Jump to content

Talk:University of Cambridge/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5


Criteria for inclusion in the "Societies and leisure activities" list

Re: 01:57, 19 January 2006 edit by Stephen Turner: if being "non-obscure" is a criterion for inclusion in this list, then it opens it up to all sorts of interpretation. For example, the Hawks' Club, with a larger and more obvious presence in Cambridge than the Pitt Club, could be said to be less obscure than that club. However, the Pitt Club does epitomise some of the stereotypes that Cambridge is known for (not that the Hawks' Club doesn't...), so may produce more interesting reading for the layperson. I agree that college societies should not appear on this list unless there is a very good reason for it, so the Henry Jackson Society doesn't really belong there - in my four years at Cambridge I did not hear of it: the only one on the list I had not. Perhaps it would be more sensible to produce a new page listing all societies and sports teams that now have a wikipedia page, and link to it below the link to the University website listing? There are enough of them listed in Category:University of Cambridge and its subcategories to warrant a page listing them sectioned by type. I will see if I can put one together. Rmbyoung 11:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

On the Henry Jackson Society - it was founded in 2005 but attracted national media attention, and prominent political support from both sides of the Atlantic (notably Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Richard Perle and James Woolsey who are all patrons and are all leading figures in US neoconservative politics). But I accept it may be too early to say whether it is really high profile - though its not simply a student society, and its initial start has been impressive. Bwithh 14:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - I left in 2005, which is probably why I hadn't heard of it until now. Rmbyoung 14:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I did actually wonder about removing the Pitt Club too, but thought it was more prominent than the Hawks' Club, and just prominent enough. I certainly knew about the Pitt Club but not the Hawks' Club when I was a student (88-96). Maybe it's different now, or maybe it depends which circles you mix in.

These lists are always problematic. (We've had similar discussions here before, and I'm having similar discussions in Web log analysis software at the moment too). There is no clear, objective line that can be drawn, and any deletion always offends someone: the linked item is prominent to them. And yet, if no deletions are ever made, the list gets out of control and soon takes over the whole page. So I've never resolved how to treat such lists on Wikipedia. I tend to err on the side of being bold because I think most editors are too timid when it comes to deleting true but less important material. But that always risks causing offence.

Sometimes the solution is to move the whole list to another page, and make it comprehensive. Could that be the solution here? It's nice to have the most important ones linked within the main article, but maybe the downside is too great.

Well, those are my musings. I hope I've made clear that I'm not confident about making these decisions. So other people's comments would be valuable.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Another question about the lists at the bottom. What do people think about having redlinks in them? I removed a redlink from the "organisations and institutions" and someone put it back saying that redlinks are useful. I agree that redlinks are useful within the text of articles, but it somehow doesn't seem right to me in one of those lists. What do other people think? Keep it, delete it, or replace it with an external link to the organisation's home page?

Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm generally in favour of keeping redlinks if the subject is sensible in the article context. It encourages people to write new articles. Featured front page articles regularly have redlinks in the main text and otherwise. Bwithh 23:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Biased

This article is filled with bias -- and not the subtle kind. Courier new 01:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

So you have many examples of this? Bwithh 02:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, yeah. Here are just a few clear examples: “It is historically one of the world's most prominent universities; the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, jointly referred to as Oxbridge, have since had a long history of competing with each other, and are typically regarded as the most elite and prestigious universities in the United Kingdom, and two of the most prestigious in the world (see Oxbridge rivalry); historically, they have produced a significant proportion of the world's prominent scientists, writers and politicians; Cambridge University has produced some of the most influential scientists of the last few centuries; the mathematics Tripos was competitive and helped produce some of the most famous names in British science, including James Clerk Maxwell, Lord Kelvin, and Lord Rayleigh." Courier new 01:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Which of the facts in the above paragraph would you like to contest? ed g2s • talk 02:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
the mathematics part is something of a run-on sentence and could be rewritten; and the phrase "the world's prominent" used to read "Britain's most prominent" until 2 or 3 months ago or so - the original phrasing may be better; but those examples do not show clear bias. (I also earlier toned down the expression "elite" to a statement of historical prominence) Actually it is only one example. Have you read much beyond that first paragraph? How much do you know of British history (including its global aspect) and culture?
Courier new, you have also recently suggested that the Williams College (US small liberal arts college) article is biased with no explanation why (its not clear from the article either).
Also you nominated the entry on Little Ivies (expression referring to group of elite US small liberal arts colleges) for a speedy delete with again, no explanation given or obvious reason from the article.

If you were to look at its discussion page, you would see that others share the same opinion. Courier new 04:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, for the record, you are keen on expanding the University of Pittsburgh, Sarah Lawrence College articles.
Bwithh 03:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, Wikipedia guidelines on adding the NPOV dispute notice requires that you explain the POV issues you want to raise. You have yet to do so. Bwithh 03:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If you can't tell that those quotes are filled with biased statements, then I feel sorry for you. Though it may be a concept difficult for you to wrap your brain around, as you seem incapable of thinking beyond the seemingly obvious, the prestige, or any other aspect, of Cambridge is not inherent. If you were to look at Oxford's or Harvard's, or any other Ivy League school's, page, you would see no similar statements, rather tacky, made and a fine NPOV standard of quality upheld. Courier new 04:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you have to resort to insults in the way you respond? It's inappropriate. You still haven't explained your case. Btm explains a case below, which I appreciate. If you had explained yourself after posting bias notices or requesting deletes, people would listen and appreciate more. Bwithh 15:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Courier new has a point here. This article has NPOV issues and could also use a cleanup. Following a number of Wikipedia guidelines would greatly improve the article. The lead section of the article is too long, and, in my opinion, gives a poor overview of the university (Wikipedia:Lead section). There are too many specific facts and university rankings do not belong in the lead section (Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism).
The lead sentence of the article is prime space and should not include statements that appear to serve little purpose other than boosterism. While I certainly don't doubt that Cambridge has "one of the most selective sets of entry requirements in the United Kingdom," why is it noted in the article's opening sentence?
Generally, I would argue that Nobel prize counts do not belong in the lead section, but given that Cambridge is first it might be warranted. The note that Chicago has nearly as many argues against its inclusion, but, to be honest, many of Chicago's claims to Nobel affiliations are rather dubious. With that said, I believe that paragraph that follows the Nobel count makes that same point much more powerfully, and is an great example of how to describe an institution's influence and prominence — it gives the reader a sense of specific, important contributions made by people at the University of Cambridge. Statistics and figures do not accomplish this and should be put into the appropriate section further down in the article.
I also think that the "Cambridge University in literature & popular culture" could be split into a separate article (say, University of Cambridge in popular culture). Also, the non-fiction books are very useful as further reading. I think they should be moved to a "References" or "Further reading" section and kept on this page; it could be merged with the current "References," or that section could be renamed "Notes." btm talk 09:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Btm, Thank you for your clarification of what is expected of the prime space of the lead paragraph - I agree that the original was overly long and boosterish in its layout. But is the lead paragraph now too short? If so, what do you think should be fairly included? Bwithh 15:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I strongly feel that the scientists and the Nobel prizes belong in the lead. I think it's that which really makes Cambridge's reputation. Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Cambridge really has produced a large number of important scientists. It's something unique about the institution, so I also think it fits in the lead. btm talk 20:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Another point: the statement that "Cambridge has produced a significant portion of the world's prominent scientists, writers and politicians" is an opinion, duh; a listing of these specific names, however, is most appropriate and informative. You seem to be insecure that a reader will not appreciate that Darwin or whomever went here, but who cares but you: you're the one with a vested interest in lauding your school. People can make decisions for themselves without your insinuations of prestige. Courier new 18:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. "Many prominent scientists" with examples is much better. Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure who Courier is addressing as "You". I think that the sentence does need reworking (I would replace "writers" with something more accurate for one thing; I also think that, as I've said before, that "Britain's" is better than "world's"), but actually it's not technically a statement of "opinion, duh", if we agree that prominent and significant are not mere matters of opinion. Bwithh 20:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see why you (plural, informal, ambiguous) feel a need to tell someone that something is "significant". Any adjective you attach to a noun -- dull, precise, significant, trifling, whatever -- is formed from your opinions. I would describe Bjork's voice as emotive; many of those who do not find her voice pleasing, as similar to the sound of a dying cat. Though some adjectives may seem patently obvious, they are not absolute, just widely held; for example, many people would, if asked, agree that the Empire State Building is a tall building, but such an adjective as 'tall' is relative to our current conceptions, formed from our experiences with the buildings we know and are familiar with, of what is tall; in the future, someone might characterize the building as diminutive when compared to others. I don't see why people object to providing straight information: for example, simply listing the scientists Cambridge produced. Is it just me or is it rather tacky to try to convince the reader of a certain opinion? If it is lost on the reader that Darwin is a “significant” scientist, then so be it. Courier new 00:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

"Significant" was tied to a number here, and was not being used to describe an abstract or emotional quality. Significance is something which can be statistically measured, and is routinely done so in many domains. Significance is a key part of prominence. If one feels pointing out the significance of thing is "tacky", then one may well conclude that if significance "is lost on a reader, then so be it", but that's rather a nihilistic perspective to apply to an encyclopedia (or any educational practice). Bwithh 00:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

People deserve to be able to read from an encyclopedia article without having to worry that it is poluted with bias; that is why Wikipedia has NPOV standards for quality. People refer to an encyclopedia seeking out information, not your opinions. Courier new 01:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that all articles should be drained of all mention of prominence - for instance, Shakespeare and Nabokov etc. should be just be listed as equal to any other writer and the reader should have to work out himself or herself which of millions of writers through the ages are significant. Bwithh 05:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I find Shakespeare to be terribly overrated. His characters have little depth. Courier new 15:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, you're begging the question as to how can you quantify an opinion. Courier new 01:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not take social science 101 next semester? Bwithh 05:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


Courier New, your pompous and self-righteous attitude is extremely unhelpful and judging from your work on this article (as originally contributed by you), I really don't think you have much to offer on the subject of POV. You seem to have routinely gone around Wikipedia adding POV and expansion tags to articles without giving any basis - and in the example of this article, when this is requested you accuse other intelligent users of finding it "difficult to wrap their brain around". You say that any adjective attached to a noun is formed from opinions - are you saying that it is inappropriate to use adjectives in an encyclopedia? Halsteadk 15:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the NPOV marker on the article now. I agree that some of the language was over the top, but I think we've dealt with everything I can find. Courier new, are there any specific sentences you still object to? Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You now seem to feel a need to resort to fallacious arguments, attacking my character rather than my position. What I wrote in the past -- which was meant to be a rant -- in no way prevents me from knowing what is correct. As it is, the article is still biased. You're wrong, clearly so. Courier new 20:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You keep resorting to the your main argument that it's clearly and obviously wrong, so you don't have to explain yourself, "duh". This is not actually a reasonable argument. Really. 05:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the first paragraph, as it did not follow. In addition, I changed "prominent scientists" to "scientists who have added greatly to our collective knowledge". It seems to be a decent compromise between overtones of praise and true neutrality. Also, as I found that the mentioning of 'Oxbridge' has no relevance in the introductory paragraphs, I deleted it. Courier new 23:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

"scientists who have added greatly to our collective knowledge" - how is "greatly" here not subjective and non-neutral, by your own standards? Shouldn't people be able to work out how "greatly" by themselves. "Oxbridge" is a standard term in British culture (if you have British friends, ask them about this), and part of the basic definition of Cambridge in culture. It has negative connotations possibly as often it has positive ones. If you're right about deleting Oxbridge, you should delete Ivy League from the Ivy League university articles too. Bwithh 05:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The Ivy League, however, is a true organization. Courier new 15:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The cleanup tag is used when an article is in need of major revision, like terrible grammar or hug inaccuracies. I don't think a few sentences qualifies it for that. DJ Clayworth 04:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Could we perhaps change the intro to focus less on scientists? While Cambridge is well-known for its scientists it has produced a lot of other famous alumni - politicians, economists, authors etc. I don't think there is any need to focus only on one field. DJ Clayworth 04:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a scientist, but I have to admit that Cambridge leans toward science, just as Oxford leads towards arts. But if we include some metion of the arts in the intro. Bwithh 05:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not a new revelation: it has been well established that this article is biased. "Courier new has a point here. This article has NPOV issues and could also use a {{Cleanup}}" Courier new 04:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This was before a review of the article of other members including the one who made that comment. Please don't simply ignore what other people are trying to do. It's inappropriate. Bwithh 05:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it looks better now. Courier new 04:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That;s your opinion. Please understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. You are not the final authority, and the sole arbiter, of what is "clearly wrong", "duh". Bwithh 05:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Stanford's introductory paragraphs would do well as a template for this article, muddled by bias: "The Leland Stanford Junior University, commonly known as Stanford University (or simply Stanford), is a privately-funded American university in Stanford, California. Located approximately 37 miles (60 kilometers) southeast of San Francisco in an unincorporated part of Santa Clara County adjacent to the city of Palo Alto, Stanford lies at the heart of the Silicon Valley, both geographically and historically. Situated on an expansive campus in suburban California, the University offers, in addition to its undergraduate college, schools of engineering, law, medicine, education, business, earth sciences, and humanities and sciences. Stanford hosts programs and a teaching hospital in addition to to various community outreach and volunteer initiatives. Research is carried on in many areas, including anthropology, robotics, geophysics, and entomology." Is that "unhelpful"? Courier new 04:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Barring your final rhetorical question, that's the first unaggressive contribution you've made, but I don't think that Stanford lead paragraph is particularly good. It doesn't tell me anything about the university except its location and a fleeting mention of its historical relationship with Silicon Valley. The paragraph on which subjects it offers, its outreach programs and which research it conducts is not useful and it could apply to many other universities without change (the undergraduate subject list is totally standard (Apart from earth sciences) and that's a weird random selection of research subjects). The only thing your exemplar lead paragraph tells me in any detail is where Stanford is, geographically. Bwithh 05:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any major POV issues in the lead section anymore in this article, and I agree that the Stanford lead section, while very neutral and giving a quite good overview of its academic areas, does not point out anything that is special or unique about the university. One or two such things belong in the lead section of a university held in high regard. I'll also add that there is nothing wrong with adding commonly held opinions to Wikipedia, as long as these opinions meet WP:V (they "have already been published by a reputable publisher") and its source is clearly cited. btm talk 08:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
As a clarification to that point, this means that it's quite acceptable to say that Albert Einstein is "widely regarded as the greatest scientist of the 20th century." It is also acceptable to say that Darwin was a significant scientist. I think that including such widely accepted assertions can be useful to readers who are not informed about a given subject matter. But, of course, it's important to keep it balanced and to present the facts neutrally. btm talk 09:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is not a forum for your misguided opinions. Your time would be better spent at urbandictionary.com. Courier new 16:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask what precisely is your objection to the following text appearing in the introduction: "While it also has a long tradition in the humanities, the University of Cambridge is especially known for having produced a number of prominent scientists, including Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, William Harvey, Paul Dirac, J. J. Thomson, Ernest Rutherford, James Clerk Maxwell, James D. Watson, Francis Crick, and Alan Turing." Bluap 18:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
He replied in my user talk, saying the following Bluap 23:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
This is not a college guide that I would buy at Barnes and Noble.
It has been well established that such personal bias does not
belong in an encyclopedia. Courier new 21:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If the University's prestige is self-evident, as you contend, then why do you feel a need to have to mention it? Courier new 01:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that it was self-evident. In fact, I agree that we need to back up the claim. However, the facts remain that 1) the university is prestigious; 2) the university is sufficiently prestigious to refer to this in the first paragraph; 3) it is necessary to back up the claim that the university is prestigious, in this case by giving a list of eminent scientists.

Allow people to make up their own minds, please. Courier new 16:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

History

I found the history section awkwardly worded and hard to follow in places. I took the liberty of rewording for clarity. Though I added no new information, I did remove several references to Oxford that I found rather peculiar given that this is an article about Cambridge. Rklawton 23:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not peculiar to compare with Oxford in an article about Cambridge. Besides the historical rivalry, they are allied, linked and similar in numerous ways. Please see Oxbridge and Oxbridge rivalry. We should think about reintroducing some of the references to Oxford and Oxbridge. Bwithh 04:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand. This is an article about Cambridge. I'm glad to hear about the rivalry article. If one didn't exist, I would have suggested one. I recommend letting the Cambridge article focus on Cambridge and explore the rivalries in detail elswhere. In short, I don't think diluting the Cambridge article helps explain Cambridge much - unless Cambridge's claim to fame is "we're not Osford" (and no, I don't think that's the case). Cambridge has a great story to tell and the "we're not Oxford" comparisons detract from it. Rklawton 23:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. There seems to be an underlying assumption from some earlier editors that readers will be familiar with the system at Oxford but not at Cambridge. I don't see any basis for that assumption. Stephen Turner (Talk) 07:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

General Information

I'd like to suggest eliminating the "general information" header and moving the content up to the top. Doing so would provide a better screen layout for the article.

I like the header!! There should be simple ways to fix the text layout without eliminating the header. Bwithh 04:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The screen layout looks fine at a display resolution of 800x600. 66.99.172.59 19:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for Improvement

Do you agree that its associations belong in the lead?

Here are some suggestions for improvement: 1) Provide a comprehensive list of notable alumni that groups by respective field of contribution.

2) Expand history section; there is a very rich, interesting history.

3) Delete following line, which, besides being disjointed and awkward, does nothing more than perpetuate a stereotype: "In addition to a long tradition in the humanities, the University of Cambridge is especially known for producing a number of prominent scientists. This distinguished list includes Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, William Harvey, Paul Dirac, J. J. Thomson, Ernest Rutherford, James Clerk Maxwell, James D. Watson, Francis Crick, and Alan Turing."

4) Explain how the University functions in greater detail, as the model it operates under is unfamiliar to most Americans.

5) Include a section that would address rankings and Noble Prize count.

6) Include an aerial photograph or map of the campus to give perspective.

7) Give greater purpose to introductory paragraphs.

Upon reflection, I have come to realize that I was rude in my comments, and for that I apologize. Courier new 04:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestions sound great; I'm personally neutral toward having the associations in the lead paragraph. I think the list of notable alumni can definitely be improved.. i would say that we shouldn't make it 'comprehensive' in the sense of the List of University of Cambridge people, but we should certainly make it more comprehensible.. maybe by making it into a table with information like college, date of birth, date of death, and subject / reason for notability, similar to the alumni table found at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. I think having dates will help in showing the university has had notable alumni throughout it's history. Mlm42 09:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible problem with coat of arms image

Strangely, its stopped working on my browsers (both Firefox and IE) tonight - there's just a blank space with a vertical line). I thought it might be recent edits of mine, but I looked at versions from several days ago in the history, and theres the same problem. Maybe just my machine? Bwithh 07:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It happens here on Opera too. --Dave ~ (talk) 08:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm still having problems with the coat of arms image (Appears as blank space with a gray vertical line sort of in the middle), even with the McDell PC at work. The actual page for the image file when I click on it is absolutely fine. Are Dave and I in the minority, or are others seeing this issue too? (fyi, the first time i had this problem, i tried replacing the code for the image placement with a version from a much older article version, but this did not solve anything) Bwithh 16:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm seeing it too. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
... and strangely, I'm also seeing it with all old versions of the page, but the image itself doesn't seem to have changed recently either. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the cause is recent changes to the [Infobox University] template? Changes were made March 1st... although the University of Oxford Infobox seems to be working fine. Bwithh 16:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I get the problem as well (IE). One difference between the template usage in Oxford than Cambridge is that Cambridge re-size the image, while Oxford don't. I'm raising the issue at the technical section of the Village Pump. Bluap 17:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Selected Alumni

At some point, Allama Mohammad Iqbal was added to the list of selected alumni. Is he really notable enough for the short list? On a related point, Cambridge has produced a lot of famour politicians, but they don't have a representative on the main page. How about someone like Pitt the Younger? Bluap 09:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Iqbal is notable enough. In addition to being a major canonical poet in Indian and Pakistani culture as well as a key 20th century Islamic philosopher, he appears to have a similar stature for Pakistan as Nehru does for India as post-British Raj founding fathers. I agree that there could be a couple of UK politicians added. Speaking of politicains, I would also seriously consider Lee Kuan Yew Bwithh 22:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Rupert Brooke, although he wasn't a politician. Ben davison 15:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd be against it. We have 12 people best known as authors / poets (Tennyson, Byron, Coleridge, Ted Hughes, Iqbal, CS Lewis, AA Milne, Milton, Sylvia Plath, Salman Rushdie, Sassoon, Wordsworth). This is probably too many already - I'd be against adding Rupert Brooke without removing at least one of the others (perhaps Ted Hughes and Sylvia Plath).
I just added Nabokov - he is more famous than Sassoon, Hughes, Plath, Lewis e.g. he made the cover of Time magazine in 1969; CNN covered his centennial with an in depth special. I wouldn't take out Sylvia Plath. Possibly take out Sassoon.

Bwithh 16:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Considering some of the others on the list, I wouldn't take out Sassoon to make way for Brooke (although of the two, Brooke is probably the more famous because of The Soldier). Of the writers, I'd suggest removing Ted Hughes. The addition of Nabokov is fair enough. Ben davison 19:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I've heard of Sassoon, Hughes, Plath and Lewis but not Nabokov. My ignorance, no doubt, but it's one data point. I would certainly be willing to lose Plath and Nabokov, and possibly Hughes too (although he was poet laureate). Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone (a cambridge-based person judging by the username) just added Subhash Chandra Bose and Lee Kuan Yew. I support these additions as these are household names as political leaders who have dramatically changed society and international relations, in South and SE Asia respectively.

  • With the rise of the nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party and India's aspirations to superpower status, the militant Bose is becoming celebrated as a more relevant figure in Indian independence that the pacifist Gandhi[1] [2]. In addition, the mystery over Bose's disappearance in a plane crash that may have never happened, and the various government inquiries over this make this the Indian equivalent of the John F. Kennedy assassination [3][4].
  • Lee Kuan Yew is not just a founding father of Singapore but is well-known all over East and South East Asia as the leading proponent of Asian Values in the 1990s. (also there was no representative of Cambridge's stature in SE Asia on the previous list) Bwithh 00:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"an historical" or "a historical"?

from dictionary.com: Usage Note: In writing, the form a is used before a word beginning with a consonant sound, regardless of its spelling (a frog, a university). The form an is used before a word beginning with a vowel sound (an orange, an hour). ·An was once a common variant before words beginning with h in which the first syllable was unstressed; thus 18th-century authors wrote either a historical or an historical but a history, not an history. This usage made sense in that people often did not pronounce the initial h in words such as historical and heroic, but by the late 19th century educated speakers usually pronounced initial h, and the practice of writing an before such words began to die out. Nowadays it survives primarily before the word historical. One may also come across it in the phrases an hysterectomy or an hereditary trait. These usages are acceptable in formal writing. Bwithh 16:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"an" comes across as very antiquated to me. I'm sure "a" is much more common now, even in formal writing. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned comments from archive

I've archived off all discussion from before the start of this year, However, there are a couple of recent comments on old threads Bluap 09:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"One of the most prestigious universities": weasel words?

I like the idea of citing the relative number of Nobel prize winners. It's quantifiable, and once stated, other adjectives become superfluous. Rklawton 22:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
You could also say that University of Cambridge was ranked number 2 in the world by a Shanghai Jiao Tong University study. Go to http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005_Top100.htm.

Alumni

Wouldn't creating a category (no need to reference "famous", etc.) for Cambridge Alumni solve our problem? A category has several advantages. Alumni names won't clutter up the Cambridge article. Second, any alumni worthy of an article in Wikipedia makes the list. Lastly, the Cambridge article editors won't have to moderate the "who is worthy" debate. Instead, the debate opend up to the entire Wikipedia community with regard to the candidate's article-worthiness. By comparison, I do believe a list of Cambridge Nobel Prize Winners is appropriate within the Cambridge article. List membership isn't subject to debate, and it effectively illustrates the school's merits. Rklawton 22:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Campus Networking

  • That's fine with me, too, but I think there should be at least some explanatory text to indicate why people might be interested in following the link. Furthermore, Bwithh has put the new page up for deletion, so it may go away entirely. I mentioned in one of my edit summaries that an acquaintance had quit his PhD in the Zoology department in part because they would not let him use ssh. Wikipedia could help avoid this sort of wasted effort by informing people of potential problems in the first instance. However, information summarizing network restrictions or comparing Cambridge colleges is not likely to appear on any Cambridge-based websites.
Network and computing capabilities are highly rated in selection preferences. Most students want high-speed access, and not all schools uniformly provide this at present. As a result, the information will be useful for the time being. However, there may come a time when network access becomes taken for granted, much like electricity. You won't see any references to first-world schools to the effect that their campus is "fully electrified." Do we make reference to it here? The question becomes a matter of utility. If Cambridge maintains this information online, then we should point to it. If not, then we should maintain it here as it is clearly useful. Rklawton 23:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately useful information is not the same as encyclopedic information... Bluap 23:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

FAC

This is a pretty fine article. Given that University of Oxford is currently (although rather unsuccessfully) on WP:FAC, I assume that we are aiming for there too? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like it as a long-term goal (and likewise for Cambridge). However, I think that the article has a fair way to go before it reaches featured status. Bluap 15:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I think a big area to do is having more references and proper footnotes. The last university I remember as successful FA was University of Michigan I think. Also, why is this page categorized (on the talk page) as both a good article and an article needing cleanup? Also, probably peripheral to FAC but one of these days, I'd like to start sorting the huge list of scientists, mathematicians and technologists on the extensive alumni list into subdisciplines.... (and have little summary lines for all entries) Bwithh 15:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Because Good Article is completely meaningless and anyone can slap it on any article they feel like? Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Louis Cha

I read an article in the South China Morning Post on the recent Hong Kong Cambridge alumni event that Louis Cha (Jinyong), the most famous living Chinese writer (and once voted in a survey in China as the second most influential Chinese writer in the 20th century) (and he i has also been a famous newspaper editor) is currently a doctoral student at Cambridge. This would make him Cambridge's most famous (by far) active student as well as possibly the oldest. Unfortunately the SCMP story does not seem to be online - but I confirmed it through a couple of other links - http://www.newsgd.com/culture/art/200506230034.htm (story of Cha wanting to be a student at Cambridge) http://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/johnian/events/regional/ (john's link indicating Cha is a current student) Cha is surely famous enough to be on the main list. Bwithh 16:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately adding Cha has screwed up the double listing in the section. not sure how to fix that - can someone take a look? thanksBwithh 17:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Done.Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thank you very much Bwithh 17:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

CULRC

The article formerly at Cambridge University Lightweight Rowing Club has just been merged into University of Cambridge#Sports and other extracurricular activities, after a merge-to notice had been on the first article for three months without any complaint (or assent). I think this material should be moved back out to its own article for the following reasons:

  1. to give it room for its own expansion
  2. to avoid the slippery slope of the inclusion of every other equally notable university sports club (and there are would be several)
  3. to avoid its subjct matter becoming lost as a minor part of a university-wide article

Any thoughts? Aquilina 20:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree; in fact I've reverted it. It's far too much detail for the main article on the university, and the categories that came along with it are inappropriate. And a notification about the proposed merge should have been placed here. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no problems with that, I just moved it because of the notice and no complaints within that three month period. (Flymeoutofhere 09:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC))
I guess nobody's watching that page... Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Esquire Bedell

  • I suggest that recent addition Esquire Bedell be removed from the list of Cambridge traditions as

it is not specific to Cambridge, or to Oxbridge or to "Doxbridge" (Durham +Oxbridge). It has been argued that Chancellors and professors and Formal Halls are not specific to Cambridge either, but the History Traditions list specifically has list links to professorships and chancellors of Cambridge, not all universities, and not to definitions of professor etc.. Also Formal Hall is specifically described in its article as "Doxbridge" tradition. The ceremonial post of Esquire Bedell, on the other hand, is to be found at for instance, a number of lesser known and not particularly old UK and Australian universities:

Bwithh 14:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:People associated with the University of Cambridge

To match other UK universities, I have created the above category, with two sub-categories: the existing Category:Alumni of Cambridge University, and a new Category:Academics of the University of Cambridge. I would suggest that the latter be eventually divided by Faculty (or maybe department), rather than by college. Bluap 17:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

MRC LABORATORY OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY

Can someone create a new page for: Laboratory of Molecular Biology please? It is ridiculous that such a world-class scientific institution does not have its own page! I was there last Tuesday for a brief visit and was particularly impressed. It is now listed in the Cambridge institutions.

See: * http://www.bluesci.org/content/view/436/265/ for a report on Brenner's talk on 1st of May 2006! Does anyone know whether he is a 'Sir' or not as I suspect not? It was a great talk.

62.25.109.194 MP 62.25.109.194

The LMB was already listed under the institutions list Bwithh 20:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE OPENING PARAGRAPHS

The University of Cambridge (often called Cambridge University), located in Cambridge, England, is the second-oldest university in the English-speaking world. The first-oldest is Oxford.

Early records indicate that the university grew out of an association of scholars in the city of Cambridge, probably formed in 1209 by scholars escaping from Oxford after a fight with local townsmen.

The universities of Oxford and Cambridge are sometimes jointly referred to by the slang term 'Oxbridge'. In addition to cultural and practical associations as a historic part of British society, the two universities also have a long history of rivalry with each other, especially in the sporting fields of rugby and rowing.

Any comments please? It is more appropriate to discuss first, rather than just revert "STurner". I think they are real improvements..

NitramrekcapMPNitramrekcap

Its totally correct to call Oxbridge a portmanteau term and its use is widespread, not "sometimes". No need to mention Oxford in very first sentence. The second sentence already says that Oxford is the oldest. I don't know why "especially rugby". Rowing is already discussed later on. Sports arent significant enough to belong in the intro here. Plus, your previous sentence about Oxbridge having a very religious reputation was not accurate. I agree with Stephen Turner's edits.Bwithh 20:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Query a "PORTMANTEAU" term? The term "Oxbridge" can also be a term of derision of course; I suggest the average (non-Oxbridge) Wikipedia readers will not even begin to understand the 'posh' word "portmanteau"! 'Oxbridge' is SLANG, my friend and no posh frenchified word can disguise that: it is tabloid newspaper language...you need to come down to earth and lose "portmanteau".

"A portmanteau (plural: portmanteaus or portmanteaux) is a term in linguistics that refers to a word or morpheme that fuses two or more grammatical functions. A folk usage of portmanteau refers to a word that is formed by combining both sounds and meanings from two or more words (e.g. 'animatronics' from 'animation' and 'electronics'). In linguistics, these folk portmanteaux are called blends. Typically, portmanteau words are neologisms." {whatever those are!]

NitramrekcapMPNitramrekcap

  • Other examples of portmanteaux: "smog", "discotheque", "spork", "Bollywood", "mockumentary", "motel", "brunch". It's a really common way of coining new terms to describe combinations of two or more things; doesn't necessarily follow that they are slang words. Portmanteau is not a particularly obscure word and I don't understand why you see it as "posh". (are you using "posh" as a synonym for "educated" or "literate"?).
  • Many portmanteaux are used in formal contexts such as "Benelux" and "Biochemistry". Here's a couple examples of "Oxbridge" being used in formal, official contexts:
official UK government report on diversity in the legal profession
official UK government report on civil service recruitment diversity
  • 'Oxbridge' is a stupid, non-word in my opinion and is part of the elitist attitude which puts students off applying for Cambridge OR Oxford, or even accepting offers when they are made to them. I only know Cambridge and I suggest the term does does the Cambridge colleges a major disservice! As for "portmanteau", words fail me. In fact 'Oxbridge' smacks of the "Brideshead Revisited" syndrome; I expect better of anyone from Cambridge to use either word on Wikipedia.

This whole debate is (Monty) 'Pythonesque': Francis Crick had the right attitude to 'OXBRIDGE' - by his leaving the UK in 1977!

62.25.109.194MP62.25.109.194

ONCE A CAIAN MAGAZINE

Stephen Turner throws the baby out with the bathwater since the pdf file is a distinct improvement on the web site material, so why not offer a choice? Again, you should discuss changes first - not revert! The magazine article contains photographs and drawings which are not on the web site, I know as I have a copy of it! See: http://caialumni.admn.cai.cam.ac.uk/alumni/devoffice/OACIssue2.pdf

NitramrekcapMPNitramrekcap

The PDF article is better, and would be good if we could just link to the relevant pages, but I didn't feel it was appropriate to link to a PDF of the whole magazine. Maybe Caius could update the article on the website using some of the pictures? Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Notable members

I have re-added Lee Kuan Yew- note however that it was not me who added him in the first place. If anyone wishes to discuss here why he is not notable please do so before reverting. Badgerpatrol 20:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Although he is widely regarded as authoritarian in a Confucian kind of way (and famously cranky and disciplinarian as his speech to the recent Cambridge in Hong Kong alumni event showed), Yew is not generally regarded as a dictator (Singapore is a functioning democracy in mechanism, if not exactly in spirit (but one could say the same thing about Japan)), and is generally well-respected on East Asia for his leadership of Singapore. Bwithh 12:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I propose we remove the fiction section of University of Cambridge#Cambridge University in literature and popular culture. There are hundreds of references to Cambridge in fiction and this looks like a totally random collection of it. What is the worth of it? Eventhough Cambridge deserves a mention in the article on Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency, it does not mean that this fictional agency deserves a mention in the article on Cambridge. Stefán Ingi 15:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way we could distinguish between those works which are really set in the university, and those which just happen to have a character who was educated there? Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
We probably could enforce something like that. That would take out about half the list. It still leaves entries like Porterhouse Blue which seems to take place at Cambridge, but in a fictional college. Is that really relevant to the article? My point is that people can write books which take place in Cambridge without this having really any relevance to the actual University, and that seems to me to be the case for all the works on the list. Stefán Ingi 16:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I think The Masters, even though set at a fictional college, does tell the reader what Cambridge at the time was like. But I do also see that it might be too hard to distinguish between cases like that and less relevant stuff. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Either way, it's probably worth breaking this section off into another article. That would at least partially shield the main article from people adding their favourite novel. Bluap 20:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I agree that fictional works which describe Cambridge in some 'real' way could be included. We could still take out most of what is there now. But it's true that it will probably be difficult to keep people from adding their favorite novel. Well, let me try some trimming. Stefán Ingi 22:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand and am sympathetic to the idea that the list could do with some sorting/trimming, but I restored the Star Trek and Civilization references. These are prominent contemporary popular media references (very prominent in the case of Star Trek:TNG, since scenes set at Cambridge took place in the final series 2-episode story arc; and Civilization is a landmark computer game) which endorse and promote the idea of Cambridge as a leading world university (especially for science/computer science people perhaps), and which do not use the university setting in a trivial, passing way. The Star Trek reference also worthy for the unique portrayal of Cambridge in the distant future (and the implication that Cambridge remains a leading world university looking centuries ahead). (No, I am not a Star Trek fan. Yes, I have played Civilization) Bwithh 22:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, we don't need these random references to establish that Cambridge is a leading world university, see e.g. the Reputation section for that. The Star Trek references concerns a brief mention in a single episode, the fact that it is mentioned does not imply that Cambridge will be an important university in the actual future, Star Trek is full of 20th century references. The Civilization reference doesn't even mention Cambridge at all, it concerns Isaac Newton. Stefán Ingi 23:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The Star Trek reference was not a brief one - Cambridge is the location setting in several scenes (set in what the show designers imagine to be a Cambridge professor's room set). It did imply that Cambridge was an important university in the future (I'm not sure what you mean by actual future here unless you're bringing the episode's time-travel plot into this for some reason), since the main science character is Lucasian Professor of Physics (as the pinnacle of the character's career) at the university set in the distant future. "Isaac Newton's College" is obviously Cambridge or (less likely but more specifically) Trinity College, Cambridge. (In Civilization 4, the name of the equivalent game feature is changed to "Oxford University".) I am not arguing merely that these references prove the reputation of the university. I am arguing that these reference are prominent examples in major (not merely random) popular media beyond books - Star Trek TNG is a major work of 1990s popular television; Civilization is a landmark and seminal computer game series. Also, I disagree in general with simply deleting references here. A subarticle should be started instead Bwithh 01:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The Star Trek reference was brief in the sense that it took place in a single (two hour long) episode out of around 170 from The Next Generation. It does not feature as a milestone in the life of Data at Data (Star Trek)#Key episodes and milestones and describing his position as a professer as 'the pinnacle of the character's career' is along the lines of saying that being a Queen consort was the pinnacle of Cinderella's career, probably true but almost completely irrelevant. When you said above that the Star Trek reference was a unique portrayal of Cambridge in the distant future it is important to bear in mind that it is fiction. The implication is not that Cambridge remains a leading world university for centures but that the scriptwriters of Star Trek saw Cambridge as a leading world university around the year 1994.
Of course I agree that logically "Isaac Newton's College" can only refer to Cambridge or Trinity. But it is not a direct reference to Cambridge, it can only be seen as one if you are aware that Newton only worked at this University. It is therefore out of the question that it promotes the idea of Cambridge as a leading university for people interested in computer games. Compare it to the List of Wonders in Civilization, the Middle age section features a list of Wonders which are all named after individuals, and it is these individuals which are being promoted.
I realise that if I am the only one who thinks these two references should be removed then I should not fight any more for it. Stefán Ingi 14:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the either of these two references, so can't offer an opinion on that question. I do agree with Bluap and Bwithh that it would be worth moving the list into its own article. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Colleges

I don't understand the colleges system (for I am american); do they each have their own exclusive faculty members, or are they more like, say, the residential colleges of Yale? How closely do the different colleges work together? Is the university sort of just like a treaty between the different independent schools? 152.23.84.168 22:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Nowadays, the colleges can be thought of as glorified Halls of Residence. They provide accommodation to students, usually for the entire length of time the student is at university, and have social activities / societies / sports clubs / bars / dining facilities / etc that are centred around the college (there are also university-wide societies and sports clubs). Lecture courses are taught by the departments, which are university-wide. However, example classes and essay marking are organised by the colleges, usually via supervisions with two students and one faculty member or PhD student: some colleges group together to organise supervisions in 2nd and 3rd years of subjects. Senior Faculty members (lecturers and above) almost always belong to a college, and help teach that college's students: these faculty members are known as "Fellows" of those colleges. During a PhD, the research is usually organised by the departmnet, but the PhD student will also be a member of a college (and will typically be offered accomodation by that college). Colleges also offer funding for junior post-doc positions known as "research fellowships", while the departments will arrange higher-level post-docs themselves (department-arranged post-docs will not normally be a member of a college). Bluap 23:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
One of the main practical differences is the wealth of different colleges, which are separate charitable institutions from each other and the university (these days they are trying to work more in concert). Although the wealthiest colleges do contribute disproportionately to the university and to poorer colleges in order to spread the money around, there are still significant financial advantages to being at a wealthy college. For instance, an undergraduate at Trinity or St. John's is far more likely to secure full funding for a master's degree from his/her college than an undergraduate at Selwyn or St. Catharine's. Bwithh 21:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge from "Faculty of philosophy cambridge"

Though this article has no mergefrom tag, the article Faculty of philosophy cambridge has a "mergeinto|University of Cambridge" tag, pointing discussion here. I oppose the merge because Cambridge has many departments/faculties that deserve discussion, and merging them all would not be appropriate. It is more sensible to leave them as separate articles, even if some are fairly short. Somebody more knowledgeable might even like to check if all appropriate departments, faculties, colleges, etc. already have their own article. The Merge tag has been there since 2006-03-27. Any objection to removing it? At the same time it might be a good idea to capitalize the title (Faculty of Philosophy Cambridge), since it is a proper noun. --Boson 11:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

In its current state, the Faculty of philosophy cambridge page isn't much, but I can see that the page has scope for a lot of improvement. If it has to be merged, then I would merge into Faculties and Departments of the University of Cambridge Bluap 16:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Campaign

For those interested, at an alum dinner in NYC in Oct 2006, a Cambridge in America representative remarked that the 800th anniversary campaign was the largest (by 3-5 times) ever charity campaign in Europe for a single cause, and that 500mm+ GBP had already been raised (this includes the 300mm from the pre-launch period... so really 200mm since the year or so since the official launch. Bwithh 22:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sri Aurobindo

Is he significant enough for the main list? I find it very difficult to tell from his articles, which come across as rather hagiographical. Mind you, Douglas Adams? should he be there? Bwithh 05:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sri Aurobindo doesn't seem important enough to me. I wouldn't object to dropping DNA either. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. LuciferMorgan 03:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yikes! The Men from Le Ministère are here to make sure that Britain toes the line! (or however that old tv ad goes) Bwithh 03:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Reputations Section

The reputations section doesn't really fit well with the flow of the article. What do people think about taking the individual paragraphs from this section, and placing them in the relevant sections on Research, Alumni, etc? Having a section justifying that "Cambridge is a good university" feels rather pompous. It is far better to introduce the examples within the flow of the text. If no-one objects, I'll make suitable changes over the weekend. Bluap 22:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think moving the finances section out of reputation is okay, I guess, but I feel the reputation section works fine where it is. Not all university articles have reputation sections (though University of Oxford and University of Chicago do), but I feel that the spreading out the information in that section is detrimental to the flow of the article.
On the question of "pompousness" for having a reputation section - well, this is a very UK attitude (I speak as someone who went to university both in the UK and the US). I don't think there's anything in the article which is outrageously boosterish - it's gone through a lot of scrutiny for POV/unreferenced boosterism before). I think its fine. Especially as what's being asserted is not that "Cambridge is a good university" but that "Cambridge is leading, world-class university".
As for other university articles which don't have reputation sections - there seems to be a tendency for them to put their main claims about university reputation in the introductory paragraph e.g. see Yale and MIT. ). One of the main reasons the Cambridge reputation section came into being (I think... from what I remember... or at least it was filled out with more information) is that some editors complained that putting Cambridge's main reputation claims in the introductory paragraph was unacceptable boosterism (even if referenced).
Also see the featured article University of Michigan - which both has the main claims in the intro paragraph AND has a "Research and Endowment" section which while, not named "Reputation", is very similar to in content to the Cambridge reputation/endowment section that we had
Bwithh 22:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

University ratings

(I'm posting this to all articles on UK universities as so far discussion hasn't really taken off on Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities.)

There needs to be a broader convention about which university rankings to include in articles. Currently it seems most pages are listing primarily those that show the institution at its best (or worst in a few cases). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#University ratings. Timrollpickering 22:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Cambridge/Archive_2&oldid=1137287299"