Talk:Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge

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)

RfC: Truncate Giulio Regeni content

Should the content in this article [1] 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 [2]) 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)