Talk:Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge/Archive 1

Archive 1

Quotation

All but the first sentence of the opening paragraph of the "Incidents and controversies" section is in quote marks, As a quoattion, it is not attributed to a source. Where is it from? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I made some changes

I made some changes to this article, which I'm documenting here as they're structurally large, though maybe not all that functionally substantial. Anyone should feel free to revert them, of course.

• Moved "heads of department" out of infobox and into "history" section (the template for this infobox doesn't really imagine an exhaustive historic list of former officeholders);
• Moved the Giulio Regeni part into "history" per WP:CRIT;
• Created a "notable people" section (ideally the "noteworthy academics" or whatever section should be merged here for structural consistency across similar articles on academic departments)

Chetsford (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Please edit...

I posted a question in Wikipedia:Teahouse and Marchjuly suggested I do an RFC, but my understanding is that I should come here and ask for help first.

This morning I deleted two additions to this page by another editor that had been previously deleted by Cordless Larry and Polygnotus. I then received a "final warning" from the editor so I am calling on other editors for help.

As an employee of the University of Cambridge (which I state in my User page as per WP:PAID) I am very careful that I only update things that are factual on this page - like a new Head of Department or things that clearly fall outside Wikipedia's guidelines.

So, today I deleted the aforementioned additions only after I read Wikipedia:CRIT as it seems quite clear that the editor's addition of an "Incidents and controversies" section, that had previously been removed, goes against both the section on "Neutrality and verifiability" and "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies" - particularly in the case of the Murder of Giulio Regeni. There is a whole Wikipedia article on the Murder of Giulio Regeni and dozens of other articles where he is mentioned. The university in no way wants to downplay the murder of Giulio and it is given a full sentence with a link to the Wiki article in a 4 sentence section on the History of the Department of Politics and International Studies in a department that has been around in some guise since the 19th century.

Tammy Chen, the student who was murdered in Burkina Faso, was killed in a terrorist attack that was in no way linked to the university. As Polygnotus said in his original edit, "Again, incredibly sad, but not very relevant to an article about a department of a uni."

And the story about underpaying staff was throughout the university, not within the department. The department does not set the amount staff are paid. This would be more appropriate on the University of Cambridge page - if it belongs anywhere at all.

Also, in the Reputation section he writes "However, in the latest Research Excellence Framework (REF) exercise the department fell from 6th to 21st place in the UK, ranking lower than nearby institutions such as the University of Essex or the University of East Anglia. This was driven by the departure of economists Ha-Joon Chang and Lucia A. Reisch, as well as Chong Hua Professor of Chinese Development William Hurst."

The move from 6th to 21st is true, but the rest of the information shows bias. We did rank below Essex and UEA, in REF but we also ranked above other world class universities like Durham who dropped from 10th to 28th and St Andrews at 24th. Why mention any other universities? And the final statement about the people who left is just false. I don't even know how to explain that. People leave jobs all the time. People leaving does not affect the Ref ranking.

So, I reach out for help. I do not want to do the edits myself because I do not want there to be any question of bias and I am committed to working within Wikipedia's guidelines - plus this editor threatened me, which freaked me out a little bit.

Thanks all. Dm980cam (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@HubbleRoadSolidarity: See above. Polygnotus (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It sure looks like HubbleRoadSolidarity was previously using the @Hubbleroadsolidarityclub: account. Perhaps they lost their password? Polygnotus (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

First of all no need to be freaked out. This is the internet, people just say things. Bookmark the {{edit coi}} template.

I did look into the story of the uni underpaying people at some point. It appears to be factually correct, some people were underpaid, but I didn't find much in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Unless we have reliable sources saying that it is relevant to this particular department it should probably not be mentioned here. But I would not be opposed to mentioning it on the main article about the uni.

About Giulio, I read some sources and it turns out the failure to cooperate with investigators story was a storm in a teacup. That accusation was made about a single person, not the uni or the department as a whole, and it is best to cover that over at Murder of Giulio Regeni. The Guardian says: Relations between the Italian investigators and Cambridge University got off to a bad start when Abdelrahman declined to hand over her emails and text messages after the funeral. She also kept the police waiting for three hours, turning up for her interview at the police station at 10pm. Abdelrahman’s reluctance to hand over her personal data is understandable, given her background – she had grown up in Egypt under a military regime, when a person would never have given anything to the police if they could help it. Abdelrahman has chosen not to speak to the press since Regeni’s death, but told colleagues at Cambridge that she cooperated with the Italian police the day of the funeral.[1]

If the Research Excellence Framework thing should be mentioned then it should be framed differently.

I reverted the additions, and I suggest discussing them here on the talkpage instead of simply reintroducing them. Polygnotus (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

As a sanity check I'll ping @Chetsford:. Chetsford, what do you think? Perhaps you have a suggestion how to incorporate the REF stuff in a neutral way? Polygnotus (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The REF material was as follows:

However, in the latest Research Excellence Framework (REF) exercise the department fell from 6th to 21st place in the UK, ranking lower than nearby institutions such as the University of Essex or the University of East Anglia. This was driven by the departure of economists Ha-Joon Chang and Lucia A. Reisch, as well as Chong Hua Professor of Chinese Development William Hurst.

That clearly includes interpretation of the results (specifically attributing them to particular staff departures), in violation of WP:NOR. If there's a source that attributes the results to those departures, that interpretation could be cited and attributed. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

References

@Cordless Larry: The current version, In the latest UK government Research Excellence Framework (REF) exercise, the department fell from 6th to 21st place. is much better. Polygnotus (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, Polygnotus. The source has the data for politics departments on p. 36, but the institutions aren't ranked, so I don't see how it supports the claim. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: Good point. Perhaps its best to just leave it out then? Mentioning the underlying scores, and not the ranking, would be meaningless to the casual reader. The Research Excellence Framework article lists quite a bit of criticism btw. Polygnotus (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, unless someone finds a secondary source discussing the department's performance in the REF. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Well I did a quick Google search and I couldn't find anything, but maybe someone else has more luck? Polygnotus (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dm980cam: I'm glad this seems to be in the process of being resolved. However, I think you misunderstood what I posted at the Teahouse. I did not suggest you start an RFC; I posted that there was already an RFC taking place on this page and if it's discussing what you want to discuss you should post about it in that RFC. I didn't suggest you need to start a new RFC to discuss this. FWIW, I did suggest you ask Cordless Larry about this since they removed the other editor's post the first time around, and Cordless Larry, therefore, probably could help clarify why it was removed. That seems to be what's happening now. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Marchjuly Thanks. Apologies about the misunderstanding. I'm still learning the rules and all of the different acronyms. Either way, I appreciate the help. Dm980cam (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Promotional

@Cordless Larry: Which parts are promotional? Maybe we can get rid of those? Polygnotus (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not Cordless Larry, however, I feel this sentence "Current high impact scholars, listed in order of cumulative career citations (as reported by Google Scholar)" is extremely problematic. First, the word "current" is MOS:RELTIME; second, this includes an editorial statement accompanied by WP:OR created to support the statement ("high impact faculty, listed in order of ..."); third, it includes redlinked people where there's limited likelihood the people will have an article forthcoming (WP:CSC). A list of faculty is totally fine and is customary in articles of this type, however, it should be a plain list with references, presented in alphabetical order and without a preamble. Chetsford (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies this was my doing when I reviewed the list for objective academic credibility, resulting in removal of some entries and addition of others. I have made draft entries for those redinked missing bios. I also want to finally move on to cleaning up other entries, so will leave the rest of that for others to review/finalize. I also rewrote the sentence to remove words like current. Helmut.groetzi-genf (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The main promotional elements are the list of degrees (we're not a prospectus), the table of research centres (these could be covered with a single sentence) and the list of "high impact scholars" (which is also original research, being based on interpretation of a primary source). Cordless Larry (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Also agree on the point about the list of degrees (WP:NOTCATALOG). That's more appropriate for the department's website. Chetsford (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I have a slight disagreement on the point of the table only because, if I recall, when it was previously presented in narrative format it was an unwieldy long sentence (100+ words IIRC) and the names of notable faculty were also being crammed in there which made it completely incoherent; MOS:DEFLIST suggests we convert these to table formats where there are two or more types of information presented. However, I'm fine with whatever. But, if we do go to a single sentence, I'd suggest completely eviscerating the names of the centres and just drop a short sentence (i.e. "Ten research centres are house within the department." instead of trying to list all ten.) Chetsford (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I assume "house" should be "housed", if so I agree. Polygnotus (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the list of degrees is excessive to purpose, not sure how many people would go to wikipedia for information that specific about a single department. The list of scholars is quite short though. For a university like this I would actually have thought there were more faculty with wiki bio entries already. Helmut.groetzi-genf (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The faculty listing should be alphabetical, not by citation count (which is a flawed metric in any case). Cordless Larry (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and made these changes which, I believe, encompasses the consensus that's evolved here. Please boldly revert me if it does not:

1. Removed redlinked faculty per WP:CSC and WP:NOTDIRECTORY,
2. Ordered faculty alphabetically, instead of citation count,
3. Removed the preamble that says they're ordered by citation count,
4. Merged them all into a single list of "Faculty, past and present" instead of separate "current" and "former" faculty lists --- I did a quick audit of articles like List of University of California, Los Angeles people and List of University of Michigan faculty and staff and can't find any examples of a continually updated list of faculty getting moved back and forth to different lists based on current employment status; moreover MOS:DATED seems to preclude using in-article lists in ways that are likely to become outdated such as this.

Chetsford (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

These are not consensus changes at all. As per Cordless Larry: "The main promotional elements are the list of degrees (we're not a prospectus), the table of research centres (these could be covered with a single sentence) and the list of "high impact scholars" (which is also original research, being based on interpretation of a primary source)". The changes may partly address the last of these but it was already very short - surely the main promotional elements are really the first two? Daronandon (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

"The changes may partly address the last of these" That's all it was intended to address. I'm not the update fairy. Chetsford (talk) 07:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, but looking at the page it really seems like it is that huge long list of alumni, photos, degrees, and centers that are taking up all the space in a promotional manner and earned the promotional tag.Daronandon (talk) 08:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay. And? Chetsford (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, looking at the revision history I can see that you worked on adding a lot of these alumni entries, photos and the center table last month.... now flagged as promotional. So I fully understand not wanting to cut those, and instead remove the tag. But still the consensus here seems to be that those are the real issue with this entry? Daronandon (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

"the consensus here seems to be that those are the real issue with this entry" In this section, you seem to be the only one that's discussed that specific thing (the list of alumni). The previous discussion in this section has to do ordering faculty by citation count, the centres table, and the list of degrees. Chetsford (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Declaring my lack of a COI

A blocked editor accused me of being WP:PAID by Cambridge to edit this article. I am not.
The accusation was posted to this page [2] and since reverted. I hereby declare I have a non-conflicting interest in this article. Specifically to the accusations:

• The editor said I added a detailed list of alumni that "could NOT have been obtained by any other means than direct provision by the client". The way I obtained this is by going to Google and typing in phrases like "received an MPhil in politics from the University of Cambridge", etc., seeing if the person had a WP article about them, and then adding them to the list.
• "Then, from Oct 16 2024 to Oct 27 2024, user Chetsford continued to insert promotional content in violation of WP:PROMO. This includes not only the alumni list, but the detailed list of degrees ..." This is incorrect. The detailed list of degrees was added by Dm980cam [3]. Moreover, after they added it, I posted my objection to its inclusion on this very Talk page [4]
• "... plus further details on the history of the department not found on public sources. In fact, every sentence in the History section is cited to an WP:RS that meets our WP:VERIFY policy. So I'm not sure how these are non-public but I invite clarification of this point if there's something I'm misunderstanding.

"I invite Chetsford to explain how he obtained so much promotional content in such a short period of time... see above ...and to fully disclose all conflicts of interest, in line with WP:COI." I have no COI. Several years ago I had a non-pecuniary relationship with Cambridge, though not the department that is the subject of this article. I do not currently have such a relationship.
I'm happy to explain the nature of that relationship in private correspondence. I've never been employed by Cambridge, am not paid to edit by it, and am not paid to edit by anyone.
Moreover, it seems like it would be incredibly inefficient for Cantab to have a fully disclosed COI editor active on this article and then -- simultaneously -- to be secretly channeling me funds through a numbered Swiss bank account solely to object to said editor's edits. That sounds more like a performance art project than a COI conspiracy. With that said, I also declare I am not involved in any performance art projects involving the University of Cambridge. Chetsford (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Chetsford, Nicely said. You mean the 8 years of excellent work you've done on Wikipedia editing everything from Banksy to Transatlantic Cables wasn't just a huge ruse to allow you to edit the POLIS article for money? Unbelievable.

And you make a good point, why on earth would I be so meticulously open and honest about the fact that I work for the university and then come around from the side and collude with another editor? Surely, if that was my master plan, I would have just created an anonymous profile and kept switching it up like so many others do. Good or bad, I am a rule follower and if you look at any of my interactions - in the teahouse, talk pages, wiki-help - my message is always 'How can I make sure the page is accurate while playing by the rules?'

Someone is living in fantasy land. Dm980cam (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, it's not unusual for someone to do WP as a hobby and then occasionally take money under the table for undisclosed WP:PAID. However, I've never heard a case of a publicly-funded university paying-off WP editors. That would definitely be something! Chetsford (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Don't you see? It's all connected. Chetsford is a secret agent working for Banksy who is trying to communicate with the university of Cambridge via trans-Atlantic cables. I am certain the illuminati is involved I am just not sure how. Polygnotus (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no connection to either rodeoreal or martin, but would have appreciated you pinging me before raising your concerns. Anyway, it now seems there was indeed a strong motivation for wanting to clean up their wiki page, a reason which they did not disclose before guiding other editors along. Daronandon (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Truncate Giulio Regeni content

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

(Here to close, as an uninvolved editor, this open RfC where the latest comment was well over a month ago.) I think everyone more or less (and I say that advisedly) agrees on 'yes'; at least there are no dissenting opinions. (Esteemed members Polygnotus and Chetsford are invited to arrange a healthy exchange of views over a pint or three, followed by pistols at dawn if that doesn't settle it. May god have mercy on their souls, either way.) I believe I'm reflecting community consensus in saying that the coverage of the topic in question in this article should be reduced to a proportionate size; not necessarily a single sentence but not more than... 'a bit'. Furthermore, I don't see why this should require further debate, so someone – please, go forth and implement! --DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

---

Should the content in this article [5] that details the murder of Giulio Regeni be truncated to a single sentence summary with a wikilink to the main article (Murder of Giulio Regeni)? Chetsford (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC); edited 14:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes, per WP:DUE. There is currently a standalone article on this topic. The contents in question -- which comprise roughly 40% of the narrative text of this article -- are duplicated there in greater detail. Moreover, the connection of the Regeni murder to this article seems tendentious as the thrust of the content appears to be chronicling a failure by the university, not this specific instructional department within the university. If a duplicative paragraph is needed, it should be at the University of Cambridge article. Chetsford (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Chetsford: RfC's that are used to make a WP:POINT are never good RfCs. Bit silly to start an RfC out of nowhere, and people won't have read our conversation on your talkpage so they won't know why you started it. Also, you should read the Guardian article I posted above in the refideas template. And the content in this article that details the murder of Giulio Regeni is already one sentence so the RfC question doesn't even make sense. The rest of it talks about the University of Cambridge's actions and response, and the response to that. Polygnotus (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• I think so. The removal of the long version on this page with a link to the Murder of Giulio Regeni avoids repetition on Wikipedia. I thought that's what was supposed to happen to avoid conflicting or out of date information on separate Wikipedia pages. I'm not sure what it adds as a description of the Department of Politics and International Studies. It certainly doesn't work as the majority of words (207 of the 261) under "History" of the department. While it is a tragic event that happened to a student from the department, it feels like explaining the ins and outs of the inquest and what various politicians had to say about it on this page is out of place. Dm980cam (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Yes The murder of a student, while tragic, should not constitute the majority of the articlespace for the history. The controversy about the university's response is more fit for the University's article, not a specific department --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. (Summoned by bot) The content on the murder is unambigously far out of WP:PROPORTION to that topic's overall relevance to providing an encyclopedic summary of this article's subject. Anything that may inexplicably be present here but not in the article for the murder can be merged in there. 1-3 summary sentences on the murder and a clear internal link to the article for the murder will suffice for this article. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• Sort of. One sentence isn't enough. The reader should be given some idea of why following the link to the bio article might shed light on the subject of this article (the POLIS institution). Add a sentence along the lines of "There was dispute about whether Regeni's tutors at Cambridge University had declined to collaborate with the inquest into his murder" then the cross-reference to the bio article. JamesMLane t c 03:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• Hi Polygnotus - there's nothing POINTy about this RfC. Given the sensitive nature of the content, and the fact you've already objected to its removal, an RfC is the appropriate way to avoid a potential edit war. Also, I'm not certain what your questions about Oxford alumni on my Talk page have to do with this, but here's a link for future RfC participants to that discussion, if you think it's useful context. I don't. But, you know, whatever.
  Thank you for the link to the Guardian article. I'm sure it's interesting and I'll add it to my reading list for the future. Chetsford (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Chetsford: I am not sure why you act like this. Did I unintentionally insult you because (you felt like) I said I didn't really see the point of notable alumni sections and you created one? If so, that was not my intention. It looks very WP:POINTy when someone points out that you removed a section (which you restore) and then says they don't see the point of "Notable alumni" sections, and suggests splitting it, to then start an RFC about splitting the content you just restored. And you haven't even responded to the fact that the RfC make no sense, you propose to split content that details the murder of Giulio Regeni which is a single sentence. Polygnotus (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, why do you think I objected to its removal? And why do you think RfC's (instead of a normal conversation between adults) is the appropriate way to avoid a potential edit war? Who are you going to editwar against? Polygnotus (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Huh? Chetsford (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Chetsford: That was my reaction as well. So please explain your POV. Polygnotus (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

"explain your POV" It's in the section labeled "survey" (here's a diff [6]) Chetsford (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Very funny (if that was the intention, or not if it wasn't). Can you answer the questions above please? Polygnotus (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking if that wasn't it. Sorry. Chetsford (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Chetsford:

1. Why do you think I objected to the removal of that content? (before you answer please look at this edit)
2. And why do you think RfC's are "the appropriate way to avoid a potential edit war" in this context (instead of a normal conversation)?
3. Please respond to my statement that the RfC does not even make sense because there is only one sentence that mentions the murder itself, and the rest of it is about the University of Cambridge's actions and response, and the responses to that.

If you would actually read the Guardian article I posted above you'd see its kind of a storm in a teacup scenario. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Polygnotus - I'm going to decline to continue this conversation as the wider scope of discussion beyond the very narrow and specific question of this RfC is not something I can get myself excited about enough to type a response. But please know that your contributions are valued and I appreciate you. Chetsford (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Chetsford: I love you too but you are a bit confusing. Have a nice day, Polygnotus (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please edit

Will someone please add Dr Joel Rogers de Waal as the Director for the YouGov-Cambridge Centre for Public Opinion Research? Different names have been added and deleted a couple of times in that space, so my colleague spoke with YouGov today and Dr Joel Rogers de Waal is the Academic Director for YouGov. Here are the references https://yougov.co.uk/people/joelr and https://www.bennettinstitute.cam.ac.uk/about-us/person/joel-rogers-de-waal/ The reference to Roberto is out of date. Thank you. Dm980cam (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Chetsford (talk) 04:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Chetsford - you are an experienced editor so I will defer to your experience, but does wikipedia base updates on phone conversations? As I searched for internet references when making the initial change, but could find no reference to Joel in the links provided. Daronandon (talk) 07:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Did your search include the two references included in the OP, both of which say de Waal is the director? Chetsford (talk) 07:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Neither state that he is a Director at Cambridge though - only that he runs academic programs at YouGov? Surely there must be something on a Cambridge website we could refer to... but nothing came up. Daronandon (talk) 08:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I thought it was very clear and obvious. But if it's not to at least one person it may not be to others, either. Chetsford (talk) 08:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

From their website, YouGov have academic partnerships with lots of universities. Surely he cannot be the director for all of them? When I google this, the only Cambridge name on the links is the one they asked us to remove, does the Center even still exist? On the YouGov website for the Center there are no names and their last story was January 2023, which is around the same time as those links. Daronandon (talk) 10:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully this will clear things up https://www.polis.cam.ac.uk/Staff_and_Students/dr-joel-rogers-de-waal YouGov definitely still exists: https://yougov.co.uk/cambridge and their most recent story was not in Jan 23. This https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50989-three-quarters-support-assisted-dying-lawis from 3 days ago. Dm980cam (talk) 10:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies but I am still confused here!

i. The YouGov link story is not related to Cambridge at all. It is a story from their head of data journalism (a Matthew Smith) about something entirely unrelated to Cambridge.

ii. The bio link you sent (from your own website??) does not say what you say it says i.e. it does not identify deWaal as director of the cambridge center, only as an affiliate.

iii. The yougov.co.uk/cambridge site stops in January 2023 with a story about young westerners seeing themselves as not totally masculine or feminine. Where is the more recent story than that? I cannot find it there.

Could we look in to this a bit further? There is something really odd here. Daronandon (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Darandon. Can I ask why you think think there's something funny going on? I mean, you asked for something on a Cambridge website and I gave you one. Of course it's from the POLIS website, where else would it be? Since that's still not enough, here's another Cambridge website that I am not in any way associated with... https://www.bennettinstitute.cam.ac.uk/about-us/person/joel-rogers-de-waal/

If that's still not enough, is that because you think the Director is someone else or because you think YouGov is not associated with POLIS? I am really confused by your vehemence on this subject. You definitely care more than I do, so please delete YouGov from the article if you think we're trying to pull a fast one. LOL. I care about incorrect information, but not about missing information, so I will not dispute it.

If you do delete it, please remember to change Ten at the top to nine. Thanks. Dm980cam (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

That is just another link from Cambridge, with the same content as before. I can certainly email them tomorrow and post their replies here - but, for the purpose of a wiki entry, there ought to be at least one reference that confirms what is stated. Daronandon (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

If you email anyone, email Roberto (Stefan) Foa who has been described as the Director of the YouGov-Cambridge Centre for Public Opinion Research at some point in the past. Polygnotus (talk) 08:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

ok. Will let you know when I hear anything back. Daronandon (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Finally got replies and do not know what to say. Only for now I guess that the "jokey" gaslighting and subtle passive aggressiveness of this thread seem totally messed up, when set against the actual succession of events. Daronandon (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Roberto Stefan Foa is ... Director of the YouGov-Cambridge Centre for Public Opinion Research.[7] Dm980cam says that that is outdated and that the current director is someone else, so if you want to confirm that by email, mr. Foa seems to be in the position to confirm or deny this. Polygnotus (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Apparently there were always two directors, one from YouGov and the other from Cambridge. Prof Foa was the Cambridge director in 2021 and 2022 before Prof Browne took the role. Daronandon (talk) 07:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Also Declaring An Interest (2)

My partner is a former student of the department. Over a week ago, they were asked by its leadership if they knew anyone who could assist in "cleaning up" its page. As a former editor I have always acted with impartiality and good faith and until today had no idea of the true motivation for this request, which was not to correct factual errors, but (we infer) to protect it from potential upcoming disclosures by existing and former members of staff who have allegedly been treated poorly.

While we started out in good faith, after reading the discussion on this page, quickly began to have doubts and those were then confirmed.

Accordingly we renounce making any further edits to all non-talk wikipedia pages, but we will remain available to wikipedia editors to answer questions, including about the specific new articles @that we were asked to create.

We believe other individuals with a past link to the university likely received similar requests. As stated, neither of us have a connection to other accounts active on this page. Daronandon (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

What did they want cleaned up? Which potential upcoming disclosures by existing and former members of staff are we talking about? Is it because they were underpaid? Polygnotus (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

My partner was asked to do two things to start out.

First to break the wiki redirect link from Prof Abdulrahman to the Regeni scandal, by creating a unique bio for her. We are ashamed to say we did this, as you can see from the logs (but only realized afterwards that it was meant as a means of breaking the redirect). We are now glad that this was swiftly reversed (thank you!!)

Second, to generate a wiki entry for Prof Browne that would include a highlight of her "awareness of the needs and concerns of boys and men." As you can see from the logs we started on that also.

Then started to raise questions when we pushed back against stuff on this page that we had independent reason to believe wasn't true. The instructions stopped after that. Daronandon (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Did they communicate via a method that allows you to share their instructions (e.g. by copypasting an email?). It would be interesting to see what they asked you to do. There are various noticeboards for such things, perhaps try WP:NPOVN? Polygnotus (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. All communication was by email, from an official account. Daronandon (talk) 06:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Much worse than pay. Former DEI and student reps have corroborated too and listed further alleged cases including a recent alleged settlement. Daronandon (talk) 06:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Daronandon - while you tell a fascinating tale, there's nothing we can do about it here. Please report this to paid-en-wp/at/wikipedia.org so it can be properly investigated. Chetsford (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Please forward the email to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org For more information see Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure#Reporting_undisclosed_paid_editors. They also deal with a lot of conflict of interest stuff (see WP:COI). Polygnotus (talk) 07:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you tell us more about these potential upcoming disclosures? Have they been reported on in reliable sources? Will they be in the future? Polygnotus (talk) 07:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, will do. Thank you for the support. Frantic and I dare say not entirely polite messages this afternoon to my partner were not appreciated. Just need to figure out our rights. Daronandon (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

My partner expects there will be. They were like OMG WTF when they got the lowdown totally uncut version of how young profs are treated there. Daronandon (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

"we renounce making any further edits to all non-talk wikipedia pages" Our policy on WP:SHAREDACCOUNTs does not have a carve-out for shared accounts used only to comment on Talk pages. In any case, I've raised the matter of Abdelrahman at the BLP noticeboard as I can't imagine any universe in which this is an appropriate redirect. I'll withhold comment on the rest of this ... creative ... narrative. Chetsford (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The way they wrote it does not necessarily imply a shared account, right? Polygnotus (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Only one edit was made to the redirect page in question [8], but that single edit was described in this way: "We are ashamed to say we did this". This seems to describe two humans collaboratively operating a single Wikipedia account. Chetsford (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Polygnotus For removal of doubt I declare personal responsibility for all edits and as noted in my bio, my preferred pronouns are plural (they/them). This is an expression of gender identity, not non-singularity. Moreover it should be clear that I am not a person who blindly takes orders from others... simply because Cambridge asked for something to be done on their behalf. Daronandon (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

For the record, let me just make note that during the first seven days of your presence on WP, you've exclusively and repeatedly self-referred using the first person singular pronoun "I" (e.g. [9], [10], etc.). Your adoption of "we" occurred only today (day 8) after our policy on shared accounts was brought to your attention. Moreover, you introduced this thread by referring to your "partner" in a way that would reasonably indicate they were a separate corporeal entity ("a former student of the department") and not a simultaneously realized component of your identity occupying the same physical form.
That said, however, you are obviously entitled to adjust the expression of your identify any way or time you like and I certainly respect your decision to now self-refer as "we" instead of "I". Thank you for this explanation. Chetsford (talk) 07:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

We (my partner and I - so plural) are waiting on third party advice before saying anything more. Some further communications in past 24h got a bit intense. Daronandon (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

OK things just escalated in a major way. We will be communicating via the email address provided. Daronandon (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think Abdelrahman's name should redirect to the article about the murder, it would kinda suck if my name ended up being a redirect to a murder, so I have nominated that redirect for deletion. I don't think that Abdelrahman is currently WP:NOTABLE (see WP:GNG) so I don't think the best solution would be to write an article about Abdelrahman. Polygnotus (talk) 07:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for opening that, Polygnotus. Providing the link to the discussion here as it may be relevant to other editors active on this article. Chetsford (talk) 07:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)