Talk:Peter Mathieson (nephrologist)

[Untitled]
Hi. Sorry it seems I've messed the formatting up. I can't seem to be able to find out where the issue is...Can someone fix the box for me, please? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clh hilary (talk • contribs) 02:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Current Events
I think this needs an update in regard to Mathieson's role in the current dispute at HKU. Rodparkes (talk) 05:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Peter Mathieson (nephrologist). 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:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131101104949/http://www.gs.hku.hk:80/322-913.pdf to http://www.gs.hku.hk/322-913.pdf

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

University of Edinburgh (second paragraph) request
Please can I request some edits to the second paragraph of the University of Edinburgh section.

1.      “…continued to give units within the University no financial control for more than a year after its implementation.”

This is not mentioned anywhere within the articles referenced and is not true.

2.      “which failed to pay staff, students and suppliers over an extended period,”

This is an exaggeration. While it is true that there was a backlog of invoices leading to delays in payments to suppliers, delays in payments to students and staff were rectified as early as possible. Suggest rewording to: "which resulted in delays in payments to staff, students and suppliers. Payments to students and staff were resolved quickly and on the same day where possible."

Peter Mathieson’s full response on this issue is available here:

https://www.ed.ac.uk/news/staff/2022/people-and-money-senate 3.      “He was further criticised for accepting a pay rise of £43,000 in 2022,” The £43,000 figure refers to the difference in total remuneration package reported in the University’s Annual Reports and Accounts in 2021 and 2022 (the most recent accounts available at this time) [1]. In 2020 he took a 20 per cent pay cut for six months as part of the University’s Covid mitigation. His salary reverted to full pay in 2021 [1,2]. No increase was offered in 2021 in line with the rest of the University. In financial year 2022/23 he has accepted the three per cent increase that was applied to all staff [2]. References

[1] https://www.ed.ac.uk/sites/default/files/atoms/files/202207_uoe_annual_accounts_2022_20.pdf (page 73)

[2] https://www.ed.ac.uk/human-resources/pay-reward/remuneration-committee/principal-remuneration Strodello (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The Lindsay source states: "In its response, the university acknowledged that the project, called People and Money internally, had put it (the university) in a 'humbling and unacceptable position'." That "humbling and unacceptable position" was that the University had no control over its finances for an extended period. As far as the claim of it lasting over a year, it appears that many of the difficulties began in the summer of 2022, and that by May of 2023 (the date of the Lindsay article) many of those issues were still being worked out. Thus, the Lindsay reference confirms the statement as it appears in the Wikipedia article.
 * The disruption occurred over an extended period according to the sources, and the only reference provided that the delays were solved "quickly and on the same day where possible" is the university itself.
 * The claim is that the salary rise was criticized, while a further explanation of the salary rise's details offered by the COI editor (e.g., "The £43,000 figure refers to the difference in total remuneration package reported in...") does not address the central claim, which is that there was criticism of it. To remove the statement from the Wikipedia article, please provide the sources from the Wikipedia article which are incorrectly asserting a claim of criticism. Regards, Spintendo  16:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)