Talk:Robert Lethbridge

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Higher education

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles

University of Cambridge

This article is within the scope of the University of Cambridge WikiProject, an attempt to improve articles relating to the University of Cambridge, and to standardize and extend the coverage of the University in the encyclopedia. If you would like to participate, you can help us by editing the article attached to this notice, or you could visit the project page, where you can join the project, learn more about it, see what needs to be done, or contribute to the discussion.University of CambridgeWikipedia:WikiProject University of CambridgeTemplate:WikiProject University of CambridgeUniversity of Cambridge articles

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 May. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Untitled

He has a son (Jonathan) and a daughter.

Robert Lethbridge: BLP issue

What is Optima, a journal that you have cited at Robert Lethbridge? I have reverted your contributions for now because there appears to be a grave risk of contravening our policy regarding biographies of living people. For sure, the citation of a forum is entirely unacceptable. Optima may be ok but I have my doubts unless it is the official journal produced on behalf of the Fellows (eg: at Peterhouse there was both an official "Peterhouse Record" and a student-published rag - the latter is not a reliable source). - Sitush (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up regarding the citation of a forum. As for Optima, this is indeed an official periodical published twice yearly by Fitzwilliam College, i.e. on behalf of the Master and Fellows. Its main webpage is here. If you are still in any doubt, have a look at an issue, e.g. issue 17, to confirm that the staff are all paid officers of the College (either in Development or Communications), and its editor is the College's Head of Communications Resources. I think therefore the removed bit sourced to Optima should be reinserted, but will wait to hear your view first.Greyhyenalunch (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I am surprised that they are quite so free in their opinions in print! Obviously, the interpersonal angst voiced at High Table etc represent the usual personality/college politics clashes etc and, boy, was there some when I was at Peterhouse during Trevor-Roper's time! But putting it in writing is rather different until they are safely dead and buried. However, it is apparently there and it is a reasonable source, therefore I see no reason to exclude it except possibly on the grounds of trivia and the principle of "doing least harm" in a BLP. I am a bit on the fence about that issue but WP:BOLD seems likely to apply. I wonder if it might be worth while seeking a third opinion? Would you object to that? - Sitush (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all with seeking another opinion - I think it's a good idea.Greyhyenalunch (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I eill copy this entire thread to Talk:Robert Lethbridge and then flag it up at WP:3O or somewhere similar. Thanks for your understanding. - Sitush (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above thread is copied from User talk:Greyhyenalunch - Sitush (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted an edithere because of concerns regarding WP:BLP. Some of those have been addressed, as can be seen above, but I am still unsure about other aspects. In particular, the information regarding him throwing things around/denigrating students etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the comments about essay throwing and "denigration" as, presented out of context, they are a gross distortion of Eddie Butler's article, which speaks favourably, not unfavourably, of Lethbridge. The tone of the article is light-hearted and affectionate, and Butler is positive about the robust treatment given to him by a supervisor when faced with a student devoted more to his rugby than his studies. There is no use of the word, or hint of, "denigration". Given the fact that Lethbridge is reported in this article and elsewhere as being a rugby fan, and that the essay throwing is reported in the context of a message that Butler was spending too much time on rugby and not enough on work, it is a not unreasonable guess that the essay was being returned in rugby pass style, not tossed back with contempt. For the man to be characterised as an intemperate supervisor to the exclusion of any other characteristic would need much more evidence, not just a passing remark by one person in a light-hearted article. --The Sage of Stamford (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have not just removed comments about essay throwing; you have removed all reference to essay throwing, and replaced the removed piece with "In a memoir of his time at Fitzwilliam, Eddie Butler recalled how Lethbridge "taught me how to read....proper reading. His ferocity was good for me.". Clearly some individuals do believe that having their essays chucked at them when they were undergraduates, or being caned when they were at school, was good for them. Others do not. I do not think any opinion in the range should be covered here; instead, we should stay on the facts. I do not know whether you have tried to throw a stapled sheaf of A4 pieces of paper (by the far most common format for an essay) as if you were making a rugby pass, but it is an extremely difficult or even impossible thing to do, because the sheets splay. You can use less speed and force, but you end up with something highly dissimilar from a rugby pass. You need speed and force to mimimise vertical distance. But you have taken us far into the realm of speculation. We need more balance. I have removed the piece you added in, but I have not restored the original piece. I suggest we work together to find an acceptable solution. Greyhyenalunch (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental problem with this article is that it is so thin on matters of any substance that comments such as those made by Eddie Butler take on a significance out of all proportion to their weight. I hardly think it fair that an academic of some 40 years standing, and now a head of house, at Cambridge, is characterised as an intemperate essay thrower to the the exclusion of all else. And all on the basis of a light-hearted article published by ONE alumnus who clearly, from the overall tone, intended no malice to the poor man. If such behaviour was a consistent trait meted out to all and sundry over a prolonged period, it would be worth stating. As it is you not only took the quotation but chose to present it in a wholly negative light (with the gratituous addition about denigration) completely divorced from Butler's essential message that Lethbridge was a damned good teacher who was intolerant of a student who couldn't be bothered to do his work properly. My edit was designed to show how you could take the same flimsy material and make something different out of it. In truth, unless this is a defining characteristic of Lethbridge, it is trivia not worthy of inclusion at all. As I say, we need material of substance in order to write a worthy article; the present unferenced, bullet point style farrago is neither fair to the man nor worthy of Wikipedia. As a Fitzbilly, and proud of my college, I am prepared to rise to the challenge, and would welcome your collaborative help.--The Sage of Stamford (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of content from official college magazine

Neither myself nor the other contributor involved are sure of how best to deal with some biographical content from an official Cambridge University college magazine. It may be trivial or otherwise inappropriate, but then again it may be ok. This is not really a dispute but we would both appreciate input. Discussion is in the thread immediately prior to this on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To include it, add

according the journal Optima (official periodical published twice yearly by Fitzwilliam College) Robert Lethbridge no longer teaches undergraduates. As a supervisor tasked with the role of advising undergraduates on their essays, he was known for physically hurling their work back at them, denigrating it,

It should then be ok inculded it or you could state who in the journal states so. The idea is to have the text accountable to the source. SD (talk contribs) 00:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt appear to be that important to include, the subject may be "known" for lots of things but it doesnt make them of note. MilborneOne (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
His stint as Hon Pres of the Society of Dix-neuvièmistes ended in 2006; this was fixed (with source) in the previous edit and needs to be refixed. Teaching undergraduates was an important part of his earlier career, so I think it's reasonable for some reliably sourced information about what he is remembered for in that area to go in; probably best to cite the source in the main text as SD suggests. Greyhyenalunch (talk) 13:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the Society of Dix-neuvièmistes bit, which presumably is uncontroversial. Probably best to wait a while longer to see whether any more contributions are made on the style of undergraduate supervision bit. Greyhyenalunch (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have now added a supervision bit, based on SD's formulation above. Greyhyenalunch (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps valid but Lethbridge wouldn't approve of it. You do deserve some points for introducing his interest in the relationship between literature and visual arts right after the part about the throwing of essays. If only we could list the essays worth throwing. Sadly I think we should first try to write a decent biography much harder than this.

Say, activities that have been covered in the media (if you can find any) like perhaps:[1]

We want the full list of publications. A quick search turns up this:

[2] "Robert Lethbridge is Master of Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge and Hon. Professor of Nineenth-Century French Literature in the University of Cambridge. He is Emeritus Professor of French Language & Literature in the University of London. Much of his research has been devoted to French Naturalism. As well as authoring a monograph and some 50 essays, he has edited a number of texts by Maupassant and Zola in the Oxford World Classics series (Bel-Ami, Pierre et Jean, Germinal, L’Assommoir and La Débâcle) and translated Zola’s Pot-Bouille for Everyman. He has also taught and published extensively in interdisciplinary perspectives, editing, with Peter Collier, Artistic Relations. Literature and the Visual Arts in Nineteenth-Century France (Yale University Press, 1994)."

If there are to many publications, sort out the most significant ones.

There might also be books:

https://encrypted.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=nl&q=Robert+Lethbridge&btnG=

Could try skolar:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Robert+Lethbridge%22&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

I'm not sure if they are all the correct Robert Lethbridge.

Anyway,

If it belongs there at all, the essay throwing might look a lot better in the article if it didn't make up most of the content.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is he notable for any publications? Remember, at the Cambridge French department he's only an honorary professor. For relevant criteria, have a look here. He is notable for his Cambridge College mastership, but were it not for that mastership, would he be Wiki-notable at all? Greyhyenalunch (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]