Talk:University of Cambridge

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)

Proposed merge of Winter Pool into University of Cambridge

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)

• Support per WP:ATD-M. The subject clearly fails WP:GNG and is already mentioned in the proposed target article. Merging requires copying across no more than a sentence or two and a couple of the primary sources.----Pontificalibus 06:13, 6 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)

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)

@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)