Talk:Adekunle Adeyeye

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because:

• Principal of a Durham University college
• Former tenured full professorship at Singapore
• Named by Techology Review as a noted innovator
• IEEE Magnetics Society Distinguished Lecturer
• Feature article in Times Higher Education

You could argue these are insufficient, but I don't think there's a basic failure to assert notability. While it's not explicitly in WP:PROF, my experience has been that principals of University of Durham colleges have generally been accepted as sufficiently notable. TSP (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources and prominence as black academic

Some negative POV had crept into this article. Some of the references which were claimed to condemn Adeyeye explicitly did not condemn him. I have altered the text rather than remove the legitimate references. I have removed the Palatinate reference altogether as it misreported its own sources. Sources referred to by the journal in fact avoid condemning Adeyeye. The journal also mis-spells Adeyeye's name, central to the article, which reduces its reliability further. I have also noted Adeyeye's prominence as a black college principal at a university where only 2% of students identify as black. SteveCree2 (talk) 07:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, @LMBBEL I see you've reverted my recent edit (see above) of this article. It is entirely appropriate, I think, that Adeyeye's status as a very rare black college principal is referred to in the introductory paragraph. It is also a notable detail that he is a college principal at a highly prestigious and ancient university with only 2% black students. It is a vanishingly rare phenomenon in the UK.

As I explain above, I removed references and corrected text to ensure that the references supported the text. Your new references 10, 11, 12 and 13 are incorrect. Specifically:

References 10 and 11: Your new text says: "The The Durham branch of the University and College Union released a statement condemning the alleged behaviour,[10] stating "If the behaviour is found to be as alleged, we regard it as shocking and cannot accept it as a union,[11]"

The quote is not part of the statement (i.e. reference 10), it is contained in a tweet which is now reference 11. This needs to be corrected.

The statement referenced at 10 includes: "we can’t comment on this particular case while the proceedings are ongoing". At reference 11, the tweet includes "if the behaviour is found to be as alleged". The union is clearly taking great care not to condemn Adeyeye while proceedings continue. It would be wholly inappropriate for any union to condemn a university employee while proceedings are still underway. It may even prejudice the proceedings, not least because Adeyeye may actually be represented by the union.

Reference 12: Your new text says: "the Durham Students' Union expressed solidarity with his alleged victims,[12]".

The actual reference does not say this. At the appropriate point, it reads: "We express solidarity with students and staff at Trevelyan College". Again, the Durham Students Union has been careful not to prejudge the outcome of present proceedings.

Reference 13: Your text reads: "numerous alumni pledged to withhold donations from Durham University over the issue". In context, 'the issue' clearly refers specifically to Adeyeye.

In fact, at reference 13, the title and first paragraph use the word 'after' rather than, say, 'because of' Adeyeye. This is a journalistic device designed to avoid prejudging the outcome, or suggesting that those providing comment are prejudging the outcome, of ongoing university proceedings. At the reference, two quotes are given from separate alumnus. One says: "this is a problem that goes deeper than just one college. As a result, I have cancelled my standing donation to the University". The other says: “I intend to withhold any further donations and involvement with the University until it can prove that it is truly dedicated to tackling these deep-rooted problems with bullying and misogyny.”

Both of these quotes explicitly avoid prejudging the specific case and explicitly refer to deeper problems within the university.

In conclusion, your citations 10-13 are incorrect. Each reference shows a responsible body expressing concern about an issue in the very general without passing specific comment on an ongoing process. I would like to revert this to my original form of words and would be more than happy to support changes once the present procedure involving Adeyeye has concluded. Can I have your agreement on this? Thanks, and all the best, SteveCree2 (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, @LMBBEL Do you have any thoughts on the above? I'll pop this on your talk page too. all the best, SteveCree2 (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

On the basis of WP:BRD (see above) I'm reverting this article to the previous version. The key difference is that there is an ongoing University process in respect of the subject - Adeyeye - and in reportage interested parties have been careful not to prejudge the process; whereas the version I am reverting from misuses citations to give the impression that this is not the case. If live claims are eventually found against Adeyeye, then of course this article will require amending back to something closer to its present state (but using updated citations?). Please do not revert without discussing as this version presently is not NPOV. I am more than happy to discuss. all the best to anyone interested. SteveCree2 (talk) 11:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

As with everything in Wikipedia we need to follow the sources. Has any reliable source mentioned the notability of Adeyeye's appointment as a black principal? If so, great, add that citation. If not, I'm afraid we can't discuss it either (especially as this is a WP:BLP).

NPOV is defined by neutrally presenting what is in the sources, not by avoiding mentioning sources that seem to be taking a side. I think some of your edits on the bullying issue at least come close to misrepresenting the sources. Our sources repeatedly link the various statements made on bullying to Adeyeye's case; if they were actually statements "without passing comment on Adeyeye's case" then they wouldn't have any place in the article. The UCU tweet is notable as well as the earlier statement - tweets are fine as sources for the author's own views, and I don't understand the justification for removing them; nor for removing the sourced statement about alumni donations.

The only things I can see a problem with in what you reverted is the elision between the two separate UCU statements, and the use of 'numerous' about alumni donors (the source uses 'several') - I'll make that edit, but otherwise I think the version you reverted from was preferable to the one you restored. Happy to talk through any specific lines, but I don't think repeated complete reversions of sourced content are necessary or helpful. TSP (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The citations I reverted from do not do not support the text in the article. The detail about Adeyeye's race and the college base are notable. It's a simple as that. However, in each article about a black person or racial issues I've tried to edit on Wikipedia I've met absolute resistance. I can see there's a campaign against Adeyeye ('our' in your note above) so I won't engage with it any longer. all the best, SteveCree2 (talk) 08:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Content on Wikipedia has to be sourced, especially in biographies of living people. That's an absolute rule of Wikipedia, I'm afraid.

"Our sources" means "the sources that are currently used in the article", it doesn't denote 'a campaign'; please assume good faith.

I endeavoured to address the specific issues you raised so the text now reflects the sources. If you feel there is still a mismatch between content and sources, it's more helpful to adjust the article to match the sources, rather than remove both source and content. TSP (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)