Talk:London School of Economics/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Income skewed due to LSE's specialisms?

Somebody added the piece of information that the income of LSE students is the highest in the UK, "although this figure is ostensibly skewed due to LSE's specialisms", referring to an article by the Daily Telegraph. To quote the article in this manner ("ostensibly skewed due to LSE's specialisms"), however, is incorrect. In the Daily Telegraph text it is written that the LSE's average income is "a figure inevitably skewed by access to high-earning City jobs". The argument here is that the LSE has a favorable geographic location, not a favorable specialism. But this argument about the favorable location of the LSE is at least problematic because other universities also enjoy this favorable geographic location in London - they relatively close to the City - yet they do not enjoy the same level of income. Therefore, I will remove this sentence and ask everyone to first respond to this message before inserting it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.124.178.248 (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I have moved your post to the bottom of the page: one would not expect to see a new comment at the top of the page. For your information, there is a section above concerning this matter. I do not think you are necessarily correct in saying that the remark refers to LSE's location. In a similar way, upon reflection, I might not have been necessarily correct for saying that the comment refers specifically to LSE's specialisms (I can assure you, however, that this assumption was made in good faith). The article says no more than 'access to high-earning City jobs'. As I wrote above, this could mean access due to the subjects taken (these might lead more easily to these types of jobs), access due to physical location (as you suggested), or possibly other things (for example, access due to LSE generally being a good university, in the same way that the University of Oxford would be high on such a list). I do not believe we can be certain what is intended: the phrase in the article is not clear in its reasoning. It is worth remarking, however, that very many articles exist that show relationships between subjects taken and future earnings (a simple Google search gives many), which makes the explanation due to LSE's specialisms seem plausible. Regardless, due to the uncertain nature of this, I have removed the statistic from the lead of the article for the time being. A couple of weeks ago, I wrote on this page that it would be preferable to remove a misleading statistic from this prominent position of the page than to have it there unexplained. In my opinion, it would still be nice to have it later in the article, in a place where we need not worry as much about these matters. I would be very interested to obtain some ideas of how it can be worded so that it would be suitable for reinsertion in the lead. I have looked for sources, but I can find very little. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Blogging

One thing that isn't mentioned in this article is the attempts by LSE to set up academic blogging. This is still quite small scale but there are some people in academia who are convinced that some form of blogging/online content system is going to eventually take over from academic journals as the way to disseminate research. I'm not sure I agree with that, but I wonder if it's worth putting something in the article about this as the LSE blogging initiatives are pretty much regarded as the "gold standard" for this sort of thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.17.69 (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on London School of Economics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

JFK did not attend the LSE

Source: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsehistory/2015/11/25/the-almost-alumnus-john-fitzgerald-kennedy-1917-1963 /JFK did not attend the LSE, according to the LSE itself. He enrolled but never attended and his registration fees were refunded. Owlsmcgee (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

LSE 60's Sit-Ins, etc.

No mention here of the goings-on at the university during the 1960s, driven by prevalent anti-Vietnam tendencies and the establishment's indirect links to related research and finance. The subject is an obvious omission from the Controversy section. Some info can be gained from its book published source: https://www.worldcat.org/title/lse-the-natives-are-restless-a-report-on-student-power-in-action/oclc/84520 31.55.0.251 (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Nathan's comment on this article

Dr. Nathan has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


Reference 9 needs updating: LSE's full time student body is now c.9600 (http://www.lse.ac.uk/aboutLSE/keyFacts/home.aspx)

1.3.1 / In para 1, '2010 to present', you could add LSE's role in two of the UK Government's 'What Works Centres': http://www.whatworksgrowth.org/, https://whatworkswellbeing.org/

1.3.2 / In 'controversy', you could add a link to the LSE report on Kids Company: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/52856/1/Jovchelovitch_Kids_Company_Diagnosis_2013.pdf

2/ Campus and estate - the 24 Kingsway Building is now known as the 'New Academic Building'

2.1/ Location - nobody ever refers to the Northbank or 'Midtown'. The LSE is situated in Holborn.

3.3 / Academic Departments and Institutes - this section should also include some detail on LSE's research centres. These are listed here: http://www.lse.ac.uk/intranet/directoriesAndMaps/researchCentres.aspx

4.3.1 / Centres and think tanks - this section should be titled 'Research centres'. In the UK context 'think tanks' has a specific meaning which is distinct from academic research centres such as these. Also, this section should really list the Centre for Economic Performance (http://cep.lse.ac.uk/).


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Nathan has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


  • Reference : Max Nathan & Emma Vandore, 2013. "Here Be Startups: Exploring a young digital cluster in Inner East London," SERC Discussion Papers 0146, Spatial Economics Research Centre, LSE.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

'The school has produced a quarter of all Nobel prize winners in Economics.'

I have had to remove this spurious claim inserted by multiple anonymous users. There is no evidence at all that one-quarter of all Nobel prize winners in Economics have been produced by LSE. It is scary to see a so-called 'reliable source' copy this claim from the article [1]. 86.170.130.156 (talk) 13:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Other spurious claims: LSE students have the highest salary of UK universities. Reputable citations are needed not from incorrectly cited articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.198.122.243 (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I've added some clarification to the current statement on Nobel prize winners as it was presented in a somewhat misleading manner.Robminchin (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Claim to be 'prestigious' in the lead

The sentence "The LSE is often regarded as one of the world's most prestigious universities for the study of the social sciences." was added recently to the end of the 1st paragraph of the lead, with references to the four international rankings. This appears to be contrary to WP:PRESTIGE and, in linking rankings to prestige, WP:OR (note that the academic investigations of prestige differentiate it from both ranking and reputation, e.g. Universities vie for the metric that cannot be measured: prestige). The rankings are already discussed in proper detail (c.f. WP:UNIGUIDE) in the third paragraph of the lead. Robminchin (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Oscar Arias Sanchez

There seems to be some mystery about Oscar Arias Sanchez. There are a number of reputable sources saying he studied at LSE[2][3][4] but LSE do not list him among their Nobel prize​-winning alumni.[5] Have LSE managed to misplace a Nobel prize winner? Or is this a mistake that has propagated (c.f. JFK)? Robminchin (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on London School of Economics. 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) 13:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Golden Triangle

As requested, I have added further references that demonstrate that LSE is not universally considered to be part of the Golden Triangle. It should be noted, however, that Nature's decision to exclude LSE from its definition of the Golden Triangle because it is concerned with science was already a perfectly valid demonstration that LSE is not always included in this grouping.

As it is clear that LSE is not universally considered part of the Golden Triangle, it is necessary that this article acknowledge this in order to comply with WP:NPOV. In this situation, an unqualified statement that LSE is part of the Golden Triangle is unacceptable. Robminchin (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Warwick was in Clearing during 2017

Hello,

I am not really good at editing wikipedia, but just so you know Warwick University was actually in Clearing during 2017 (Article says LSE alongside Warwick and others were not in Clearing)

Information can be found here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/clearing/11032272/Top-universities-in-Clearing-last-year.html?frame=2625317

146.198.250.186 (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The Telegraph article is from 2015 and says Warwick was in clearing in 2014. Robminchin (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


Hello, please see this:

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/a-level-clearing-warwick-university-13483185

146.198.250.186 (talk) 06:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on London School of Economics. 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) 15:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Claim in lead to be "regarded as one of the worlds most prestigious and leading universities."

An IP editor has inserted this statement into the lead and reverted its removal. It is blatant academic boosterism (see WP:BOOSTER and WP:PUFFERY). Rather than engaging in an edit war, I have tagged the offending statement. Robminchin (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

As there has been no attempt to justify the claim, I have now removed it. Robminchin (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Offending? WP BOOSTERISM doesnt apply here. Btw I've changed those terms long time ago.85.211.169.199 (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Robminchin, so explain please.--85.211.169.3 (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
This thread is from February. If you want to discuss the current proposed edits, which have been reverted as WP:PUFFERY by multiple editors, you need to start a discussion on those and justify why you think they are not puffery. Robminchin (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Oscar Arias

Resurrecting a thread by Robminchin, it seems unclear that Óscar Arias attended LSE. It is uncited on his article, I will probably remove him for now. Aloneinthewild (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

offer rates

User: Townend has tried changing the offer statistics in the admissions table {{cite web|url-https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/offer_rates?nocache=incoming-1367938#incoming-1367938} which he acquired by a freedom of information request (total applications/total offers/total registration [or enrolled for graduate] for undergraduate and graduate) and then calculated the offer rate which to me seems like WP:NOR since we don't know exactly how an offer rate is calculated [does it include incomplete applications or withdrawn applications?] (also he changed the cite for the applications row not the offer rate row). I note that none of the numbers he got back match the other numbers in the table. Which made me look at the sources. First I note that the offer rate in the original source is strictly for June applications by 18 year olds; I would drop this row. Second the table needs to be clearer that the info is for undergraduate admissions. We could, I think, use his source for a table of applications/offers [not offer rate]/registration (for undergraduates) and applications/offers/enrolled for graduate. --Erp (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

My feeling is that we should stick with the UCAS statistics, which are consistent across UK universities and, as such, are in use on multiple Wikipedia articles. In general, official third party statistics are also preferred over the institution's own statistics as a matter of Wikipedia policy. Robminchin (talk) 03:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, the previous statistics showed applicant numbers for 18 year old summer applicants in agreement with the FOI request. However, the offer rates were around 10% more than the FOI from the university itself suggest. Upon further inspection, it seems the UCAS offer rate statistics do not correspond to 18 year old summer applicants, but a smaller sample according to “sex, area, background and ethnic group.” It is misleading to suggest that these are offer rates for the uni as a whole. Instead I propose we use a more comprehensive statistic given by the uni itself, and potentially add graduate statistics.

Secondly, I’d prefer not to use ‘third party statistics’ like this when they are inconclusive and don’t accurately represent the given headings. The Oxford university page , for example, does not use these statistics and instead references data given on their website.

Finally, the numbers in the rest of the table, as well as the discrepancies when considering incomplete/withdrawn applications can be adjusted accordingly, however last time I did that it was reverted. --Townend (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

"I’d prefer not to use ‘third party statistics’ like this when they are inconclusive and don’t accurately represent the given headings.” Great, but most of us would prefer to use third party statistics. Doing a FOI for this is what the kids these days call “extra,” and is in my opinion WP:OR because of the way questions are formed in the British FOI system. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Not only is it preferable to use third party statistics, it's Wikipedia policy: "Articles must be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (WP:SOURCES). Where the self-published statistics from LSE paint a more favourable picture of LSE (lower offer rate) than the independent statistics, it is clear that, as a matter of policy, the independent statistics should be preferred.
I also agree with Horse Eye Jack (talk · contribs) and Erp (talk · contribs) that the alternative proposed statistics appear to be the product of original research by Townend (talk · contribs). Robminchin (talk) 03:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
"Articles must be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Perhaps edit the oxford university page and others accordingly then.

Taking into account of this criticism of my “original research” (dividing offer numbers by applicant numbers) maybe a more sensible edit would be to change the heading “offer rate “ with “offer rate by sex, area background and gender,” which would be a less misleading representation of these beloved third party statistics. Moreover, it’s illegal to lie in a FOI and I can’t see how the way the question was posed has in any way made the request WP:OR. Townend (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Controversies section

A controversies section has recently been created on this page. In other universities' articles, the tendency has been to put controversies in the history section (as was previously the case here) as having their own section tends to lend them undue weight compared to their significance in the history of the institution (see, e.g., Talk:University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill#"Criticism" section). What do other editors think? In particular, it would be good to hear from @Flaughtin: on their reasons for creating the section. Robminchin (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Robminchin: I separated out the section because i did not see the controversioes as just a history issue (I mean as a wikipedia category, not in the generic sense) - it's clear that the items could have been put in and at any rate involve different sections of the article (org and admin, student life, notable people even). So better to cut the confusion and just centralize them under one, stand-alone category. We can debate about integrating the controversy content in the other sections but I wouldn't see it is appropriate given the contrasting nature of the material involved - the information in controversy section is all political while the extant information in all the anticipatorily relevant sections (history, org and admin, etc) is not . Flaughtin (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I've reverted under WP:BRD. AS Rob says the general structure has been to include controversies under history, these events all happened in the last ten years of LSE's history. I don't understand this users thoughts that this section could be included under other headings. Whether the section needs to be edited for a more NPOV is another matter. Aloneinthewild (talk) 10:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Flaughtin, I noticed you updated the information in the section, I've added that back now. Aloneinthewild (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Robminchin:, Aloneinthewild If that is the case then why don't we just get rid of the controversy section entirely (per WP:NOCRIT)? We can integrate all the negative stuff that is currently there with more positive information that isnt there yet. Flaughtin (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Mistake: "political", not "social"

There is a mistake in the title of your page: "London School of Economics and Social Science".

You should write "POLITICAL" instead of "Social", since this is the exact name of the LSE.

The URL I am talking about is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_School_of_Economics_and_Social_Science&redirect=no

However it is not possible to correct it, because this is an automatic "redirect" page.

The point is that Facebook uses this very page for all alumni.

(I tried to put here a link that shows this Facebook issue, however I was not allowed to do so; therefore I let those who will want to correct this page type the exact words "London School of Economics and Social Science" in any search engine, then see what results are given and follow the one to Facebook.)

--> please LSE people (?), correct this "Social Science" page!

The above comment seems to be correct, this paper also seems to use the term "political science" in the title of the school. --Donald Trung (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


The redirect page states clearly "From incorrect name: This is a redirect from an erroneous name – either an incorrect name or a title that is unsuitable as a Wikipedia article title or other project page name – that serves readers because it is a good search term. The correct name is given by the target of the redirect." The page it redirects to (this one) states the correct full title in the opening sentence. If Facebook is pointing alumni to the wrong page then that's something you need to take up with FB not wikipedia. Tip.Stall (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Should those who graduated before LSE awarded its own degrees be described as students at UofL or LSE?

For instance, George Soros.[6]. Doug Weller talk 11:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Students who graduated both before and after LSE started awarding its own degrees were students of both LSE and UoL. Students were and are registered by both their college and the federal university. They should not be described as holding LSE degrees, because they don't, but they were certainly LSE students. Robminchin (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
LSE is a college within University of London and is now a member institution. LSE since it's founding until 2008 solely awarded University of London degree and diploma. The degree clearly says "student admitted to the degree of University of London as student at LSE". Historically, when LSE was founded it was just a new college and a insignificant one. It grew in prestige because three major reasons - first it is located in London (location always matters), secondly it is part of University of London federal collegiate system and thirdly, LSE is a exclusively social sciences teaching center/college. It doesn't teach pure science, pure mathematics, medicine, engineering and even fine arts. It is pretty obvious LSE is what it is because federal UOL made it prestigious.
University of London also awards honorary degrees since 1903 and has done so in subject of economics. Nelson Mandela was awarded Honorary DSc in Economics in 1996, Amartya Sen was was awarded Honorary DSc in Economics in 2000. The honorary degree graduates and internal and external students are all degree holders of University of London.

Rankings and reputation

User LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 has been trying to insert a paragraph that states "LSE's ranking varies considerably depending on the methodology used. As to LSE's rankings in specific subjects, these range from among the top 10 to 20 in the world in economics, law, and history, to considerably lower rankings (typically outside of the top 200 global universities) in natural sciences. The relative weight accorded various subjects in different rankings thus causes a considerable variance in LSE's overall rankings between different studies." No sources are cited to support this parsing of the rankings or the interpretation that it is the "relative weight afforded [to] various subjects" that causes the differences between the rankings (indeed, based on the published methodologies of the rankings, a far more likely explanation is that THE, QS and Leiden correct for the size of the institution while ARWU does not and USNews uses both corrected and uncorrected data). Without a reliable source to support this interpretation, this falls under WP:No original research. The paragraph also comes across as attempting to explain away the low rankings given to LSE by some organisations, which is not consistent with WP:WIKIVOICE (I'm not saying this is the intent of LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08, just that this is how the paragraph reads). If an introductory paragraph is needed to the rankings section, which is not clear, it needs to meet WP:Neutral point of view, WP: Verifiability and WP:No original research. Robminchin (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I understand your concern. I do think we need a topic paragraph however, or the data just looks scattershot.
I have tried to re-add a topic paragraph that does not contain any of the material to which you object. Let me know what you think. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
There are still a number of problems. "LSE's rankings in various surveys of global and international prestige have varied considerably from study to study." – These aren't studies or surveys of prestige, they're ranking tables, and they are not ranking prestige (although some, but not all, do use reputation as one of the factors). "The rankings of LSE's individual academic departments also vary considerably, with its economics, social sciences, history, and law departments ranking very high on a global scale, and its natural science departments ranking much lower." – The only ranked department at LSE within what QS defines as the natural sciences is geography, which they rank second in the world, so there don't appear to be multiple departments as implied by the plural, and nor does it rank much lower. The THE ranking places LSE low within the field of physical sciences, but this is a broad discipline ranking, not one based on individual departments. Robminchin (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
It is untrue that "LSE ranks considerably lower in its natural science programs.(sic)" The only international ranking of a programme at LSE classified as natural sciences – Geography – puts it second in the world, higher than any of the "social science, law, and history departments". Robminchin (talk) 04:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

COI editing?

I work at LSE in the Library. A few of us have been looking at this page and reviewing it. We'd like to work to improve it and have some specific areas we feel we could improve. I wanted to ask for advice on this rather than just jump straight in (although I am personally keen to be bold to learn more and make better contributions to the wider project).

Where to start? Well, we've noticed a lot of link rot for citations that were reliant on the LSE website so thought tidying them up might be sensible. Thoughts or suggestions on going about this would be very welcome.

The history section seems particularly long as well, and with there already being a sub-page for that I wondered about de-duplicating and moving content over (leaving something more succinct on this page). Thoughts about that?

I've also noticed an inaccuracy about the library so I'm going to remove that right away. Anwyay, 'Hi!'. Help me, please! I can see from the history there are some dedicated editors here so wanted to be open and approach things correctly.

And finally, should I even start? ArthurWilliamJack (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Neil and I work at LSE Library with ArthurWilliamJack. I'm going to be helping with the work outlined above, and I'm also interested in hearing fellow editors' thoughts on our proposed plan of action. NeilstewartLSE (talk) 10:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
If you read through WP:COI you might get a better idea of how to approach this. In general, you can edit articles with a disclosed COI (as you have done) but, as you are currently employed by the institution, this is especially frowned upon even if it's not exactly WP:PAID. However, as long as you avoid puffery and talking about how great LSE is there is nothing stopping you. There are a number of unaffiliated editors on WikiProject Higher Education who would be happy to fix or add cited information, or discuss them with you to form a better consensus change. If you feel like you're not getting anyone's attention, dropping a note at the project's talk page will probably help. Shadowssettle Need a word? 11:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:London_School_of_Economics/Archive_3&oldid=1220243151"