Jump to content

Talk:University of Cambridge/Archive 5

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

Improvements of the lead with controversy

I sought to separate the paragraphs of the lead in accordance with their keynotes (brief description --> history --> academics --> other status (sports;endowment,etc)), and rephrase some statements in a way that is, in my opinion, easier to read (e.g. "Its largest library, Cambridge University Library, holds over 8 million volumes and is a legal deposit library; all together Cambridge's libraries contain about 15 million volumes." ---> "Its libraries hold about 15 million volumes in total, 8 millions of which are from Cambridge University Library, its largest legal deposit library."). But a user disagrees with my edit so I'm looking for more perspectives. biomedicinal (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It is a good idea to have a structure to the lead and have specific tasks for each paragraph. I disagree with your suggested approach however. There is no need to have the first paragraph of just one a half lines. There is no need to have a paragraph only about financials, which there is not enough to say about to warrant a paragraph over a couple of lines.
I would propose something like:
Paragraph 1: Introduction and history
Paragraph 2: Campus, organisation
Paragraph 3: Academics (including rankings), alumni (alumni may also work in para 4)
Paragraph 4: Student life, affiliatons and memberships (including reference to Silicon Fen/golden triangle/academic health science centre)
The lead is also probably slightly too short at present, but the present structure is hindering development and expansion.92.19.149.188 (talk) 09:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I know my approach has defects so have been seeking others' opinion. I see your point but I think:

  • "Campus" should be with the introduction if it's about the geographical location since the introductory statement just ends with "Cambridge, England";
  • Silicon Fen is more about its location and hence should be comprised into the first paragraph;
  • Medical research centers and partners are more about "academics";
  • Reputation (including golden triangles) should also be with rankings as they're of the same type (otherwise a clear definition of "academics" should be made).
  • Financial endowment is a reflection of its influence/reputation and hence should be in the academic paragraph if it shouldn't stand on its own.

Biomedicinal (contact)

The article itself has a structure which reflects the preferred structure for university articles. In that structure we see financials together with organisation and administration, not academics. Student life is a separate topic to academics.
These are all, of course, rather arbitrary divisions but having one paragraph of one and a half lines, then a very long paragraph which covers student life/"academics"/alumni/affiliations and memberships (including golden triangle/CUHP) is clumsy and also hinders further development and expansion of the lead.
I would propose something like: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.149.188 (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
The University of Cambridge (informally known as "Cambridge University" or "Cambridge"; abbreviated as "Cantab" in post-nominals) is a collegiate public research university in Cambridge, England. Originally founded in 1209, it is the second-oldest university in the English-speaking world, and the world's third-oldest surviving university. Early records suggest that the university grew out of an association formed by scholars leaving the University of Oxford after a dispute with townsfolk; the two "ancient universities" have many common features and are often jointly referred to as "Oxbridge".
Cambridge is formed from a variety of institutions that include 31 constituent colleges, and over 100 academic departments which are organised into six Schools. The colleges are self-governing institutions with their own endowments and property, founded as integral parts of the university. The university occupies buildings throughout the town, many of which are of historical importance. Student life is centred around the colleges and numerous artistic activities, sports clubs and societies. Cambridge has many notable alumni, and 90 Nobel laureates have been affiliated with it. It is regularly placed among the world's best universities in different league tables.
Cambridge's libraries hold about 15 million volumes in total, 8 millions of which are from Cambridge University Library, which is a legal deposit library. Cambridge University Press, a department of the University, is the world's oldest publishing house and the second-largest university press in the world. The university operates eight arts, cultural, and scientific museums, including the Fitzwilliam Museum, and a botanic garden. Cambridge's endowment (£4.9 billion as of 2013) is the largest of any non-American university. In the year ended 31 July 2013 the university had a total income of £1.44 billion, of which £332 million was from research grants and contracts.
Cambridge is a member of many academic associations, including the Russell Group and the League of European Research Universities, and forms part of the "golden triangle" of English universities. It is closely linked with the development of the high-tech business cluster known as "Silicon Fen" and is part of the Cambridge University Health Partners academic health science.92.19.149.188 (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

So, I just read the page of guidelines and found that those affiliations should be comprised as part of "organisation", and the section of "academics" should be more about the academic environment, including research and libraries/museums that are unique to be discussed, of the institution. If we stick to the flow of the text and the suggestions above, the lead should be organised like this:

The University of Cambridge (informally Cambridge University or Cambridge; abbreviated as Cantab in post-nominals) is a collegiate public research university in Cambridge, England, founded originally in 1209. It is the second-oldest university in the English-speaking world, and the world's third-oldest surviving university that grew out of an association formed by scholars leaving the University of Oxford after a dispute with townsfolk, and hence the two "ancient universities" have many common features and are often jointly referred to as "Oxbridge".
Cambridge is formed from a variety of institutions that include 31 constituent colleges, and over 100 academic departments organised into six Schools. The University occupies buildings throughout the town, many of which are of historical importance. The colleges are self-governing institutions founded as integral parts of the university. The central university and colleges have a combined endowment of around £4.9 billion, the largest of any university outside the United States. In the year ended 31 July 2013, the University had a total income of £1.44 billion, of which £332 million was from research grants and contracts. Cambridge is also a member of many associations and forms part of the "golden triangle" of English universities. It is closely linked with the development of the high-tech business cluster known as "Silicon Fen" and is part of the Cambridge University Health Partners academic health science.
Students' learning involves lectures and laboratory sessions organised by departments, and supervisions offered by the colleges. The University operates libraries and museums providing learning materials and exhibition covering different academic aspects. Further, Cambridge University Press is the world's oldest publishing house and the second-largest university press in the world. It is regularly placed among the world's best universities in different league tables. Student life is centred around the colleges and numerous artistic activities, sports clubs and societies.
Cambridge has many notable alumni, including several eminent mathematicians, scientists, politicians and artists, and 90 Nobel laureates have been affiliated with it.

Then it becomes (in accordance with the structure of the text):

  1. History
  2. Campus & Organisation/Administration
  3. Academics & Student life
  4. Notable alumni (upon further expansions)

Further development won't be hindered since notable alumni can be split to stand for a new paragraph (as of an independent section in the text). According to the guidelines, the lead should be a concise summary of the rest of the page so those detailed examples, like Russell's Group and Fitzwilliam Museum, shouldn't be included as this is just an introduction. Biomedicinal (contact)

I think we are broadly on the same page with some differences as to writing style and precise structure. I think affiliations and memberships works best in the final paragraph and this seems to be the approach followed in the articles of many UK universities.
It would be good to have the input of others. I personally don't like "has nurtured" at all, firstly because it is POV (a successful alumni may not necessarily have been "nurtured" by the university, may have only been there for a year postgraduate, and may even have had a bad relationship with the university or not enjoyed their time there) and also because it is for me too informal and hackneyed in style.
I wouldn't start a sentence with "They" in that manner ("They occupy buildings"), "The university" would be better there IMO. And rather than "Together, the endowment is the largest of any non-American university.", I think something like "The central university and colleges have a combined endowement of around £5 billion, the largest of any university outside the United States" would be better.
There is nothing in the guidlines which say that specific examples should not be quoted in article leads and the Russell Group is in my view lead worthy, it is the principal UK membership group of the university. 92.19.149.188 (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I see your point about the wordings. I were trying to avoid using "the University" and "Cambridge" all the time which might be clumsy to read, but your suggestions make sense. Concerning with where to place the affiliations, I insist the information should be in paragraph 2 (organisation/admin.) as backed up by the guidelines so as to avoid any challenges of how to split the lead. Originally, I thought those associations belonged to the "academics" section since most of them (like the Russell's Group) are in fact academic in nature. Yet, as the suggestions stipulate the main ideas of such a section to be learning environment provided by the institution itself, and the subordination of those affiliations to organisation part, I prefer we should follow this structure. Some alterations were done on my suggested lead above, and you can have a look on them. Biomedicinal (contact)

Hi, generally v good but a few suggested tweaks from me:

The University of Cambridge (informally Cambridge University or Cambridge; abbreviated as Cantab in post-nominals) is a collegiate public research university in Cambridge, England. It is the second-oldest university in the English-speaking world and the world's third-oldest surviving university. Founded in 1209, the university grew out of an association formed by scholars leaving the University of Oxford after a dispute with townsfolk; the two "ancient universities" have many common features and are often jointly referred to as "Oxbridge".

Cambridge is formed from a variety of institutions that include 31 constituent colleges and over 100 academic departments organised into six Schools. The university occupies buildings throughout the town, many of which are of historical importance. The colleges are self-governing institutions founded as integral parts of the university. The central university and colleges have a combined endowment of around £4.9 billion, the largest of any university outside the United States. In the year ended 31 July 2013, the university had a total income of £1.44 billion, of which £332 million was from research grants and contracts. Cambridge is a member of many academic associations, including the Russell Group, and forms part of the "golden triangle" of English universities. It is closely linked with the development of the high-tech business cluster known as "Silicon Fen" and is part of the Cambridge University Health Partners academic health science centre.

Cambridge's libraries hold a total of around 15 million books, 8 million of which are in Cambridge University Library, which is a legal deposit library. Cambridge University Press, a department of the university, is the world's oldest publishing house and the second-largest university press in the world. The university's eight museums contain collections across the arts, culture and sciences. Student life is centred around the colleges and numerous pan-university artistic activities, sports clubs and societies. Cambridge is regularly placed among the world's best universities in different league tables. 31.54.37.222 (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I just changed my suggested part of academic & student life above to describe more about teaching & learning. I think we shouldn't emphasize too much on the "power" of libraries and museums since "academics" are about more than these. Biomedicinal (contact)
Off topic chat

Prince Charles

Prince Charles went to Trinity in Cambridge in 1967 with mediocre qualifications. More recently his son did the same thing, for a shorter ten-week course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.48.194.136 (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Prince William was there this year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.79.61 (talk) 11:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of tangentially related subjects. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Wording

The wording that says in the Foundation of colleges: As early as the 1520s, Lutheranism and what was to become more broadly known as the Protestant Reformation were making their presence felt in the intellectual discourse of the university.

Can someone with knowledge about this clear this up?

Robert (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You might give us greater detail as to what you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.171.85.28 (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Politics sub-section in the Notable alumni and academics section

An IP editor, 91.85.208.0, has repeatedly tried to add the name of one particular politian to the short and distinguished list at University of Cambridge#Politics, rather than being content with the various lists linked from the top of University of Cambridge#Notable alumni and academics, such as List of University of Cambridge members. Other editors will hopefully have a view on whether this particular politician deserves inclusion there, and will be able to judge from the IP's edit history whether he is trying to make a point (and edit-warring to boot). --David Biddulph (talk) 11:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Griffin is certainly notable, but he certainly isn't a particularly notable Cambridge alum, nor is that what he's known for (although the association is widely known). The list is currently very short, and perhaps it should be expanded using the rather extensive List_of_University_of_Cambridge_members#Politics_and_royalty. I can't imagine Griffin being one of the most notable of that list, but certainly at the moment it's an undue weight. Sjgknight (talk) 09:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Griffin is notable, not least because of the coverage of him as a Tab in the national press (e.g., http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2010/apr/02/sun-april-fool-bnp-nick-griffin). Methinks the Tab lobby on Wikipedia is attempting to construct 'rules' for this section that excuse their attempted suppression of a verifiable fact...91.85.208.0 (talk) 10:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That makes it notable to mention on Nick Griffin - which it is. The converse is not true, for that we'd expect to see lots of articles (broadly) about Cambridge making reference to Griffin. We don't. Leaving him in alongside the rest of that rather small subset is undue weight. Look at the other alumni listed, in that section and the others - it is a very small subset. Please refrain from ad hominem attacks such as using an affiliation (a pretty minor one by the way) to dismiss someone's arguments. Sjgknight (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) At the moment we have 8 individuals named in that section, excluding Griifin. It is difficult to justify choosing Griffin out of the 181 individuals named at List of University of Cambridge members#Politics and royalty to be a 9th individual named at University of Cambridge#Politics. The IP's description of a "Tab lobby on Wikipedia" violates WP:AGF. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure rather more people could tell you who Nick Griffin was, and where he studied, than could do the same for Robert Walpole. The fact that NG's link with Cambridge has received extensive press coverage is the clincher129.67.20.3 (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
As per above, it is not the clincher. Particularly given the fact that Griffin is relatively insignificant compared to the other (very short list of) named individuals. Are you the same IP editor as above? Sjgknight (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the other IP - articles in the national press, ranging from the sun to the Grauniad, about Griffin's relationship with his university justify his inclusion. There's no rule saying that the list can only be of a particular length, and if other editors feel that others besides Griffin are worthy of mention then they're welcome to add those names.91.85.208.0 (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, doesn't address my points, no consensus for inclusion Sjgknight (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
This RfC was closed because consensus was clear early on to oppose Griffin's inclusion (in the current section). Sjgknight (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should Nick Griffin appear under the present "Notable alumni and academics" section under politics? See points above. Sjgknight (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

As of Nov 5th we've got 9 oppose, 1 support, and (broadly) 2 who propose a larger revision to the section (which is really a separate issue). It looks like a fairly clear consensus here so I suggest the rfc is closed in the next couple of days rather than leaving it longer. I'll watch here if anyone has any objections to that course of action. Sjgknight (talk) 08:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose My first reaction was to support, but then I actually went through that list—the entire list, not just the "Politics" section—and Nick Griffin is clearly the odd one out. In fact, he is so absurdly out of place there that I'm at a loss to understand how anyone could possibly fail to notice the yawning gap between this moderately notable contemporary politician and the likes of Francis Bacon or Thomas Cranmer. I mean Nick Griffin no disrespect, but even the fifteen British Prime Ministers on that list are not called by their name with the exception of none other than Robert Walpole. I'm quite sure that if I were to show that list to Mr. Griffin and ask him whether he thinks his name should be kept on it, he would just chuckle and shake his head. Iaritmioawp (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for reasons clearly laid out above. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Remove section - The entire "Notable alumni and academics" is a largely unsourced promotional piece. For shorter lists, we include the entire list of alumni who are notable: If they went to the school and have an article, we include them. For more extensive lists, we link to a separate article, with possibly a short section of general statements that cite independent reliable sources.
The current section basically says "Cambridge is the sole source of warmth and light in a cold, dark universe. Here's a list of people who attended Cambridge, carefully screened by our opinions to remove criminals, wackos and anyone else we deem unworthy..." - SummerPhD (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Pretty much agree with SummerPhD - I personally had never heard of Nick Griffin, though I gather he's some sort of notorious celebrity in Britain. (And I do follow the news, but I live in the United States and even though I look at European news because I have close relatives in Ireland and England, sorry, he has not made my radar.) If you aren't writing a puff piece then I think you should either claim your bigots and rascals as well as your famous scientists, or delete the section altogether, is my thought. I'd actually find the article more interesting if it were expanded to include the pirates and highwaymen. Surely there were some. But yeah, if your criterion for notability is that an article exists, there is in fact a jarring dissonance and the article would seem to need expansion. Maybe you should break out a separate list. Elinruby (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for all the reasons outlined above. @SummerPhD: that's really a separate issue which deserves a separate discussion. In brief though I disagree, the relationship of those alumni to the university is notable through the university's relationship to the history of those various subsections. Sjgknight (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I do not see any hint of inclusion criteria that are unambiguous, objective, and supported by independent reliable sources. The section is promotional material directly from Cambridge. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • SupportGriffin's fame, or not, is relative to others listed, is entirely irrelevant. There is no WP policy to remove the least famous member of any list; if there were, we'd remove each and every name in ascending order of fame. Griffin is notable (he has his own article), and his association with Cambridge is notable by virtue of newspaper articles relating to it.129.67.20.3 (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Er...sure it's relevant, and in particular it's relevant with regard to whether we mention one, or another example as associated with Cambridge. It's about due weight aside from anything else, otherwise we'd as well list everyone in the article (which is definitely not desirable) Sjgknight (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Focus on the content please, (even ignoring my comment above on the grounds that like many others, cam is one of the unis I've attended, there are 8 other opposes). Please don't engage in edit warring, the rfc is still in progress at at present consensus is 'oppose'. Sjgknight (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

History

must include the actual beginning of classes being offered at the school, not just the Oxford-beating date when a charter gave greater liberties to the already-gathered scholars. Doubtless in a rivalry like this, the information will come and go from the article. Kindly maintain it, pending improvements with still-better sourcing. — LlywelynII 03:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

M Harunur Rashid

I am trying to de-orphan the Bangladeshi archaeologist, etc. M Harunur Rashid (archaeologist). The article says he received his PhD from the University of Cambridge in 1968 with this source cited in support. Does this person satisfy the selection criteria being used for the University of Cambridge#Notable alumni and academics or the related article List of University of Cambridge people? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Rosalind Franklin

The image of Rosalind Franklin appears to be non-free media, are we allowed to use it on this article? Cantab12 (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I would say no since there no per WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFCC#8. A seperate, specific non-free use rationale is required each time a non-free image is used in an article and this usage rationale has to show that all 10 non-free content criteria are satisfied. While might be argued that the picture of Franklin is essential to Rosalind Franklin and, therefore, NFCC#8 and No. 10 of WP:NFCI are satisfied, it would be pretty hard to do the same for this particular article since having the picture may be nice, but it is not really essential. FWIW, it's also possible that this usage would fail No. 4 of WP:NFLISTS. This is just my opinion of course, but it's probably a good idea to discuss this usage at WP:NFCR just to make sure. - Marchjuly (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion at WP:NFCR#File:Rosalind Franklin.jpg regarding the file's non free use in this article. All interested editors are welcome to add comments. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the image based upon comments made above and at the concerned NFCR discussion. The presence of the image is not essential to the reader's understanding of the article and it is simply being used as if it were part of a gallery or list of some kind. Franklin's Wikipedia article is wikilinked in the text and the image is used there, so interested readers can see what Franklin looked like by looking at her article. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Age structure

Charles01 I thought your question in the edit summary for this edit [1] was an intriguing one, so I searched for articles that would provide further information. I found:

I know there is no one "correct" age distribution structure, but when there are no natural phenomena such as an epidemic, a drought or a volcanic eruption, I think there may be a "normal" distribution of population within a country by age. When circumstances cause the percentage of young adults to increase dramatically, such as in a youth bulge, that age group will be disproportionately large compared to the other age groups on the distribution pyramid. I think that is what was meant by "distorting the age structure". Corinne (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I must admit I wrote that bit just before being summoned to table, and without thinking too much about why I wrote what I wrote. But .... I think what was in my mind was that the word "distort" implies that there is somehow an "age structure" that is "normal", "proper", "correct" or even (tho this is too far) "preferable". I think you've picked up on what was in my mind, here. It seems to me that the Cambridge age structure is pretty much what you would expect for a moderately sized university city. And whether you think it a good or bad thing or neither, there are plenty of moderately sized university cities in England, partly because putting lots of kids through university massages the unemployment stats in a southerly direction and partly because the English persist in sending their children away so that it is considered somehow odd or improper for university age children while studying to live with Mom 'n Pop in a city whose age profile comes closer to the average for the state as a whole. Well, I guess there are pros and cons there, and in any case it's a digression. But I still think that while a large number of students may affect the age pyramid, it doesn't really distort it from some perfect world most likely alternative. Though I freely admit I regard this as a pretty long way down on the list of "what matters". It is not something over which I would be tempted to launch World War 3, nor even a wiki-p**sing contest! If, following your researches, you (or someone else reading this) are (/is) persuaded that "distort" carries a more appropriate baggage set than "affect", you should not hesitate, on my account, to put it back. Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on University of Cambridge. 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 09:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on University of Cambridge. 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, 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 02:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to Women in Red's Role Models editathon on Women's Colleges

Please forward this invitation to all potentially interested contacts

Welcome to... Role Models meetup and online editathon

Facilitated by Women in Red
Help us to spread the news

  • 8 March 2017: In-person meetup at Newnham College, Cambridge University
  • Whole of March: worldwide multi-language online edithon for all
  • Focus: Notable women from women's colleges and related institutions
  • Inform your communities of the need for their support.
  • Contribute in English or in your own language

Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Lead

In the hope that the IP and interested readers will see this, please refer to a previous discussion regarding the lead Talk:University_of_Cambridge/Archive_5#Improvements_of_the_lead_with_controversy Aloneinthewild (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Request to add Intitutions of the University of Cambridge

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I propose to add institutions of the University of Cambridge. E.g. ICE of the University of Cambridge. Please take a moment to review my request. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot British (talk • contribs) 17:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

In what format and where? Perhaps you can give more details Aloneinthewild (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I suggest to add a new section after 'Schools, faculties and departments' as:

Institutions

(List all names of institutions of the University)


If you plan to do that I would suggest you create a separate list page and link back to a section in this article, using the {{main}} template. Cambridge must have hundreds of institutions and such a list won't fit with the style of the article which is mostly prose. Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that should be a separate list page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot British (talk • contribs) 20:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

In relation to this discussion, I have created List of institutions of the University of Cambridge. @Aloneinthewild: you may be interested in this. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 00:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

An administrator needs to check this:

A redirect has been set up from "Cambridge Scholars Publishing" to this page. CSP claims to be an "independent" publisher "founded by former lecturers and researchers from the University of Cambridge." However, it claims no formal affiliation with the actual University of Cambridge itself. A quick Google search reveals enough negative opinion about this publisher to at least question their trying to affiliate themselves with an institution arguably far above their station. An administrator should look into this and consider removing that redirect.--PrairieOjibway (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Cambridge University rarely in the news

The news sources that I mostly take in (BBC Radio 4 and the BBC News website) quite frequently report scientific work being done by Oxford University people but almost never mention any research or discoveries being carried out at Cambridge University. I used to think Cambridge was better for science, Oxford for the arts; but now if there is any reference to scientific research at either place, it is almost invariably work being done at Oxford. When the BBC call a university professor for an opinion on some scientific research, they never seem to call anyone from Cambridge, whereas they often get an opinion from someone at Oxford or one of the other universities. I can barely remember the last time I heard anything at all about research at Cambridge. In fact I would say that University College London is also reported on much more often than Cambridge. Does anyone know why? Is the BBC full of ex-Oxford students? Does Oxford University have someone feeding news to the BBC? Has Cambridge University somehow offended the BBC? Surely it can't be that Cambridge research has fallen asleep? UBJ 43X (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on University of Cambridge. 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) 06:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Nobel Laureates

I think it would enhance this article to list the Nobel Laureates associated with CU. Maybe something like Prize Category, reason for award. Year of award, College affiliation, and whether they were graduates or academics. 46.7.195.132 (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Is 11.8 bn pounds total assets or endowments?

I saw the university endowment was modified to 11.8 billion pounds. But in the reference, it is marked as the University's consolidated net assets. I don't think this means endowment, I guess? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.222.191.5 (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Finances Section of Wikipedia Page

After going through the Financial Statements of every college and the university's central accounts, I have verified that the figure for Cambridge's endowment is incorrect. The first two paragraphs of the Finances Section is unsourced and makes incorrect claims of the university's endowment. Given that it is no longer correct, I would like to gather the consensus for editors on this page as to whether it should be removed. EmyRussell (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Repetition

Under "Mathematics and sciences", Ramanujan is mentioned twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.21.214 (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

This has now been rectified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.21.214 (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

University of Cambridge Project

The University of Cambridge Project has become inactive. This change is annoying to me as a user of the Rater tool. Unil the change, I could type "cam" and the University of Cambridge would be on a graduate's talk page, but no more. I can type it in, or copy from somewhere, but best would make project active again, but how?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Oxford still goes with "ox" put in.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I found Cam was still working for me, however I've changed the project to semi active and restored the template. I believe there are enough of us editing on this topic. Maybe add yourself to WP:CANTAB participants Dthomsen8. Aloneinthewild (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of article topic on the Doxbridge page

There is a discussion on the Doxbridge article regarding whether the topic of that article should be the word Doxbridge and its usage or an informal group of universities represented by the term. I am placing this notice on the talk pages of the relevant university articles to solicit the input of the editors of those articles on this matter. Robminchin (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Relevant discussion on WT:HED

A discussion relevant to this article is currently taking place on WT:HED (section) on the wider picture of WP:BOOSTERISM across university articles. Please see the relevant section if you wish to contribute, as any consensus made there may end up impacting this article, and it would be sensible to get involved earlier rather than going through any discussion it again if it affects this page. Your views and input would be most welcome Shadowssettle(talk) 10:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Update

Cambridge cancels face-to-face lectures until 2021; Andrew Jack. --Johnsoniensis (talk) 07:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The heraldry/logotype is Christian and monarchical (analyze its components); it's nonneutral

It is an open and permanent problem.

Heraldry which is in use and not historical, should represent each person, and not the majority rule. The majority rule doesn't apply to academics on the subject of personal opinion, which cannot be generalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4118:E82C:DD02:CCF9:B6EE:DE13 (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, whilst all contributions are welcome, your comment is hard to understand. If you're trying to discuss the coat of arms, please note that Wikipedia is not a forum, nor are its talk pages, so this is not the right website for such a discussion. If you're discussing the need for adding contextual discussion on the coat of arms, please find some reliable sources, and consider adding such content to the article on the coat of arms of the University of Cambridge. If you're trying to change the coat of arms, please note that Wikipedia just reports on cited material, and is not the place to lead change. The coat of arms displayed here is used extensively by the university, and is the arms registered at the College of Arms for the institution. Instead, you might wish to lead change within the university through campaigning, although you're likely to run into stiff resistance. Shadowssettle(talk) 17:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

"Cambridge Globalist" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Cambridge Globalist. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 1#Cambridge Globalist until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. (t · c) buidhe 01:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Under Croft Gardens, early medieval burial ground

Interesting: 

  An archaeological dig at the site of the new graduate accommodation at Croft Gardens has revealed an extensive early medieval burial ground, shedding light on life and death in Cambridge from the end of the Roman period.

  The long-suspected presence of an early medieval burial ground has been confirmed, with more than 60 graves, most of which date from the early Anglo-Saxon period (c. 400–650 CE). Evidence of Iron Age structures and Roman earthworks was also identified.

  The excavation of this cemetery provides an outstanding opportunity to explore very early medieval Britain, interactions between the island and the Continent, and changing ways of life around the ruins of Roman-period Cambridge. We are thrilled to have the chance to examine this site and integrate these finds with other early medieval archaeology along this side of the river Cam to understand better this transformative period in history.  https://www.kings.cam.ac.uk/news/2021/archaeological-dig-reveals-anglo-saxon-cemetery-kings-accommodation-sitePeter K Burian (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Reputation in the lede

I've noticed there was a discussion on the talk page of WP:HED a while ago (Summer 2020) about removing references to universities' reputations in the lede of articles, which was pretty inconclusive. Since a lot of other unveristies have them as of 09/02/2021, and Cambridge had a reference to reputation in the lede which was deleted prior to this discussion on WP:HED, I was thinking it should be reinstated in the lede. Krimzonmania7078 (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Nothing personal, I participated in the first RfC which was then reconsidered. Does anyone know what eventually happened. I agree inconsistency is the main problem, which is why the whole process happened in the first place. Shadowssettle Need a word? 14:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
From what I've seen on archived copies of that page, no consensus was really reached and the discussion was closed without anyone summing up the actual consensus. However, other universities (such as Harvard University) have references to reputation in the lede of articles, so I think the consensus may have been that it was acceptable. At least, nobody has edited those articles yet. Might be worth saying that I'm a current undergraduate at Cambridge - if there's a conflict of interest can I still bring this up? Krimzonmania7078 (talk) 12:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but you should bring up your COI in this as you have. I don't mind right now, but try to bring in WP:RS for it, and be ready for the WP:BRD. Shadowssettle Need a word? 12:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Name in lead

Currently, we begin with “The University of Cambridge (legally The Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars of the University of Cambridge, also known as Cambridge University)”. This is problematic. The “University” is not synonymous with “The Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars of the University”, that would be a tautology. Rather the C, M & S refers to something limited and specific - the corporate body that can legally act in contract law.

I propose to remove reference to this from the lead, removing everything in brackets. Then in the “Organisation and administration” section I would begin with something like “The university is an exempt charity and a corporation with the full title ‘The Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars of the University of Cambridge’”.

I feel this is a better way of treating this, as the current wording gives undue prominence to name of the corporation. A university is a place and an institution, not simply the group of people in receipt of the corporate title. As an example, the charter of the town of Bradford granted by Charles II names the "Mayor, Burgesses and Commonalty [of the town of Bradford]." This is the name of the municipal corporation i.e. the governing body of the town. Residents of the town are obviously not residents of the Mayor, Burgesses and Commonalty.

For more details see Stewart Kyd (1793). "Of the Name of a Corporation". A Treatise on the Law of Corporations. Vol. 1. pp. 226–259. --Pontificalibus 12:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Removal from lead

I note that referenced statements that this university is the wealthiest in Europe and one of the most prestigious in the world were removed from the lead. I've restored these because they are key facts that aid in gaining a basic understanding of the subject. This is reflected in our articles on similar universities such as Harvard University where the lead states it is "among the most prestigious in the world" and that it has the largest endowment.----Pontificalibus 08:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Anything to do with prestige is not a "fact" and should certainly not be in the lead of the article. It does not promote understanding of the subject and promotes bias instead. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not constitute an reason. I am not too impartial to the inclusion of endowment but I can see how it can be concerning when stated in that tone. Please see "Puffery in introduction" below Francescurn (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Support per WP:PUFFERY. I think it should be removed Heimgate (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Puffery in introduction

Blocked sockpuppets

The claim that the University is "one of the most prestigious academic institutions" in the world seems like heavy WP:PUFFERY and should not be in the introduction. It's not solid and I believe harmful for the nature of the article, which should seek to be as unbiased as possible. In general, opinionated notions like these should not be in the introduction. This goes against WP:UNIGUIDE. Han344 (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Completely agree. I think it should be removed. I don't think it was good faith to put it back after previous removal Francescurn (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Thirded. I was surprised to see this here Heimgate (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
If you want people to engage with your substantive points, which may have some merit, violating policy by creating puppet accounts to echo your opinions is not the way go about it.—--Pontificalibus 18:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Please do not make such accusations unless you know something. I am certainly no puppet account. I do echo your concerns that the same thing has been said too many times so I am going to merge these two sections of the talk page, without the unnecessary comments Francescurn (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Winter Pool into University of Cambridge

(non-admin closure) Consensus to merge. JBchrch talk 19:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Having a separate article for a university's admissions process is basically unheard of, let alone a component of that process. The Winter Pool article is not notable to stand alone and should be merged. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mentioning Harvard in the lead

@Granticus31:, please don't edit war. You want to mention Harvard in the lead. Two other editors think that's not right. You claim that your preferred version was the "stable version". Not really. You only added your material on June 13. There is no question that the University of Cambridge inspired Harvard University and the renaming of Newtowne, Massachusetts to Cambridge. And I disagree with EEng about the connection being "tenuous".

But that's not the issue: the disagreement is about whether this information belongs in the University of Cambridge article, and if so, where -- almost certainly not in the lead.

You are not helping your case by insulting other editors ("can not comprehend") and attributing sinister motives to them ("vindictively") -- see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. --Macrakis (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I think what I was trying to say was that the relationship between the Oxford-Cambridge connection and the Cambridge-OxfordHarvard connection is tenuous i.e. there's no particular reason to mention the latter immediately after the former (in the lead's first paragraph!) as if there's some big-deal parallel between them. You know how edit summaries are -- probably the dog jumped up on me and I hit enter before I was done. EEng 17:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
@Macrakis: Given that @EEng: was the first to violate WP:CIVIL by stating "it's ridiculous" to one of my edits (which so happens to be a complete misunderstanding of my intended message), It seems based on their edits on the Harvard page, they have repeatedly engaged in insulting and condescending and attributing sinister/depraving motives that violate WP:CIVIL), and in my opinion far more egregiously than me. This behavior from EEng should not be tolerated, especially given that they are a long-time and/or extensive user of WP, as it is likely to prompt such a response from new users like me and to think that this is the norm of WP when it clearly is not. However, I will relegate that discussion to my talk page, including a thorough list of insults, condescension, and attributing sinister motives--as you are attributing to me, I argue wrongly.
"You want to mention Harvard in the lead. Two other editors think that's not right." I'm not sure two editors think that (only you) because so far EEng has based their edit warring on justifications other than that, though I would not be surprised if they do agree with you on what you see as the main disagreement. What grounds do you base your opinion on? It is commonplace in wikipages about universities to make some mention of their influence. The Oxford page does this with Cambridge, though I'll admit that Oxford and Cambridge have more of a recognized relationship. The page on Columbia university mentions in the lead section its connection to Princeton. The importance of Harvard (whcih I don't think I need to explain, but it is clearly one of the most important universities historically in America and also one of the most prestigious) is also what warrants its inclusion in the lead section, in my opinion. So I'd simply like to know why you think this information should "almost certainly not [be] in the lead." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granticus37 (talk • contribs)
Because Cambridge graduates beheaded Charles I, developed the theory of natural selection, wrote Winnie the Pooh, discovered the neutron, and did ten thousand other things that also don't belong in the lead. The WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus for inclusion. EEng 16:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

English-speaking World

The lead claims that the University of Cambridge, founded in 1209, is the second-oldest university in the English-speaking world. That ignores the fact that the university (like all others in Europe) for many centuries conducted its affairs, including teaching and examinations, in the Latin language. The students and masters of 1209 would mostly have belonged to the French-speaking part of the population of England. NRPanikker (talk) 03:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

But it is now in the English-speaking world. No one anywhere speaks a language that would be recognizable to anyone in 1209, even if they both nominally "speak the same language". EEng 05:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2022

11 Fields Medalists --> 12 Fields Medalists James Maynard; cite: https://www.mathunion.org/imu-awards/fields-medal/fields-medals-2022 131.111.16.20 (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. MadGuy7023 (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Global Ranking for Cambridge from US News & World Report

Why is the global ranking for Cambridge from US News & World Report not showing up on the main article page? Aceusa (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

because it uses {{Infobox UK university rankings}}, which does not display this ranking. It doesn't even have a valid input parameter for it, so whatever is passed into the infobox is effectively discarded. There are various discussions about this at Template talk:Infobox UK university rankings. Spike 'em (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Nobel Laureates

Is it right to say that Cambridge has the most Nobel Laureates of any university? The source for this information is the Cambridge website, which seems biased. I know that universities count their Nobel Laureates differently. Many websites say Harvard is leading with 160+. Thesmallfriendlygiant (talk) 06:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Two errors to avoid

In a pretty thorough review and edit of this important page, I noticed two consistent errors that I have corrected but that should be avoided in the future:

First, the name of the university is the University of Cambridge. It's true that it's often referred to colloquially as Cambridge University, but that is not its name. The article included both the University of Cambridge and Cambridge University, and I standardized it as the University of Cambridge when the full name is referenced or warranted. "Cambridge" also should generally be avoided, I think, so there is no confusion between the university and the city.

Second, for whatever reason, there was an excessive and inappropriate use of italics throughout the article when either the phrase alone required either no qualification or quotes were what was needed. Latin words should be italicized. Names of works of art, like paintings, movies, and book titles should be in italics, and very little else.

Just two observations from the several hours I spent in reviewing and editing the page. It was already very fact-based, which I am sure represents some great contributions by many, and most of my edits were grammatical, organizational, and stylistic. It now is not just factually on target but also vastly more readable. This is a very globally significant university that has made substantial contributions over, incredibly, 800+ years. I personally learned a lot in going through it. Thanks to all who have contributed to what I think now represents a very well done page. HarvardStuff (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

As has been mentioned elsewhere, the form "Cambridge University" is used in many formal contexts, including the University's own official social media and many of its institutions (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge University Library, etc). If you can find an independent source, such as the University's branding documentation, deprecating the form "Cambridge University", then this argument has some merit. Otherwise it's your own preference elevated without warrant into a principle, and doesn't constitute an obligation on any other editor. —VeryRarelyStable 02:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Cambridge/Archive_5&oldid=1229200221"