Talk:Al-Maktoum College of Higher Education

Highest paid college principal in Scotland

I have removed the section on "Highest paid college principal in Scotland," because the information is outdated and irrelevant. The College has no Principal at the moment. The previous principal (Hossein Godazgar) is no longer on the salary quoted in this section. Therefore, it is misleading. The whole section is entirely misleading. Also, the other sections are very misleading. For example, in the "QAA oversight reports" section, the information provided in inaccurate. There is an updated QAA report, which has not been cited. The next section "Malory Nye controversy" goes through in detail allegations that were dismissed by a tribunal. The heading of the article is even wrong! It is not called Al-Maktoum institute. The page has been clearly written by a bitter ex-employee to damage the reputation of the College unfairly. I have no interest in tidying the page up. However, I remove the sections, which are clearly misleading, inaccurate and unfair. VígiArnifrid (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@VígiArnifrid: The "highest paid college principal in Scotland" section, like most of Wikipedia, doesn't discuss current events. It discusses an event in 2016 relating to the college, something clear by the wording of the section. I do agree that it lacks media coverage, and may not be as well sourced as Wikipedia guidelines require, though Companies House is a reliable source for income details as can be seen by its usage on Wikipedia. The section is not misleading, it is written quite clearly and only contains information from reliable sources being cited.

On the QAA report, the May 2016 report is the latest I could find on the web, if you know of a more recent report, please link it here and I'll update the information on the report.

The Malory Nye controversy goes into detail of the allegations due to the fact that media coverage does so as well. Excluding this information would simply not stating facts related to the controversy.

The heading of the article is determined by the common name in sources, but it does in fact seem to be Al-Maktoum College Of Higher Education. I'll submit a request to move the article when I get to it.

I don't believe the page has been written by a bitter ex-employee. The main reason for the information possibly giving an unfavorable view of the college is due to 2 things:

1) The college has had a large amount of controversy

2) The media coverage on the college is mainly on these controversies, therefore not much is known about other goings in the college.

I'm glad you're helping out in Wikipedia, but I don't see anything that makes those sections "misleading and inaccurate". Are they unfair? Only because the media is unfair and there is no further information on the college, they are merely stating the facts.

If you believe I've got anything wrong, feel free to point out. As a new user I recommend you to read WP:NPOV and all the links in WP:NOBLANKING as I believe that'd help you be a constructive editor to the Encyclopedia. Thanks for having a civil discussion, Hecseur (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point of a wikipage is to give an accurate, informative and fair description of the subject matter. Every organisation or individual has controversies, minor and major, related to them. I could easily hijack a wikipage related to an organisation or individual, highlighting these controversies to a degree that while factually correct (in the sense that these controversies exist) misrepresents or gives an inaccurate, unreasonable and unfair portrayal of the subject matter. Even easier would be to take essentially a blank wikipage and edit it with my bias (which is what has happened here). There is very little on this wikipage about the courses the College provides or the other activities they organise and take part in, such as the regular and popular colloquia held in Dundee for the benefit of Dundee residents, designed to increase inter-faith understanding and dialogue.

For the "Malory Nye controversy" section, I could for example quote large chunks of the tribunal judgment in which the employment judge makes it clear that the college at no time engaged in any discriminatory activities or took any decisions based on grounds of race, sex or religion. This would certainly be factually correct, but then would it make sense that 80% of the wikipage of an academic institute is taken up by an employment tribunal that took place in 2012 and which the College won completely?

Regarding the "Highest paid college principal in Scotland" section, the author does not indeed give any evidence for this claim. There is no citation to a source in which the salary of college principles in Scotland had been analysed and compared. There is no source cited for the other salaries listed. It seems that the author has merely taken a sample of college principle salaries in Scotland. Even if it were the case that in 2016 the College had the highest principal salary in Scotland, is this such a factually important statement such that it deserves roughly one third of the the wikipage?

I am not an employee of the College, and unfortunately I have no time to change the section on "QAA oversight reports" section, which is outdated and deliberately designed to give a bad impression of the College. However, as someone who is closely involved with the activities organised by the College, I find the whole page unfair, unreasonable, inaccurate and clearly designed to create a controversial appearance. It has also clearly been written by a bitter former employee. It is for this reason that I would at least like some of the most unfair aspects of the page removed. The ideal thing would in fact be to either delete the page or reduce it to the objectively accurate bare introduction at the start. VígiArnifrid (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This section is problematic in two ways:

A separate section is WP:UNDUE. There's no indication that the school derives significant notability from this. There is also too much information about Godazgar and his wife.
The claim is based on blatant synthesis. Putting together two different sources listing salaries for different years as back up for the claim is not acceptable.

The content, if restored, should be appropriately integrated within the article and properly sourced using secondary sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it was my mistake in keeping this synthesis after copyediting, and the information I left about Godazgar and his wife is quite undue. Also, @VígiArnifrid:, I still couldn't find that newer QAA report, so if you could give me the link to it that'd be great. Hecseur (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked and apparently there was a review in January 2018 in which these outstanding issues were satisfactorily settled. However, the report isn't out yet (I had thought it was). When it comes out I'll post it here.VígiArnifrid (talk) 10:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malory Nye controversy

I re-added some edited information in the Malory Nye controversy since it was unclear what claims were dismissed. It shouldn't be conflicting with WP:UNDUE Hecseur (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]