Talk:Greenwich University (Norfolk Island)

Australia: Education Low‑importance

Greenwich University (Norfolk Island) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Australia (assessed as Low-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

On June 2013, it was proposed that this article be moved from Greenwich University to Greenwich University (Norfolk Island). The result of the discussion was MOVE.

The University of Greenwich London University should be the main article that this page redirects to. The current content should be side-lined as it is not important or relevant to most people.

—gorgan_almighty 18:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. There is an article on the University of Greenwich at

Greenwich University. The disambig notice at the top is ample. Snottygobble | Talk 00:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

But the University of Greenwich in London is also known equally as Greenwich University. I suggest that the contents of this page be moved to Greenwich University (fraud) and be replaced with a proper disambiguation page. Or better yet a #REDIRECT to University of Greenwich, and a small disambiguation notice at the top of that page which points to Greenwich University (fraud). My proposal is in line with Wikipedia policy regarding the relevance and notability of disambiguated meanings. We will let the admins decide on this issue, so please do not remove the cleanup notice again.

—gorgan_almighty 09:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The

Greenwich University is an entirely different institution. I dispute that your proposal is in line with Wikipedia policy. I also dispute that admins are better qualified than non-admins to decide on this issue, which is probably unfortunate considering I am an admin myself. I won't revert your cleanup notice again, but I ask you not to take any action on this until we can establish a consensus. It seems that that we are unlikely to agree, so consensus probably means asking other people to comment. Snottygobble | Talk 12:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

I was a student at the University of Greenwich and I can assure you that the two names were used interchangeably. I only found this page while looking for an article on the University of Greenwich in the first place.

—gorgan_almighty 12:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As Greenwich University was an Australian tertiary institution, I have posted a request for comments on the Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. Snottygobble | Talk 12:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Snottygobble | Talk 12:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And I have done likewise on Talk:University of Greenwich.

—gorgan_almighty 12:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to change. A redirect is definitely a bad idea, although a disambiguation page would be ok. In my experience, UoG isn't often referred to as Greenwich University by people outside the uni in the same way that people talk about Oxford Uni, Sydney Uni, etc. And by the way, UoG is a University in London, but it hasn't got anything to do with the University of London/London University as implied by the first statement on this page. JPD (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to keep the article titles as is; people looking for the English university will easily find it from the dablink at the top. However, I recommend removing the term "diploma mill" from the dablink text, replacing it with a more NPOV term such as "nonaccredited institution". The allegation of its being a diploma mill in the body text should also be sourced. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The University of Greenwich's site refers to the university as the University of Greenwich. The hoax university is clearly referred to as Greenwich University, for example here. This is done in the same way that fake

talk) 22:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Precisely. The disambiguation header is clear enough, and anyone looking for the University of Greenwich will not have the slightest trouble locating that page. Ambi 04:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Thebainer's comparison is not quite fair, since the name cannot be intended to refer to the real University of Greenwich, since it was used by the dodgy uni before UoG was itself a university/using that name. JPD (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my view UoG is referred to (erroneously) as "Greenwich University" often enough that a redirect for this term to that article is slightly preferable to the current situation. This does seem to be a notable enough diploma mill to have its own article (Greenwich University (unaccredited)), but it is after all defunct. Rd232 ^talk 23:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The defunctness is of little relevance. By that argument

George Washington (movie). —Wahoofive (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

As I said earlier, I don't think it is used as much outside the uni as the examples you give, but even if it were, that would make it a disambiguation page, not a redirect, shouldn't it? JPD (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran a Google search on "Greenwich University" ([1]) and there were results referring to both institutions. It's slightly biased to the failed one, and yes, it does seem that the use of "Greenwich University" to refer to the "University of Greenwich" is slightly less common than the examples I cited. So I'd say, keep everything as is? Enochlau 14:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to keep all as is. We're an encyclopedia, and should always refer to things in the proper manner. With the current disambig note, we are saying, "You might have been trying to find the UoG, but this isn't the right place." It's almost a courtesy thing, and I like it as is. A disambig page would be warranted if they were both officially referred to as Greenwich University, which they are not.

Harro5 00:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

It matters not that the act was overridden by further legislation; the Department of Education, Science and Training refers to it as Greenwich University [2]

I agree with

I'm British, but have no connections to the University of Greenwich. A Google search on British newspaper websites (for example, site:guardian.co.uk and site:independent.co.uk) brings up more references to "Greenwich University" than "University of Greenwich" (Guardian: 282 U of G, 297 GU, Independent: 159 U of G, 202 GU) and a scan of the results shows that most if not all of the references to Greenwich University are to the British university. This is pretty standard for British universities (see, for example, "

University of Lancaster" who are for legal purposes "University of X", but now are better known as "X University" to the point that this has become their trading name). I support the suggestion that "Greenwich University" should be a disambiguation page rather than the current page on the diploma mill. ThomasL (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The Times Higher Education (the magazine for British higher education community) also uses "Greenwich University" and "University of Greenwich" interchangeably. Although they prefer U of G slightly (U of G 451, GU 317) there really isn't that much of a difference. The same is true of the Telegraph newspaper (U of G 43, GU 31). Most of these sources, therefore, think that "Greenwich University" and "The University of Greenwich" are the same place. ThomasL (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bear is evidently too complex a character to be fairly summarised either as "the notorious degree mill operator Dr John Bear" or "world-famous education author Dr John Bear". To resolve this dispute I have removed both statements, created a short article on John Bear, and linked to it from this article. Snottygobble 23:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article lacks reliable sources and is drawing complaints. I have stubbed it and encourage editors to add only well-referenced material based on reliable sources. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added governmental sources. Arbusto 05:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is ridiculous to use the Greenwich University topic to describe the four years of that school's existence that occurred outside the U.S., thus ignoring the previous thirty (30) American years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.9.40 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akamai University has no relation at all to Greenwich University. The "redirect" to Greenwich University is completely erroneous and without any basis. This error needs to be taken care of immediately. Akamai University is not and never was Greenwhich University. Suggest to delete this redirect as soon as possible.

I deleted the redirect, as I could find some relation, but not enough to justifying identifying the two universities as one and the same. Thue | talk 12:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The relationship is explained in this version of the article, which was fundamentally correct but under-referenced, and was stubbed out after someone complained. Hesperian 13:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found that same information while searching the web before removing the redirect. I still removed the redirect, because I am not sure the information is enough to say that the two "universities" are one and the same. Thue | talk 11:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]