Talk:Priyamvada Gopal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Tweets

I removed [1] a section constructed from Gopal's tweets as there is no indication why these particular tweets were chosen. In addition, labeling these tweets under "Public controversies" is original research. Pikavoom (talk) 06:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Pikavoom. I also think that this section should be deleted, for the reasons you outline, and because Twitter is not supposed to be used as a reference on Wikipedia. I also think that the wilful misunderstanding of Dr Gopal's tweets turns this into a controversy. Srsval (talk) 09:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit war in progress it seems. I deleted the passage again. Apart from a brief article in Varsity, it is yet to reach the wider media and therefore does not pass the threshold for notability and inclusion. Philip Cross (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Chiming in to say that I agree, we need reliable independent sources to guide the content here and a passing mention in Varsity isn't enough. Richard Nevell (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Philip Cross. And if we are going to cite Twitter then we should also cite the Pinned Tweet from Cambridge University (24 June 2020): 'The University defends the right of its academics to express their own lawful opinions which others might find controversial and deplores in the strongest terms abuse and personal attacks. These attacks are totally unacceptable and must cease.' https://twitter.com/Cambridge_Uni/status/1275819264327528449. Srsval (talk) 10:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

We're getting a lot of vandalism from IPs so I've requested semi-protection for this page. Richard Nevell (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Richard Nevell. Very much needed!Srsval (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Good, the IP vandals and POV-pushers were too numerous. Pikavoom (talk) 06:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting this article! Since I started it I have always had a bit of an eye on this article in case it got vandalized, so I am glad others have already fixed and protected it.Jule, Die (talk) 14:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Has the semi-protection expired? Seems to have been a glut of vandalism this morning. Thanks to @Materialscientist: for blocking the persistent IP vandal earlier today.Zakhx150 (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Her tweets met WIDE SPREAD CONDEMNATION! Reading this article makes it look like she just cured cancer with her racist comments! Have you no shame2A00:1370:8112:BF9A:657A:C902:2182:C509 (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Sources? Pikavoom (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

How to handle up-coming promotion?

The press has recently announced Dr Gopal's promotion from Reader to Professor, though - if the press report is correct - it seems not to come into effect until 1 October. What's the best way to handle this in the introduction and infobox? The Parson's Cat (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I like the wording Parsonscat used in the body of the article. At the moment the lead reads "Priyamvada Gopal (born 1968) is a Professor in the Faculty of English at the University of Cambridge". Since has been confirmed but doesn't come into effect until October it's a bit tricky, but I think following the University of Cambridge's website might help. At the moment, she is still referred to as a Reader. I've added some text to the lead mentioning the promotion, as it is still significant. And with the infobox I'd lean towards 'Reader in Anglophone and Related Literature' as her title, with maybe a footnote explaining that her title will change in October. Does that sound like it could work? Richard Nevell (talk) 09:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The only question I have is whether a footnote would bury the promotion too much? I was wondering about putting something along the lines of "As of June 2020: Reader in Anglophone and Related Literature; From October 2020: Professor of Anglophone and Related Literature". For now, should we also change the first "Professor" in the lead to something else? "Senior Academic" would be uncontroversial and wouldn't need to change in October. The Parson's Cat (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I think stating professor with a footnote that this comes into effect in October. For all practical purposes (other than pay, I suppose), she has attained this status. Pikavoom (talk) 07:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that approach. Richard Nevell (talk) 08:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Accepting the reasonableness of saying that Dr Gopal has attained the status of professor - which she clearly has - the biggest problem I'd have with this is it doesn't strictly conform to the sources. I'd prefer an approach that treads the careful ground between giving credit where credit is quite rightly due and strict accuracy. One way we might do this is to change the opening paragraph to say that she is a "senior academic" in the Faculty of Cambridge, shortly followed by a statement that her promotion to professor was announced in June 2020. What do people think? The Parson's Cat (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It used to be the case that professorship was "no big deal" in the Cambridge English Faculty: there was an admin burden, but not so much status. I'm not in a position to know whether that still applies in the way it did 30 years ago. It is a big step, career-wise, for any academic. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we are still on topic here, but it's an interesting question. I suspect that things changed about 20 years ago when Cambridge introduced the idea of personal professorships and readerships. The Parson's Cat (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)