This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of the University of Cambridge Wikiproject, an attempt to improve articles relating to the University of Cambridge, and to standardize and extend the coverage of the University in the encyclopedia. If you would like to participate, you can help us by editing the article attached to this notice, or you could visit the project page, where you can join the project, learn more about it, see what needs to be done, or contribute to the discussion.
I've created a new section called 'Origins' and moved the other content to 'Other' - I seem to be lacking inspiration and can't think what else to call it! Please replace it if you can think of anything better. Squeezeweasel 01:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
A Female-only college with no Criticism section? How cute! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
A criticism section is not necessary - where possible it is actually often better to integrate any criticisms into the rest of the article.--Shakehandsman (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Repeated deletions of sourced content by Cambridge University IP
This article keeps seeing repeated deletions of very well sourced content by an Cambridge University IP address. No explanation has ever been given for any of these removals of content, the material removed includes notable information on admissions and on academic performance. I've previously added sources for some of the more constructive additions by the IP and also issued appropriate guidance on their talk page about their blanking of content and possible conflict of interest, yet this has no stopped the problems. If editors could discuss the content in question instead of wholesale blanking then we might be able to move forward. At present it is extremely difficult to make any progress seeing as no discussion or comments are forthcoming. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
In the interests of fairness and to hopefully address concerns I've added similar content to all other relevant pages (e.g. St Edmunds). Therefore, I really can't see any possible reason for any of the content to be removed. I should also add that the use of misleading edit summaries really isn't helping matters.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Well it seems we're making some progress now and the only content now subject to repeated mass deletion concerns the ban on male teachers. I've tweaked this from the previous text that stated male staff were banned. The source given shows male cooks and maintenance staff but not a single male academic that I can see, therefore as far as I can tell the point being made by the Lucy Cavendish editor is totally false and without any merit. If or when the situation changes, perhaps the editor can provide details of the male academic(s) they are employed at the college in a teaching or educational capacity--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Update, I found and added an additional source that suggests Newnham also bars male teaching fellows from the college, therefore I've tweaked the text concerning this. If people do have concerning about specific wording then please discuss the issue or at least just remove the inaccurate word/phrase intend of obliterating an entire section of notable material.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)