Talk:University of Sheffield

Regarding controversy
Why are these controversies continually being vandalised in the form of deletion? They aer true events that have impacted on the funtioning of the university. They are also rather amusing, lighthearted and of course, wholly true and accurate. PLEASE keep them, Sheffield Students of the world, UNITE and take over!!!!

I think the content and tone of the sentences above demonstrate that the section regarding controversy is partisan and more concerned with maligning the organisation than recording an event, irrespective of one's personal views on the subject. Also, the majority of the citations are from one news source. The entire section on controversy needs to be removed and rewritten objectively and factually by somebody who is not part of the controversy. For example, the institution's own version of events is not represented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.177.220 (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Grammar and ranking suggestions
In 2.1 Location > Main (Western Bank) campus, suggest using 'university's' instead of 'universities':

Among the more recent additions to the university's estate

In 3.5 Organisation > Reputation and rankings, suggest this sentence:

Furthermore, The Times Higher Education Student Experience Survey 2013 ranks Sheffield as third overall in the country. It was ranked first for its social life, first for the 'university most people would recommend to a friend', second for library facilities and accommodation.

is updated to:

Furthermore, The Times Higher Education Student Experience Survey 2014 ranks Sheffield as first overall in the country. It was ranked number one for facilities, social life, accommodation and its Students’ Union.

NPOV Citations
“There are 22 citations in the ‘Proposed Closure’ section. Of these 15 come from a single website - thePipeline (via citations 205, 206, 207) with the result that this section is largely a rewrite of material from a single source. The frame of references either need to be broadened or the reliance on thePipeline reduced to start to move things back to NPOV. Compare with the Department of Archaeology section ‘Threat of Closure, May 2021 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Archaeology,_University_of_Sheffield

‘Proportionately’
“The ‘Proposed Closure…’ section is 1,354 words long. This makes it the longest section in the article apart from the ‘History’ section - which covers around 200 years in a comparable amount of space - 2,000 words. This is a symptom of recentism as highlighted previously via Talk - link - and the section on the proposed closure on the department page presents a ready alternative at 300 words long. Suggest moving the first three paragraphs of ‘Proposed Closure’, which directly cover the closure, to the Department article ‘Threat of Closure’ section and moving the more proportionately lengthed text currently in the section ‘Threat of Closure’ section to the relevant section of the University of Sheffield page.

‘Editorial bias’
“Does Richard Nevell’s public stated support for the #savesheffieldarchaeology hashtag on Twitter highlight a conflict of interest?”

Material that contributes to a neutral point of view - ie -

“There are 11 teaching and research posts in the Department of Archaeology. It was reported that there are declining levels of external funding and students - fewer than 10 firm offer holders for the 2021-22 academic year. Applications to postgraduate teaching courses have increased over the past five years with the growth concentrated in a few specific areas of the discipline [202]...” - link

- appears to have been removed. There doesn’t appear to have been any response to the previous highlighting of recentism.

DeeConjuror (talk) 10:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * DeeConjuror, just so you know when discussing editors on Wikipedia it is a good idea to alert them of the discussion. You can do this by creating a link to their user name, eg: User:Richard Nevell.
 * Historically, discussions on this talk page haven't had many participants, and I think in this instance it would be worth opening it up to more parties. With that in mind, shall we take this to the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard? It's watched by editors who are experienced at dealing with COI and will be able to provide advice in this situation. If you start a new section there laying out the issues, that would be a good next step. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

COI tag (October 2021)
Several editors are closely associated with the University of Sheffield. Apparently various parties are misusing the encyclopedia as a WP:SOAPBOX to either promote the institution or to advocate their internal political standpoints. Kleuske (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I would add that the section is biased and defamatory in places because it is written by an editor who has a conflict of interest and represents University of Sheffield UCU's side of the dispute. The account is factually accurate, but should be written in a less inflammatory, more objective way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.254.172 (talk) 11:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NLT and please read it very carefully before throwing around legalese. Thank you. Kleuske (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)