Talk:G5 (universities)

WP:DENY actions of a blocked sock

English or British To me it should be English. Universities are done at national level, they are not British, but English or Scottish etc. They are funded from their respective bodies, for example Scottish Parliament (Scotland), Northern Ireland Assembly (NI), Sennedd (Wales), Westminster (England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saariselka1 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC) I have no view on this one way or another, but my issue is they way it was done, so if the clear consensus is that this change should be made, I am happy to make it. 22:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC) These institutions are of national significance and profile and 'British' is quite correct. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC) I think it is clear that Rangoon has a direct interest in the articles, and sees the article as it was somehow a benefit to him/her. I dont really see why, but they seem to see things differently. Universities such as queens, Cardiff, Edinburgh, St Andrews, Glasgow.... have nothing to do with this group hence England, as universities are not done at British level. Our university system/structure is not the same either. It's just the same as having a group related to funding in France, a German university would have no place in it. This group is about funding, high reseach incomes etc, has nothing directly to do with reputation(Saariselka1 (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)). Education is a devolved matter. it looks very much a UK government situation, hence would agree in should specify English. I would a agree with Rangoon whey are of national importance, but that still doesn't mean you can say British. Edinburgh and St Andrews are also of huge national importance, and by using G5 is almost stating these are above them(Fun27 (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)). Does this group still exist today? It appears to be a grouping which occured in 2004 for funding arrangements under the labour government. Can we please discuss whether this group is still meeting, or whether it should say was. If it is still meeting, can someone please post evidence for it thanks. Thanks, saariselka1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saariselka1 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC) The opposite is the case, third party citations are required showing that the grouping is now defunct. In the absence of any it should be assumed that the grouping still exists.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC) The references clearly point out that it was related to university funding legislation in 2004, there is no evidence or reason why it is meeting now. It isnt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saariselka1 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC) That matter may now be closed providing reference, given in article history is added to the article(Saariselka1 (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)).

Edit war of Nov 2011

Would the parties warring over the inclusion of the phrase "and the leading research universities in the UK" kindly take the time to state there cases here for it's inclusion or removal ? Mtking ^(edits) 04:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to lose that wording but not to have relevant cites removed.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

when asked, it would be polite if you would inform us the page number of a book which you cite something from, you cant just include a whole book and expect someone to read it all to check one point, when citing a specific points from a book, a page number must be given. I personally think this article is a bit of a joke, which is reflected on the comments made above in about is content. It was an informal group of meeting in 2004 to discuss funding, and is not relevant today, yet your references do not make it clear, and you seem completly unwilling to allow any change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edinburghgeog (talk • contribs) 23:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

but at the least I am more happy now that the phase leading universities in the UK has now been removed, this was a completely unreferenced comment, but would still like super elite removing, that comes from one only one journalist back in 2004. I would also like references included which actually support the concept of 'is' and opposed to be 'was' implying it was a group regarding funding which was formed in 2004. I also feel the fact that it began about funding should also be included in the article, it was not a grouping to group together about prestige, it was about funding, and this article does not clarify this, appears to be rewritten by people wanting their universities to appear very high class, although im half satisfied the 'leading universities in the UK has now been removed'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edinburghgeog (talk • contribs) 23:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I will find the page number and add it to the cite. I having nothing against the addition of content about funding and this is the first time it has been mentioned. The comment about the 'leading research universities in the UK' was in fact properly cited, I agreed to its removal in an attempt to settle consensus and avoid further edit warring, not because it was uncited. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

can you please add the page number, also there should be a full stop at the end of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edinburghgeog (talk • contribs) 23:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Notability Tag

For the record, I think it should remain, the article does need more sources to establish notability. Mtking ^(edits) 03:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent reverts

I am happy to discuss recent changes, as long as other parties agree to stop blindly reverting all changes, with no explanation what so ever. Two things, the article should not try and be promotional, and secondly, there is no benefit in writing out all five universities again twice, that looks ridiculous.Hkong91 (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between being promotional and stating factual and cited information. The Times Higher Education has described the members of the G5 as forming a "super elite". Why do you wish to remove this long-standing text from the article (text which I didn't put in the article I should add). Rangoon11 (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

So what if they have described them as super elite? Thats just one article, in fact about the only source which I think has ever used the term, so I also actually struggle how you can see the newspaper as independent from the term. As this may have been discussed before, i will try and avoid discussing the merits of inclusion. Perhaps describing or writing about the universities in question from a different source may be better, or perhaps mention how they have been ranked in a range of global league tables. The author does not offer a fact, they are actually offering their personal opinion. the Times Higher website is not peer reviewed material, they are writing what sells the magazine/adverts. Could you not find mention of this G5 in the BBC perhaps. I'm deeply surprised that if its classed as a serious grouping and on here its not been mentioned ever?Hkong91 (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, do you agree that there is no need to list the names of five universities twice, I can understand if you think the wording could be phrased better that the above, but I see no point in listing them all again? Then perhaps we can come up together with a better way of describing the universities as well. ThanksHkong91 (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the addition of super elite may have been to try and state why those 5 universities formed the group, however it really does not do this. Do you know a better reference which would explain why those 5 universities were selected, and not another university perhaps?Hkong91 (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

No great issue with removing the duplicative list of members. In my view the reference to "super elite" is cited and relevant, as well as being a long standing part of the article, and should stay. Please don't attempt to force its deletion through edit warring any more. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I was contemplating adding a comment that other Russel Group universities opposed the grouping? This would say that they felt it was better if pressure was applied from all 19 Russel Group universities. Any thoughts?Hkong91 (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Until you desist from attempt to force changes to this article through edit warring I wont waste any more time discussing the article with you on this page.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Reference to "super elite"

Should the article contain a mention of the Times Higher Education's description of the group as forming a "super elite"? Rangoon11 (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

No, reasons above.Hkong91 (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes - this would reflects the group's raison d'etre and public perceptions of the universities' reputation, and is an appropriate citation. FWIW a properly cited reference to opposition to the group would also be worth adding Dtellett (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

No, not as written. It's a random, throwaway bit of trivia. If the article could be expanded, with some justification for including the "super elite" comment, then that would be different. For example: "Called 'super elite' by the THE, the group consists of a subset of the prominent Russel Group. The G5 first met in secret, with few vice chancellors knowing of its existence." Now, that I could support. Just randomly inserting it into the article makes it look like promotion, as Hkong91 says. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep Notable, and properly sourced.--MichaelProcton (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to mention, Rangoon11, who wished to keep the article in question has recently been blocked, with a history of blocks for edit warring and sock puppetry. I thought this my be useful so to remove his previous opinions from any debate, although im not at all alleging any other user above might be a sock of Rangoon11. thanksHkong91 (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC).

Does the G5 really exist?

From the sources cited, it seems to be basically another name for the Golden triangle (universities). There is very little evidence that this is a genuine formal grouping that was established in 2004 – if this was the case, I would expect to have seen far more mention of it in the 18 years since. It might be better to merge this stub into the golden triangle article as an alternative name for that informal grouping. Robminchin (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)