Talk:King's College London Faculty of Arts and Humanities

Would this be a productive space to discuss differences in opinion about what should and shouldn't appear on this page? Tom Cr (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I would say this is a good place to discuss the more complex editing decisions(such as reported events in 2010 etc). Personally, I have no opinion on the matter but it would be nice if we could follow good practice and avoid an edit war such as that evidenced last week. Thanks for starting the talk page. Dark Scary Bear (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I should be delighted for this discussion to take place. At present any reference to the policies of Jan Palmowski, his treatment of the Department of Computational Linguistics, the Chair of Palaeography, the Department of American Studies, the Department of Byzantine and Modern Greek, is automatically deleted. These events aroused very considerable national and international concern, and I submit that a Wikipedia article should not whitewash them. I also submit that articles in the Higher, copies of letters to Professor Palmowski, and petitions are legitimate sources of information. Charles W Hedges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.126.182 (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Charles, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this in a civilized manner. First of all I want to make it clear that there is no intention to whitewash anything - I've made every effort to read up on Wikipedia's relevant rules/guidelines and to keep this page in line with them. It seems to me there are two quite separate issues here. One is the repeated vandalism of the page, often featuring ad hominem attacks on current and former King's staff (as in your 3rd January edit) which I will continue to remove as often as is necessary. The other is a difference of opinion over how the events you reference in 2010 should be represented, on which I hope we can find some reasonable middle ground. Do you think there's a way to reference this that we can agree is 'accurate and unbiased' as per the goals of the site? Tom Cr (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Tom for your helpful and generous reply. Are you willing to allow references to the article in the 2010 Higher? Are you willing to allow references to Professor Palmowski's proposal that all of the staff at King's should have to reapply for their posts? Are you willing to allow mention of the treatment of Professor Lappin? Sincerely, Charles W. Hedges

Hi Charles, I have taken the liberty to move your response to Tom Cr here. I've addressed your points in bullet form.

• Edits which use sources that are reliable (WP:RELY) and verifiable (WP:VERIFY) are welcome.
• Times Higher Education certainly counts as a reliable and verifiable source, whereas a blog for example does not fulfill these criteria in most circumstances (see WP:SELFPUBLISH).
• Edits which are written with a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and contain no original research - that is "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist" are welcome. See WP:NOR: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources themselves."
• Particular care should be taken when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Excerpt from WP:Biographies of Living Persons: "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects"

Hope that helps, Trillig (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again Charles, and thanks Trillig for your helpful input. This is where it gets complicated I suppose. (By the way, I just want to make clear that it's by no means a question of my 'allowing' anything - happily that's not how Wikipedia works!) I don't see any problem in principle with a mention of the Times Higher Education coverage of proposed changes at King's, but from my point of view I would hope to emphasize both that these were 'proposed', and that these issues were resolved in what I understand to be a mutually agreeable way. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this last point - I'm mainly basing this on a statement posted to the 'Stop Philosophy Faculty Cuts at King's College London' facebook page, which reads as follows: "The Troubles of 2010 were eventually resolved. No one in the School of Arts & Humanities was required to take compulsory redundancy, and the Philosophy Department took on two new staff. Savings were found elsewhere, partly through voluntary (early) retirement. But importantly it should be noted that almost no part of the infamous `Consultation' Document was implement." Does that sound accurate to you? As regards the other two issues you mention, I can't see how it would be possible to cite or reference these things in a way that fits this site's guidance in terms of sources (eg published newspaper articles etc)- what would you suggest? Tom Cr (talk) 12:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Tom I think if you look at Iain Pears's blogs (http://boonery.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-min=2010-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated) you will see that things were not resolved quite as you infer. The Professor of Palaeography was forced to take "voluntary" retirement, it was only because Greek newspapers picked up the story that King's College founded a Centre for Hellenic Studies to conceal the attempt to close the Department of Byzantine and Modern Greek, King's College did close the Department of American Studies. It is important to point out that no "consultation" took place. Professor Lappin retined his post largely because his lawyers were pursuing a case for unfair dismissal. I suggest that Professor Lappin might be added to the list of notable members of the School, since he is a Fellow of the British Academy. With every good wish, Charles W. Hedges

Charles, thanks for the link. Mr Pears' blogs certainly present things in a different light, but I'm not sure there's anything there that could be referenced here in a way that fits the criteria Trillig outlines above. As far as Professor Lappin's lawyers are concerned, I'd have thought any details there would be confidential? Again please correct me if I'm wrong and that's a matter of public record. I do think adding him to the notable academic staff section is an excellent idea though - although he doesn't at present seem to have a Wikipedia page himself? Cordially, Tom Cr (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Tom, May I suggest that this entry include a reference to the Higher article "International scholars decry the madness of King's" 11th Feb 2010? With every good wish, Charles W Hedges — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.126.182 (talk) 08:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)