles

user:likeanechointheforest: These sources look good

user:Encoded: I'd support inclusion of this content [i.e. including both awards and both sources].

And myself: The idea that awards must be independently sourced is not a point of policy [...]. I see no objection to both awards being included [...].

Meanwhile it is you who didn't add the other award because you couldn't independently source it, contrary to the opinions of the other editors.

And yet you claim that it is I (who agreed with the inclusion) who has the exacting interpretation of properly sourced info which might discourage people from using the edit request process going forward? Seriously? Axad12 (talk) 05:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Article updated as per my suggested text of 21st October, which seems to reflect the views of all parties in the discussion above. Axad12 (talk) 10:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)