|
|||
(33 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|blp=yes|listas=Gopal, Priyamvada|1= |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Biography}} |
||
{{WikiProject University of Cambridge}} |
|||
{{WIR}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Women in Red}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Press |
{{Press |
||
|author = ((Anon)) |
|author = ((Anon)) |
||
Line 15: | Line 17: | ||
|accessdate = March 1, 2023 |
|accessdate = March 1, 2023 |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{Archives}} |
{{Archives}} |
||
Line 325: | Line 328: | ||
:::What-kind-of-POV hinted at [https://thecritic.co.uk/author/anon/] [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 10:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC) |
:::What-kind-of-POV hinted at [https://thecritic.co.uk/author/anon/] [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 10:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC) |
||
::::hello @[[User:Valjean|Valjean]] & others, I went and looked at [[WP:Perennial sources]] to see whether The Critic was listed, and the discussion there suggests that it would not be considered a reliable source. See [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 359|this discussion]] and this [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 354#Does Noah Carl writing in The Critic (British magazine) establish notability?|further one]], and [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 396#Allsides.com redux, use of Breitbart and Wikipediocracy as a source|here]] where it is compared to Breitbart. [[User:Lajmmoore|Lajmmoore]] ([[User talk:Lajmmoore|talk]]) 07:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC) |
::::hello @[[User:Valjean|Valjean]] & others, I went and looked at [[WP:Perennial sources]] to see whether The Critic was listed, and the discussion there suggests that it would not be considered a reliable source. See [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 359|this discussion]] and this [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 354#Does Noah Carl writing in The Critic (British magazine) establish notability?|further one]], and [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 396#Allsides.com redux, use of Breitbart and Wikipediocracy as a source|here]] where it is compared to Breitbart. [[User:Lajmmoore|Lajmmoore]] ([[User talk:Lajmmoore|talk]]) 07:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::::It’s a very different animal to Breitbart. [[User:TrottieTrue|TrottieTrue]] ([[User talk:TrottieTrue|talk]]) 00:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:"''As it turned out, there are plenty of weirdos — and “weirdo” is an apt description for most regular Wikipedia editors —''" It's nice when someone gets us. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 09:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC) |
:"''As it turned out, there are plenty of weirdos — and “weirdo” is an apt description for most regular Wikipedia editors —''" It's nice when someone gets us. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 09:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC) |
||
::A hit, a very palpable hit! [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]] ([[User talk:Xxanthippe|talk]]) 23:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC). |
::A hit, a very palpable hit! [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]] ([[User talk:Xxanthippe|talk]]) 23:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC). |
||
:Definitely some valid criticisms and commentary with regards to Wikipedia and its usage here: |
|||
:{{talk quote|Long-standing errors made on the website are republished by respectable institutions as fact, which then are used by Wikipedia editors to buttress the veracity of the original claim. No institution is immune: I am reliably informed that Buckingham Palace conferred at least one non-existent title on the late Queen on the strength of a Wikipedia article alone. ... [CIRCULARity is definitely quite an issue when it comes to non-prominent topics.]<br/>In 2020, it was discovered that almost every article on Scots Wikipedia was written by an American teenager who did not speak Scots, with potentially catastrophic ramifications for the publicly subsidised pseudo-language’s future. ... [Many small language Wikipedias are definitely operating in a poor condition.]<br/>Articles on Japanese anime series, for example, are often longer and better than those on British prime ministers. Anyone who has played a single match of first-class cricket, no matter how obscure, will have a lovingly-written biography. ...<br/>In practice, Wikipedia editors heavily favour legacy media outlets whose content is freely accessible online (relevant academic literature, paywalled and harder to understand, is often ignored).}} |
|||
:Also pretty sure the "Anon" writing [and perhaps reading this Talk page as well] is a Wikipedian herself. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 08:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
⚫ | |||
This is [[User:Smallbones]]. I write the "Disinformation report" in The Signpost, see e.g. [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-02-20/Disinformation report]] |
|||
I definitely noticed the article in The Critic and it looks very interesting from the standpoint of there being 2 sides to the commentary there and several different themes. Anything I write on this will probably be shorter than usual - I haven't made a complete inventory of the sock drawer yet - but there seem to be at least 5 from a quick look around. So, the article would have to be mostly about the Critic article, and editors' opinions. If you have anything to say that hasn't been written on this page yet, please contact me by email at [[Special:EmailUser/Smallbones]]. Well if you want to repeat in a particularly pithy way what you've said here that might make for a good quote, but mainly what I'm interested in first would be background material just in case I'm missing something. I won't quote your 1st email to me without your permission, and after that we'll talk about what you want attributed. Any help appreciated - from anybody involved here! [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]<sub>([[User talk:Smallbones|<span style="color: #cc6600;">smalltalk</span>]])</sub> 19:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Start the Week paragraph - include or exclude? == |
|||
A couple of weeks ago I removed the subsection about Gopal's 2006 appearance on BBC radio's ''Start the Week'' as the only sources were written by Gopal herself. @[[User:OmegaPiii|OmegaPiii]] has reinstated the section with a new reference to the event - a Times Higher Education supplement piece about Gopal.[https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/priyamvada-gopal-front-line-britains-imperial-past] The section which references her appearance reads thus: |
|||
⚫ | |||
{{talk quote|In 2006, however, as she describes in her forthcoming book Insurgent Empire: Anticolonial Resistance and British Dissent, she took part in a discussion on BBC Radio 4’s Start the Week. There she found herself confronted by “the media face of the case for British imperialism, Niall Ferguson” and was a largely lone voice in challenging his “bullish assertions about the greatness of Britain’s imperial project and the benevolence of its legacies”.}} |
|||
I don't think this qualifies as a third-party depiction of events, as all the descriptions are directly quoting from Gopal herself. It is soft evidence for the notability of the incident, but I don't think it justifies the full paragraph devoted to it on this page. In any case, some of the assertions in the paragraph are unsourced and potential BLP issues. I don't think anything suffers if the paragraph is removed. However, if removing the whole paragraph is not a consensus decision, I propose replacing it with a sentence: |
|||
"Gopal cites an appearance on [[BBC Radio 4]]'s [[Start the Week]] with motivating her to speak about issues of empire and colonialism.[https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/priyamvada-gopal-front-line-britains-imperial-past]" @[[User:OmegaPiii|OmegaPiii]], and anyone else here, please feel free to weigh in if this is or isn't acceptable to you. [[User:Samuelshraga|Samuelshraga]] ([[User talk:Samuelshraga|talk]]) 10:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Hello @[[User:Samuelshraga|Samuelshraga]] I think it's important to mention Niall Ferguson, but otherwise a more concise mention seems OK to me [[User:Lajmmoore|Lajmmoore]] ([[User talk:Lajmmoore|talk]]) 12:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::@[[User:Lajmmoore|Lajmmoore]], I don't want to overdo the Niall Ferguson bit - he obviously is a conservative historian and I can imagine the kind of things he might have said, but: |
|||
::a. He's not the subject of this article |
|||
::b. The only person who seems to remember what he said is Priyamvada Gopal, and she is not a secondary source for this. |
|||
::c. Going to the original broadcast to find out what he said, and verifying/fact-checking Gopal's claim that he triumphally championed Britain's imperial past would be both [[Wikipedia:OR]], and massive over-coverage of an event that only seems to be notable to Priyamvada Gopal herself. Even the 3rd party source (the Times HE piece) only mentions it as something that she talks about as being important to her, it doesn't cover the event itself. |
|||
::That said, how's this? "Gopal appeared on a 2006 edition of [[BBC Radio 4]]'s [[Start the Week]]. According to Gopal, a disagreement on the program with historian [[Niall Ferguson]] about the [[British Empire]] motivated her to speak about issues of empire and colonialism.[https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/priyamvada-gopal-front-line-britains-imperial-past]". [[User:Samuelshraga|Samuelshraga]] ([[User talk:Samuelshraga|talk]]) 12:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Excessive detail == |
|||
I've not heard of Priyamvada Gopal until today and I'm scratching my head at the immense amount of detail on a few events from her public life. I think this is an example of when well-intentioned contributions unfortunately leading to disproportionate analysis. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an exhaustive breakdown of everything. I've going to add the Overly Detailed template and try and edit down this article a bit. [[User:Seaweed|Seaweed]] ([[User talk:Seaweed|talk]]) 15:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:I've done some editing and I think it's a bit better. I've moved the overly detailed template to the last remaining complex bit.[[User:Seaweed|Seaweed]] ([[User talk:Seaweed|talk]]) 16:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::Wow @[[User:Seaweed|Seaweed]] - you have done a lot of work! You may be quite right that it was disproportionate analysis. I haven't looked at all the changes, but one thing that jumped out at me is the section on the government's race report. The fact that Gopal criticised its methodology was not covered in the non-paywalled sources, but the Sewell-Goebbels comparison/reference was covered in secondary sources. I think the section should be reframed to focus on what the sources covered. [[User:Samuelshraga|Samuelshraga]] ([[User talk:Samuelshraga|talk]]) 06:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::Paywall sources are good sources. The fact they are paywalled has no bearing on their validity. This is basic stuff. [[User:Atchom|Atchom]] ([[User talk:Atchom|talk]]) 17:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::Agreed that paywalled sources are valid sources @[[User:Atchom|Atchom]], I was just saying what information I have access to and I think you've misunderstood my point. I'm saying that in the sources I have access to, what is reported is not that Gopal has a critique of the methodology of the report but that she compared its author to Josef Goebbels. That's what the section should focus on then. (I was making the caveat that this doesn't hold if the paywalled sources show something else). Moot anyway given your revert. |
|||
::::I think @[[User:Seaweed|Seaweed]] was right that the article was bloated, though I think maybe the chainsaw approach to the content was a bit overzealous. Looking at it now (with content restored), I think some aspects of the page are over-covered. The Race and Decolonisation sub-sections are composed entirely of commentary pieces written by Gopal, or podcasts Gopal appeared on. Either these sections need secondary sources that her opinions were actually covered in, or the sections should be removed as [[Wikipedia:UNDUE]]. [[User:Samuelshraga|Samuelshraga]] ([[User talk:Samuelshraga|talk]]) 14:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I agree that there should be more sourcing about Gopal's work. For me, the issue with removing those sections is that then there's little context for the further subsections which consider when her opinions have been perhaps over-reported by areas of the press. Primary sources can be used [[Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources#Primary sources should be used carefully|carefully]] in articles, so yes I agree there should be secondary sourcing, but just because those sections are supported by primary sourcing at the moment doesn't mean they should be entirely removed. [[User:Lajmmoore|Lajmmoore]] ([[User talk:Lajmmoore|talk]]) 15:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::@[[User:Lajmmoore|Lajmmoore]], agreed that secondary sourcing would improve the section. I found this interview incidentally [https://www.varsity.co.uk/interviews/25623]. All the sources (so far) though are either Gopal herself in columns or Gopal being interviewed by media. I see that her opinions on decolonisation and empire are important to her, it's not clear to me that they're important for wikipedia to publish. What would be needed to show that they are important are sources referencing her opinions, rather than sources that just confirm that these are Gopal's opinions. |
|||
::::::I basically think the only bit of the Decolonisation section worth keeping as it stands is the first line of the fourth paragraph which relates to her support for decolonising the English curriculum at Cambridge. The rest is just Gopal's opinions, as put forth by herself, uncritically repeated. Doesn't seem necessary or helpful. [[User:Samuelshraga|Samuelshraga]] ([[User talk:Samuelshraga|talk]]) 14:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
I've returned! Hmm, I see a lot of the things I edited down have gone back in again. I think this article is an example of when a biographical article is edited in good faith whilst a topical issue is emerging about that person. That might go on for months or even years. However, eventually that particular topic is resolved and therefore some perspective be used to edit the while thing down into something concise and readable to the general reader of Wikipedia (which is how I edit Wikipedia). For example, the issue regarding ""White lives don't matter. As white lives" tweet" is actually much more straightforward in hindsight. That's why I reduced it to the substantive issue that Gopal received damages from the Daily Mail. We don't need a blow by blow account - that's what the references are for. And with the greatest respect to Priyamvada Gopal, her relative notability only goes so far. There has to be some proportion to the length and detail of biographical articles on Wikipedia. I'll dare to edit this article again. I honestly have no agenda other than making articles easily digestible for the average visitor.[[User:Seaweed|Seaweed]] ([[User talk:Seaweed|talk]]) 16:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes, this has overall to be the right approach to this article. Conceivably one or two details that you've removed should go back in, but I wouldn't want to see a wholesale reversion of the trimming you've done. Thanks for your work here! [[User:Alarichall|Alarichall]] ([[User talk:Alarichall|talk]]) 18:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:@[[User:Seaweed|Seaweed]], leaving aside the general approach (which I think makes sense), in the case of the "White lives don't matter. As white lives" tweet I think you misunderstood. That tweet was the subject of a controversy, and quite separately, the Daily Mail published defamatory material about Gopal as having tweeted incitement to a race war. It wasn't based on the same incident, and the Mail (not a RS of course) and other outlets covered the White Lives tweet independently of the defamation. [[User:Samuelshraga|Samuelshraga]] ([[User talk:Samuelshraga|talk]]) 11:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Including Gopal's views based on articles published by Gopal == |
|||
Hi @[[User:OmegaPiii|OmegaPiii]], I see you reverted my changes because the material came from relevant peer-reviewed publications. I don't think this can be a reason to include: Not every published opinion or finding by an academic need be included in the wiki page about them. It would be more relevant to include it in the wiki pages about the subject of the academic article, rather than the author. There must be hundreds of such examples on wikipedia of prolific and noted academics whose views are not reported (or advocated) in the way seen on the Gopal page. Take [[Timothy Winter]] as an example - some of his views are included, but only when 3rd party sources have mentioned them. I think including a list of publications as in the Winter example would be a reasonable alternative to a wiki-editor selected summary of Gopal's views as expressed in her published work. [[User:Samuelshraga|Samuelshraga]] ([[User talk:Samuelshraga|talk]]) 08:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:<s>The fact that the material is peer-reviewed and cited in academic journals is reason enough to include it. Removing the material and other opinions also strips the article of context. Gopal's published and cited peer-reviewed work is relevant to her public profile because much of her public commentary derives from her academic work. The page does not include all her published work either. Numerous double-blind reviewed journal articles and books are not discussed despite having many journal citations. That some academics don't have published views reported on their wiki page is neither here nor there. [[User:OmegaPiii|OmegaPiii]] ([[User talk:OmegaPiii|talk]]) 06:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)</s> sock struck by [[User:Samuelshraga|Samuelshraga]] ([[User talk:Samuelshraga|talk]]) 15:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::My objection is based on [[Wikipedia:PROPORTION]] - "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." The subject here is Priyamvada Gopal. The sources are not sources that address the question: "What are Priyamvada Gopal's views" - they are sources that are written by Gopal from which we have curated a selection of her views. The subject of this wikipedia page has written an awful lot over the years. It looks like she's regularly written columns in the Guardian and Al-Jazeera, and all of those could be used as Reliable Sources for her views. |
|||
::The question then is on what basis we have selected these views from these articles - the fact that the essay "On Decolonisation and the University" is in a journal rather than the Guardian is not the issue. For example, she's sort of semi-prominently critical of the royal family (also happens to appear in "On Decolonisation and the University") and we don't cover that. Why? Because the sources for it are Gopal's own writings, and in tabloids which are generally not RS. So one is left wondering why a three paragraph summary of these particular aspects of "On Decolonisation and the University" is necessary for this article. I understand that this essay got a relatively high readership, but unless it received coverage in 3rd party sources, I don't see how this isn't over-coverage? [[User:Samuelshraga|Samuelshraga]] ([[User talk:Samuelshraga|talk]]) 07:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::This discussion caught my attention because I happened to look at my watchlist and saw that @[[User:Samuelshraga|Samuelshraga]] had deleted it. Looking back at the edits under discussion, I tend to think that the additional, well-referenced information provided about Gopal's thought was worthwhile and interesting. Readers don't have to read every section of the article if they don't want to. The additions that Samuelshraga deleted were about Gopal's views on race and decolonisation, which are central to her thought and public profile, and detailed coverage of those seems entirely proportionate to me. [[User:Alarichall|Alarichall]] ([[User talk:Alarichall|talk]]) 14:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Hi @[[User:Alarichall|Alarichall]]. I deleted the above talk discussion (as I wrote in summary) because it was between me and a sock of @[[User:PostcolonialLitNerd|PostcolonialLitNerd]]. I guess if you want to continue the discussion restoring it would be fine, although a new section without the sock comments might be an alternative? |
|||
::::On the issue itself, the view that her views on race and decolonisation are central to her public profile is a subjective judgement, and I would encourage you to find Reliable Sources to make that point, and/or which summarise her views on race and decolonisation (so that wikipedia editors don't then have to make the independent judgement of which of her writings are salient enough to paraphrase and summarise, or to do what is clearly [[WP;OR]] and synthesise her entire corpus). At that point proportionate coverage of her views on these issues on this page will not see objection from me. |
|||
::::For now, given that much of the material was originally added by PLN, and the gatekeeping has been done by PLN socks for years at this point, perhaps we'll leave it off until PLN's next sock re-adds it? [[User:Samuelshraga|Samuelshraga]] ([[User talk:Samuelshraga|talk]]) 15:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== “White lives don’t matter” comment, why isn't this notable == |
|||
In 2020 Gopal commented that “white lives don't matter” and this was heavily covered. This is yet another example of her making controversial and inflammatory statements why hasn't this been included? |
|||
It was quite well covered and Cambridge university stood behind her. |
|||
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/25/cambridge-defends-academic-said-white-lives-dont-matter/ |
|||
[https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/cambridge-professor-white-lives-twitter-110355066.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWFyY2guYnJhdmUuY29tLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFDud6KCoJmkRSEzyZBPHcDTDUu4yyDQ9S5lvM4s3hssm4NcFwhtWEGP7ayQjQk82KIPtg5YZitRS2XKZN-aogdvdbblbjhgHdov81uoVnFvztHaRUB_TvU1mxZzbRRkd7c7R4__IBxyuGptWdvvAt_u0uS5Ppk5IqfLglRXRum2 https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/cambridge-professor-white-lives-twitter-110355066.html] |
|||
[[User:Helpingtoclarify|Helpingtoclarify]] ([[User talk:Helpingtoclarify|talk]]) 03:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:In my opinion, it is notable. It was removed by @[[User:Seaweed|Seaweed]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Priyamvada_Gopal&diff=prev&oldid=1192836311 here]. |
|||
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Priyamvada_Gopal&diff=prev&oldid=1192977391 I pointed out] what I think was Seaweed's misunderstanding in the Excessive Detail section of this talk page but didn't receive a reply. [[User:Samuelshraga|Samuelshraga]] ([[User talk:Samuelshraga|talk]]) 12:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
|
|
The existing article decolonization does not cover the sense of "decolonisation" used in the article to summarise Gopal's view. There is a basic position, that faulty historiography of the British Empire has knock-on effects that should be countered. That, it seems to me, to be the sense that is particularly à propos in explaining Gopal's arguments; without prejudice to other aspects of the post-colonial situation that are live issues at present.
My initial thought is that Historiography of the British Empire#Postmodern and postcolonial approaches should be made more fit for purpose. If there is nothing in that article that can serve to illuminate the underlying debate implied by this article, that is an obvious lack.
The article decolonization itself is the top-level article relating via WP:SUMMARY to many more specialised articles. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
{{cite encyclopedia}}
: |work=
ignored (help) Richard Nevell (talk) 08:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]Gopal has been criticised by many people (including Trevor Phillips, Dan Hodges Kemi Badenoch and reportedly a spokesman for Cambridge University for comparing the black educator Tony SewelltoJoseph Goebbels. It will not do to try to suppress this from Wikipedia because people want to shield her from criticism. NBeale (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gopal questioned whether Sewell had a doctorate as opposed to an honorary doctorate, accusing him of having "false research credentials". It's in her Twitter feed. Since the entire discussion is about her allegedly inappropriate comments on Twitter, this is a WP:RS. NBeale (talk) 09:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Canvassing. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]
is sufficient. I don't see the value Aaronovitch's comment adds, it seems very out of place. Thoughts? 15 (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]Gopal has been involved in numerous public controversies which have received extensive media coverage, both positive and negative. In 2018, The Times wrote that "Depending on your point of view, Priyamvada Gopal is either a warrior for racial justice or a professional victim with a persecution complex."[1]
Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view.-- there was plenty of public debate. 15 (talk) 09:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on your point of view, Priyamvada Gopal is either a warrior for racial justice or the Torquemada of the New Woke Inquisition, as the second part more accurately than
professional victimsummarises the other pieces written about her but I don't know if that would be permissible or even possible. 15 (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
References
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.
Gopal said that her remark was a reference to Goebbels, not a comparison, and she had nothing to apologise for.[1] Her comments followed criticism of the report for downplaying the extent of racism in Britain.[2][3][4][5]
What do people think about this? The first part seems reasonable: Both WP and newspapers include a response of their subject to whatever has been written about them, so I don't see why we should not include her "denial". I do not believe that we need to include the second part providing context, as that is already done with along with other commentators
in the first sentence of the section. Please keep responses brief and on-topic. Best, 15 (talk) 10:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
References
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.
I'm struggling to think of the best title for this section, but I'm not very keen on 'row': that word is popular among journalists who want to make it sound like academics are shouting at each other, but I don't think it's a very literal description of what we're dealing with, and therefore I don't think it's encyclopaedic in tone. Section titles we've had so far are 'Criticism of David Abulafia and anti-Semitism row', 'Criticism of David Abulafia and claim of anti-Semitism', and 'Anti-Semitism row'. Might 'anti-Semitism dispute' work?
By the way, @JodiMoran, I agreed with your edit comment that my version of this was bloated, especially since the exchange with Abulafia is a minor matter compared with Gopal's actual scholarship and I wouldn't want it to have undue weight in the article. But I found that shorter versions were just too elliptical to make sense (and sometimes weren't crystal clear in showing what really said what), so I feel that if this episode is going to be in this article it ought to be here comprehensibly. Tricky. Alarichall (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts on the title would be appreciated! Alarichall (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LumumbaX, this revision removed sections of the article wholesale - a full third of the article. I think best practice if you think the article is overlong or that certain sections are gratuitous or over-emphasised would be to shorten - not delete - them, or at the very least to open a discussion here first. It's not as if one person had added all that in one go, it was months if not years of collective editing evidenced in this very full talk page - so to remove fully a third of the article is a fairly extreme step. I think the sections you removed should be reinstated, I do not agree with your assertion in the edit summary that they are "trivial". Samuelshraga (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alarichall (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]The Cambridge academic best known for her take-no-prisoners social media presence is an expert on colonial resistance. Her Insurgent Empire reframed the assumption that native liberation movements were inspired solely by European thinking, arguing that the influence ran the other way, with radicals in the colonies resetting the politics in the self-styled “mother countries.” This year she fearlessly set up a series of discussions at her own Churchill College to re-examine Churchill’s legacy. That got her in trouble with the Daily Mail, and the college has apparently cooled on the initiative. But Gopal remains undeterred. Few academics are doing so much, and so boldly, to expose how the legacy of empire continues to warp our thinking and institutions.
The discussion on the "Controversies" section is archived but I would suggest to the participants that we reopen a similar discussion because I think the article could be better arranged. Agreeing that "Controversies" was a problematic framing of the main section of the article, I still think separating out from the "Work" section those topics that don't seem to be part of Gopal's academic work product in a more neutrally framed section may help structure the article more usefully.
For instance, in the current article, I don't think anyone would suggest that the "White lives don't matter" issue forms part of Gopal's work, but I do think it is part of her notability, so should probably find itself in a different section. I propose a "Public profile" section that separates out content not to do with her academic research or work within the university. This could include more information about her activist/op-ed writer side of things.
@15, @Xxanthippe, @Atchom, @Richard Nevell, @Lajmmoore, @Pikavoom, and anyone else, please weigh in. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who watches the Wikipedia editors?[1]
A well-written article. It might be a RS, but the author is anonymous. It describes the problems with whitewashing and sockpuppetry here. It could be a good source for research. Liz, shouldn't Gopal's bio here be permanently semi-protected to limit these problems? Then new editors should be held under close scrutiny. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Long-standing errors made on the website are republished by respectable institutions as fact, which then are used by Wikipedia editors to buttress the veracity of the original claim. No institution is immune: I am reliably informed that Buckingham Palace conferred at least one non-existent title on the late Queen on the strength of a Wikipedia article alone. ... [CIRCULARity is definitely quite an issue when it comes to non-prominent topics.]
In 2020, it was discovered that almost every article on Scots Wikipedia was written by an American teenager who did not speak Scots, with potentially catastrophic ramifications for the publicly subsidised pseudo-language’s future. ... [Many small language Wikipedias are definitely operating in a poor condition.]
Articles on Japanese anime series, for example, are often longer and better than those on British prime ministers. Anyone who has played a single match of first-class cricket, no matter how obscure, will have a lovingly-written biography. ...
In practice, Wikipedia editors heavily favour legacy media outlets whose content is freely accessible online (relevant academic literature, paywalled and harder to understand, is often ignored).
References
This is User:Smallbones. I write the "Disinformation report" in The Signpost, see e.g. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-02-20/Disinformation report I definitely noticed the article in The Critic and it looks very interesting from the standpoint of there being 2 sides to the commentary there and several different themes. Anything I write on this will probably be shorter than usual - I haven't made a complete inventory of the sock drawer yet - but there seem to be at least 5 from a quick look around. So, the article would have to be mostly about the Critic article, and editors' opinions. If you have anything to say that hasn't been written on this page yet, please contact me by email at Special:EmailUser/Smallbones. Well if you want to repeat in a particularly pithy way what you've said here that might make for a good quote, but mainly what I'm interested in first would be background material just in case I'm missing something. I won't quote your 1st email to me without your permission, and after that we'll talk about what you want attributed. Any help appreciated - from anybody involved here! Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of weeks ago I removed the subsection about Gopal's 2006 appearance on BBC radio's Start the Week as the only sources were written by Gopal herself. @OmegaPiii has reinstated the section with a new reference to the event - a Times Higher Education supplement piece about Gopal.[5] The section which references her appearance reads thus:
In 2006, however, as she describes in her forthcoming book Insurgent Empire: Anticolonial Resistance and British Dissent, she took part in a discussion on BBC Radio 4’s Start the Week. There she found herself confronted by “the media face of the case for British imperialism, Niall Ferguson” and was a largely lone voice in challenging his “bullish assertions about the greatness of Britain’s imperial project and the benevolence of its legacies”.
I don't think this qualifies as a third-party depiction of events, as all the descriptions are directly quoting from Gopal herself. It is soft evidence for the notability of the incident, but I don't think it justifies the full paragraph devoted to it on this page. In any case, some of the assertions in the paragraph are unsourced and potential BLP issues. I don't think anything suffers if the paragraph is removed. However, if removing the whole paragraph is not a consensus decision, I propose replacing it with a sentence:
"Gopal cites an appearance on BBC Radio 4's Start the Week with motivating her to speak about issues of empire and colonialism.[6]" @OmegaPiii, and anyone else here, please feel free to weigh in if this is or isn't acceptable to you. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've not heard of Priyamvada Gopal until today and I'm scratching my head at the immense amount of detail on a few events from her public life. I think this is an example of when well-intentioned contributions unfortunately leading to disproportionate analysis. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an exhaustive breakdown of everything. I've going to add the Overly Detailed template and try and edit down this article a bit. Seaweed (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've returned! Hmm, I see a lot of the things I edited down have gone back in again. I think this article is an example of when a biographical article is edited in good faith whilst a topical issue is emerging about that person. That might go on for months or even years. However, eventually that particular topic is resolved and therefore some perspective be used to edit the while thing down into something concise and readable to the general reader of Wikipedia (which is how I edit Wikipedia). For example, the issue regarding ""White lives don't matter. As white lives" tweet" is actually much more straightforward in hindsight. That's why I reduced it to the substantive issue that Gopal received damages from the Daily Mail. We don't need a blow by blow account - that's what the references are for. And with the greatest respect to Priyamvada Gopal, her relative notability only goes so far. There has to be some proportion to the length and detail of biographical articles on Wikipedia. I'll dare to edit this article again. I honestly have no agenda other than making articles easily digestible for the average visitor.Seaweed (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @OmegaPiii, I see you reverted my changes because the material came from relevant peer-reviewed publications. I don't think this can be a reason to include: Not every published opinion or finding by an academic need be included in the wiki page about them. It would be more relevant to include it in the wiki pages about the subject of the academic article, rather than the author. There must be hundreds of such examples on wikipedia of prolific and noted academics whose views are not reported (or advocated) in the way seen on the Gopal page. Take Timothy Winter as an example - some of his views are included, but only when 3rd party sources have mentioned them. I think including a list of publications as in the Winter example would be a reasonable alternative to a wiki-editor selected summary of Gopal's views as expressed in her published work. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In 2020 Gopal commented that “white lives don't matter” and this was heavily covered. This is yet another example of her making controversial and inflammatory statements why hasn't this been included?
It was quite well covered and Cambridge university stood behind her.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/25/cambridge-defends-academic-said-white-lives-dont-matter/
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/cambridge-professor-white-lives-twitter-110355066.html
Helpingtoclarify (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]