Talk:List of alumni of the University of Westminster

Capitalisation

Let's be consistent with capitalisation: a job title, e.g., "Exectutive Director of the British Museum" shopuld be capitalised; a job description, e.g., "author", "musician", "comedian", should not be. The article should be consistent, not have job descriptions captiaalised in some places and not in others. They should not be at all since they are not proper nouns. Ground Zero | t 19:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Possibly a factual error

Dear Sirs,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_Westminster_alumni

includes the following (under Film and Television - see below) but clicking on Irrfan Khan leads to another Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrfan_Khan that does not mention anything at all about him ever having studied at the University of Westminster! Even the Irrfan Khan Official Website (under External links) makes not a single reference to this University!

You may like to verify if this is a factual error.

122.178.233.105 (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Film and television

Stephen K Amos - comedian and TV presenter Charlie Brooker[7] – BAFTA nominated broadcaster Alec Carlin - film director Kristian Digby - presenter and director Andrew Dunn – BAFTA winning cinematographer (Hitch, The History Boys, Extraordinary Measures, Life as We Know It) Ruth England - newscaster and former presenter of Wish You Were Here...? Trisha Goddard - TV presenter/chat show host Darine Hamze – Lebanese actress and filmmaker Asif Kapadia - BAFTA winning filmmaker (The Warrior and Senna) Irrfan Khan - Bollywood actor (Slumdog Millionaire)

Emwazi

There are only 3 questions that matter here:

• Is he a notable person? Yes see Jihadi_John - extensive wikipedia article
• Is he an alumni of University of Westminster ? I don't think this is seriously contested by anyone
• Have reliable sources called out his alumni status when describing him? Yes -

This means he belongs on this list, whether people find it "provocative " or embarrassing or whatever. Stop removing this, I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Of course he is notable. He has a wp page. If anyone thinks he is not, then seek at afd to delete the page, or seek at the talk page to delete mention of him. Epeefleche (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• He is one of the most notable people on the planet now! It should be noted that he is famous for being a murderer, or executioner. On this count, he would otherwise be just another ISIL nobody.

• We do not need official confirmation; we have RS reporting. That is the litmus test on wikipedia. Epeefleche (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure he is notable but I don't think very clearly as an alumni. He certainly is not, as stated, "one of the most notable people on the planet now" and the Jihadi John article does not appear in the top 5,000 listing at User:West.andrew.g/Popular_pages. The whole concept of alumni relates to "one nourished" and we have to wonder wtf did he learn. Can we point to anything he gained from the his studies that contributed in any way to the things that he is notable for?? Who describes him as being an alumni of the university??

If the article was entitles Former students of the University of Westminster this might be less controversial but, as per http://www.westminster.ac.uk/about-us/alumni/alumni-benefits , "alumni" can be interpreted in a number of ways. GregKaye 14:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Some useful points to consider there Greg, that I would tend to agree with. There is a comment piece from the Independent that might be illustrative.[1] The piece notes that Carlos the Jackal was once a student in the University's polytechnic days.Poltair (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Now that User:Myrmusp has been indefinitely blocked and the edit warring has hopefully stopped, for the time being at least, can we come to some consensus over how we leave Emwazi in the article? As there are strong feelings about his inclusion I will support that but does his description have to be terrorist? It's hardly NPOV. Poltair (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I think he should be included, as anything other would appear a whitewash of the institution- after all, they can't be blamed for educating a Carlos the Jackal, for instance. But would suggest that Jihadist more accurate to the source than terrorist. It mentions him as being in the company of jihadists, etc. No beef in this market, though, so well done everyone how the recent activity has been handled. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. That's the sort of concise description I was looking for. As you say, more accurate to the source. Certainly better than the convoluted tongue-twisters I was mulling over. Poltair (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

No -- that's yet another whitewash. Yes, he is a jihadi. We know this because the RSs say it is so. Yes, he is a terrorist. We know this because the RSs say it is so. It is NPOV to reflect what the RSs reflect ... NPOV does not mean we have to whitewash, whether it is for a terrorist or Charles Manson or a Nazi. That is a misunderstanding. He is a jihadi terrorist, as the RSs reflect. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, he is notable, yes the RSs support that he is an alumnus here, and yes we should reflect (since it is his claim to fame) that he is a terrorist as that is what he is identified as by the RSs. See, for example, here. That is NPOV -- NPOV does not mean whitewash out that the RSs identify him as a terrorist. See discussion of further editors, including User:TheRedPenOfDoom and User:Dennis Brown, in accord with this (other than Greg-an outlier editor) here. Epeefleche (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I think most people, in the discussion so far, are in agreement that he belongs in the list of alumni. What I am trying to do now is get consensus for how he is described. I am not sure that the editors you have listed, or the discussion at ANI necessarily support the description of Emwazi as a terrorist to be NPOV.Poltair (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The RSs call him a terrorist. That satisfies NPOV. NPOV does not mean "whitewash where I don't like it, even if the RSs say it." Other than throwing around the name of a guideline -- a common wp malady -- nobody who has cited NPOV for a change has cited an NPOV-based-reason to whitewash what the RSs support. And since not all jihadists are terrorists, it is appropriate to reflect that he is one. Epeefleche (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The term terrorist is value-laden. Using it as a descriptor tends to insert bias. It has been well debated[2] that the adjective 'terrorist' is not used in WP unless it is inside a cited direct quotation WP:WTA. Just have a look at [3] to get an idea of how often this issue has arisen in WP. I am going to suggest militant jihadist as a compromise.Poltair (talk) 08:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see "militant jihadist" as a compromise. Jihad is associated with defensive actions and has no clear association with the killing of captive journalists and aid workers who are kneeling and bound. Similarly "murderer" and "executioner" both present POV as they respectively present one side of legality. GregKaye 09:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• I also agree about the comparative notability of Ilich Ramírez Sánchez/Carlos the Jackal. The Carlos the Jackal page has been viewed 15765 times in the last 30 days while the Jihadi John page has been viewed 20977 times in the last 30 days. Not a lot of difference. One option would be to create an ==Other== section for both of them. As mentioned I don't think that these people fit the central definition of Alumus. I think that they can certainly be presented as attending the university but I don't see how the later actions of either character relate to any educative nourishment that they received. GregKaye 10:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• We reflect people as being born in place x, on date y, and attended school z whether or not those facts -- in the eyes of any individual editor, or otherwise -- relate to the "nourishment" they received. Seriously? What's next. Are you going to suggest we not list Hitler in a list of Germans? That's not how encyclopedias work, and not how WP works. Epeefleche (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of University of Westminster alumni. 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/20150402110753/http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/designer-stuart-wins-british-fashion-award-1.294552?referrerPath=%2F2.1692 to http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/designer-stuart-wins-british-fashion-award-1.294552?referrerPath=%2F2.1692

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) 01:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)