Jump to content

Talk:Ruth Padel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Date of Birth

[edit]

The first line of the article puts her birth date on May 8th, while the biographic info in the box on the right says its August 5th.--Spevo51 (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spevo51 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the month and days of each. I suspect there was a mixup when the person added the infobox way back in February, as 8 and 5 were reversed, but until there's a cite, both should stay out. --Izno (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this needs the news tag?

[edit]

This is a topic which is in the news as of today (May 26 2009), due to her resignation. It has been covered on news broadcasts today on Radio 4, and is being covered on the BBC website. So, should it have the tag that states that an item is in the news heading the page? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The in the news refered to the article being "in the news" secton on the wikipedia home page and the "in the news" section page. The fact that she resigned, from what I can see, has not appeared in the "in the news" section on wikipedia and thus no new tag should be added. --RossF18 (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

[edit]

An IP editor insists (in the edit history for the main page) that material from high-quality news organizations cannot be used without the addition of "it is said that". I had inserted a number of widely reported statements, inserting in each case a source reference, but this editor writes vaguely in justification of his/her edits "WP:BLP applies here" or "the papers saying so is not enough". The points to which this editor applies the qualification are all non-controversial and accepted by the subject of the article. I wonder whether we can reach agreement that these edits should be reverted. A further cause for concern is that this editor's IP address indicates that he/she is editing from Oriel College, Oxford, where a number of those who nominated Padel for the position of Professor of Poetry are based: see http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/councilsec/gov/padelfly.pdf . This suggests that this editor is personally involved in this story and consequently not impartial.Uthor (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate way to move forth here is to agree (in part) with the IP's claim in summary that "it is said that" is more appropriate. However, it should be "<This reference> claims <this claim>", and little else. If the subject herself has accepted those claims, then that should be in a place where we can access it. If we can't, than there's nothing further to be done here. If we can though, we should include and then cite her response to those claims as well. --Izno (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The IP thought we should add "it is said that" to statements about emails sent by Ruth Padel which she admits to having sent (in the link given to the video of her press conference), and which she calls "naive and stupid" in the same place. So the reference confirming that she accepts these statements was already in place. It is positively misleading to the casual reader to imply that the existence of the emails is open to doubt: several reliable sources report that they were sent, and Ruth Padel admits it. So I think we should revert this edit.Uthor (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I left one of the anon's changes in. --Izno (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Izno, I am the anon editor who made those changes and approve of your further smartening up to adhere to BLP. I have no involvement whatsoever in Padel's appointment, or in any part fo the processes involved, in any fashion whatsoever, the deduction made by Uthor are exceptionally bad faith as to my intentions with the article and I would like an apology over his assumptions. He should go off and read the policy and surrounding material needed to edit controversial Biographies of Living People, if he is going to do such, I've given him the link twice now.--163.1.147.29 (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Anon. at Oriel College, Oxford. You have indeed referred me twice to "WP:BLP", but in a most abbreviated fashion: unfortunately you never said which bit of "WP:BLP" you had in mind! Perhaps you could repair this omission? I am familiar with the page and failed to find the portion that you have in mind. What it *seems* to boil down to is that you do not accept material from high-quality news organizations as a reliable source, contrary to Wikipedia's ruling on this matter, but perhaps there is more to it than that? Many thanks in advance for your kind attention to this request. Incidentally, Oriel is a small college, so I think it's quite reasonable to suppose that you are personally involved with some of those who nominated Ruth Padel from your college. After all, they do include the Head of House, Sir Derek Morris! That is the personal involvement I meant, and I do think it could raise doubts about your neutrality in the mind of a reasonable person. (Of course I have no reason to doubt your claim that you did not actually have a vote in the election: that is not the point.)Uthor (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Biographical material must be written with strict adherence to our content policies: Neutral point of view, Verifiability and No original research. NPOV requires that when we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. Whereas Izno 'gets this', you have failed to, more than once, apparently even after he gave you a simple formula. I have no problem with reliable sources, I have a big problem with edits that put in negative comments into a biography of a living person without any care and attention to neutrality and avoiding original research. Re your lack of apology at assuming bad faith in my intentions - guilt by association does not work for me, nor should it for any reasonable person. Oriel is some 600 people - you already tar the whole lot as a base of people who nominated Padel (and presumably were "in on the smear", that went too far already, further words from you on the issue are likely to make matters worse, please refrain.--163.1.147.64 (talk) 10:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Anon. at Oriel College, Oxford. Thanks for clarifying your thought processes. Now, perhaps you could give chapter and verse for the contribution of mine in which I "put in negative comments into a biography of a living person without any care and attention to neutrality and avoiding original research" or "discuss[ed] an opinion" without "attribut[ing] the opinion". Many thanks once again for your kind attention to this matter! Also, I don't remember implying that everyone at Oriel nominated Ruth Padel. Nor do I remember making any connection between your college, Oriel, and the smear: perhaps you could give particular attention to digging up your source for this particular allegation? I haven't claimed that you are "guilt[y]" of anything. I'm just suggesting that your personal involvement with people who played a major role in the affair may make it more difficult for you to be seen as completely neutral.Uthor (talk) 11:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this, this, and this, which is not fixed here either are all examples of not being carefull enough with the language, merely sticking a cite on the end is not enough, you seem to think it is, it isn't. In this thread you said "cause for concern is that this editor's IP address indicates that he/she is editing from Oriel College, Oxford, where a number of those who nominated Padel for the position of Professor of Poetry are based" = this ip is from Oriel, Oriel's support for Padel was substantial, therefore ip is a A) Padel supporter and B) will have a biased view with respect to this article, whether or not you meant it that way, that is how it comes across - you say yourself "This suggests that this editor is personally involved in this story and consequently not impartial" - I do not, and have not had, any connection whatsoever in the appointment of Padel in any way whatsoever - debating that I might be influenced somehow by the fact that I might know some of the people who were involved in some (or indeed any) way is highly offensive to me, a reasonable person might be able to see that and offer some form of apology. Sheesh you even up the stakes again - "personal involvement with people who played a major role in the affair" [emphasis added] - I do not, and have not had, any connection whatsoever in the appointment of Padel in any way whatsoever - the first I heard that there was a view that Oriel had anything to do with her appointment was your posting that link above.--163.1.147.64 (talk) 12:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anon. at Oriel College, Oxford. Thanks for your prompt response. However, you have not addressed my specific concern:
How exactly did your edit serve to remedy work of mine in which I "discuss[ed] an opinion" without "attribut[ing] the opinion" or "put in negative comments into a biography of a living person without any care and attention to neutrality and avoiding original research"?
Here is the content of the edit of yours that I reverted, in brief (just 3 points):
"Padel said her victory had been "poisoned by the cowardly acts" of the campaign against her rival" sourced to the Daily Telegraph: you changed this to "Padel was quoted by the press as saying her victory had been "poisoned by the cowardly acts" of the campaign against her rival".
"Following Padel's resignation, it emerged that the first of the emails concerning allegations about Walcott that led to her resignation was sent by her on 9 April to Olivia Cole of the London Evening Standard.", sourced to the Evening Standard. You corrected "it emerged" to "the Evening Standard ran a story claiming".
"Then on April 23, she emailed a Sunday Times journalist. In her email, she attributed", sourced to Channel 4 News. You replaced "Then" with "It is said that" and "she attributed" with "she is said to have attributed".
So please say:
(a) in which of these 3 places I "discuss[ed] an opinion" without "attribut[ing] the opinion";
(b) in which of these 3 places I "put in negative comments into a biography of a living person without any care and attention to neutrality";
(c) in which of these 3 places I am guilty of "original research".
Those are your specific allegations in defense of the edit that I reverted. I just want you to substantiate them. I hope it will not take you too much trouble to do this now that I have placed the three places in question on this page. Many thanks.
(On the point of your Oxford affiliation, we'll have to agree to differ. As a member of the University, you have a stake in this whether you like it or not, and so you will have to be particularly careful not to give the appearance of bias. That's just common sense.)Uthor (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to jump your hoops after trying to correct BLP baddies (some of which you are responsible), being accused of being biased and refused an apology twice? That is rich. After having been told, shown, explained and diffed, you should be able to understand that "Padel was quoted by the press as saying" is worded so as to show that we are not saying she said such, but that the press is saying that she said such. You entered a newspaper story as fact, backed up by cite, the cite is no problem, it is that you added the view as fact without any notion of who reports her saying it. The rest are the same, if you don't 'get it' fine - I am unwilling to 'help you right' any further. Please don't edit Biographies of Living People until you do 'get it', or if you do, do not be surprised other editors take issue with your edits. You are assuming I am a member of the University and consequently you think I have a stake, you have missed a step or two, I do not have a stake in the matter in any fashion whatsoever. I did not say you entered OR did I? No I didn't. Do you really think it's better 'to be right' than 'to do right'? I don't care what your answer is, I won't be back on this page as I doubt any of my words will 'point you right', and I'm sure we will eventually see an RfC attached to your username.--163.1.147.64 (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Anon. at Oriel College, Oxford. Thank you for this response. However, "Padel said her victory had been "poisoned by the cowardly acts" of the campaign against her rival" is not an expression of someone's "view"! Consequently, Izno reverted this edit of yours. So I am not alone in feeling that you have gone too far. I regret that you are not willing to discuss the matter further and try to reach a consensus in the spirit of Wikipedia.
On the "original research" point, you say above:
Whereas Izno 'gets this', you have failed to, more than once, apparently even after he gave you a simple formula. I have no problem with reliable sources, I have a big problem with edits that put in negative comments into a biography of a living person without any care and attention to neutrality and avoiding original research.
I don't see why you would bring up the matter of original research if you don't wish to claim that it's relevant to this case! (As to Izno "getting this", see above: he reverted the edit that you just defended!)
Finally, regarding your Oriel College affiliation: as a student or employee of Oriel College, Oxford, you are associated with Oxford University, the organization which elected Ruth Padel. So as I've said, "you have a stake in this whether you like it or not, and so you will have to be particularly careful not to give the appearance of bias. That's just common sense."Uthor (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The large amount of signal-to-noise ratio on this page would suggest that wikilawyering is occurring, that time and energy would have been better spent fixing the substandard use of "Reliable sources". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.129.225 (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

[edit]

In 2009, Nobel Prize laureate Derek Walcott, a leading candidate for the position of Oxford Professor of Poetry, withdrew his candidacy after an article in the Sunday Times stated that pages discussing cases of alleged sexual harassment laid against him in US campusses had been sent to a number of Oxford academics. The University subsequently elected Padel. Padel resigned when newspapers, printing an email in which she had acknowledged that some voters at Oxford were uneasy about this record of harassment allegations, alleged this as evidence that Padel was involved in activities against Walcott. Press handling of the affair was criticized in letters of support for both poets to papers including The Times, the Times Literary Supplement and the Guardian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.36.109.186 (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ruth Padel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ruth Padel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ruth Padel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Ruth Padel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Ruth Padel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References in lead

[edit]

For those unfamiliar, per WP:CITELEAD, the lead of an article doesn't need references. This article however had a whopping 28. I've copy-pasted them here. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]

References

  1. ^ Padel. "Padel, Ruth Sophia". Who's Who. Vol. 2015 (online Oxford University Press ed.). A & C Black. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Unknown parameter |othernames= ignored (help) (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
  2. ^ Nikitina, Maia, "‘We are all migrants’ – The Mara Crossing by Ruth Padel", Bookmunch, 13 March 2012.
  3. ^ Gamble, Miriam, "The Mara Crossing by Ruth Padel – review, The Guardian, 17 February 2012.
  4. ^ McDowell, Lesley,"The Mara Crossing, By Ruth Padel" (review), The Independent, 22 January 2012.
  5. ^ Padel, Ruth, "Migration: Micro and Macro", The Scientist, 1 June 2012.
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference WritingAllele was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Kellaway, Kate, "Tidings: A Christmas Journey by Ruth Padel – wise and eloquent", The Observer, 13 December 2016.
  8. ^ "Poet Ruth Padel's Christmas book highlights London's homelessness crisis", Ham & High, 15 November 2016.
  9. ^ Saxena, Vishakha, "JLF 2015: How can India Keep its tigers safe?", Hindustan times, 23 January 2015.
  10. ^ "Ruth Padel | Greek crisis imperils a nation's heritage", The Independent, 11 June 2012.
  11. ^ Guest, Katy (2008-11-14). "Why don't women write 'Big Ideas Books?' - Features, Books". The Independent. London. Archived from the original on 16 December 2008. Retrieved 2010-09-10.
  12. ^ Andrew O'Hagan (2005-06-25). "Why it's cool to love nature". Telegraph. London. Retrieved 2010-09-18.
  13. ^ Little Ref, "Triumph tastes trifle sour", The Oxford Times. 21 May 2009.
  14. ^ "Darwin's Descendant, on Origin of Poetry". Gg-art.com. Retrieved 2010-09-10.
  15. ^ The 'tedious argument' of oratory. BBC Today. Luke Wright and Ruth Padel
  16. ^ "Ruth Padel: 'Poetry has a responsibility to look at the world'", Open Weekend, The Guardian, 21 March 2012.
  17. ^ "New Networks for Nature Ambassadors". Archived from the original on 19 September 2017. Retrieved 17 March 2017.
  18. ^ "ZSL Writers' Talks on Endangered Animals | Zoological Society of London (ZSL)". Zsl.org. Archived from the original on 12 May 2014. Retrieved 17 January 2022.
  19. ^ Padel, Ruth (22 March 2013). "Don't let good zoos go extinct". Retrieved 17 March 2017 – via The Guardian.
  20. ^ Padel, Ruth (2013-05-03). "Talks and tigers are a natural attraction". The Independent. Retrieved 2017-03-17.
  21. ^ "Writers Talk at ZSL London Zoo - Ruth Padel on hummingbird, bleeding heart dove and amethyst starling - What's on - ZSL London Zoo - ZSL". Zsl.org. Archived from the original on 26 June 2013. Retrieved 17 January 2022.
  22. ^ Dally, Emma (2013-06-18). "20 Questions for Ruth Padel, award-winning poet and writer". Good Housekeeping. Retrieved 2017-03-17.
  23. ^ Christopher Booker. "Environment: News & features". Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2013-07-15. Retrieved 2017-03-17.
  24. ^ "Talks and tigers are a natural attraction". 3 May 2013. Retrieved 17 March 2017.
  25. ^ "BBC Radio 4 - Poetry Workshop". Bbc.co.uk. 2012-12-01. Retrieved 2017-03-17.
  26. ^ Padel, Ruth (2008-07-23). "Ruth Padel". The Guardian. London.
  27. ^ "About Us". Retrieved 17 March 2017.
  28. ^ "People | Department of English | King's College London".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ruth_Padel&oldid=1206713202"