Talk:University of Cambridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article University of Cambridge was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject England (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Universities (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject University of Cambridge (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject East Anglia (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon University of Cambridge is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see University of Cambridge at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
 

Charles Darwin[edit]

It states in the article that Darwin "was a Cambridge man" - true but he was not educated in biology at Cambridge. It is a little misleading to imply that he was a "Cambridge Biologist" when his course of studies at the university had no such content. His final examinations included Homer, Virgil, aspects of theology and moral philosophy and mathematics. The text should make it clear that his education in biology was informal and was not part of his official studies whilst at Cambridge. Urselius (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Third oldest, fourth oldest, "one of the oldest"[edit]

Anyone else care to take a look at the recent edits? I think "one of the oldest" is daft, but seek consensus and all that... Pinkbeast (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops. I considered your view to be so self-evident I reverted the changes before I noticed you had opened a discussion here. Sorry. smile Fat&Happy (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I won't argue. Thanks. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion in Literature and popular culture[edit]

With reference to Nikkimaria's removal of many referenced points in the Literature and popular culture section, could someone please state the criteria for inclusion of a cultural reference (and if possible, point to the relevant Wikipedia guideline(s) for them)?

Whilst I think there are far too many items in the list, I cannot see any given reason for each item's removal. cmɢʟee୯ ͡° ̮د ͡° ੭ 18:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Ideally, every item should have a reliable secondary source indicating its significance. That obviously isn't the case here right now, and further trimming should be done for items for which such sources cannot be found. The reference and work in which it appears should be significant. Again, more trimming is likely needed in this regard. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed - way too much miscellaneous fluff here. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree with the previous two comments. I'd be expecting to see secondary sources here backing up any selection. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: I've boldly split much of the content to University of Cambridge in popular culture. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, all, especially Nikkimaria. When I've some spare time, I'll categorise them on the new page. cmɢʟee୯ ͡° ̮د ͡° ੭ 10:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I've categorised them as in [1]. Any objections? cmɢʟeeτaʟκ 17:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Chomsky[edit]

Noam Chomsky is taught at Cambridge and described there as world-renowned. This should be mentioned in the article on Cambridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.168.232 (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Many 'world renowned' people are 'taught at Cambridge'. It's what the place does. Other than receiving an honorary degree, and delivering a lecture in 1970, did Chomsky spend any significant time at the University of Cambridge or have any other strong connection? If not, then there is no reason to mention him in this article. 85.210.172.88 (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Wording[edit]

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)

Babbage[edit]

i still think charles babbage deserves to have his picture among the other "famous alumni". he is the father of the computer. without the analytic engine, we would be screwed. why hasn't anyone corrected this travesty? it is both frustrating and disappointing to see such a glaring omission. I3roly (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. The illustrations on the University of Cambridge page cannot (without turning it into an image gallery) show every notable person who was at the University and is mentioned in the article.
Babbage started at Trinity in October 1810 and transferred to Peterhouse in 1812. He did not graduate with honours but instead received a degree without examination in 1814. He was Lucasian Professor of Mathematics from 1828 to 1839, but never gave a lecture. For the rest of his life (and probably for much of time during these periods also) he was elsewhere, mostly in London.
This is not to diminish Babbage as an important mathematician and brilliant polymath. Clearly he was at Cambridge, and, as it says in the article already, ‘designed the world’s first computing system’, but there are many other famous and outstanding people who spent their lives at Cambridge, and who are much more closely associated with the University. Rutherford, Hershel, Eddington, Dirac, Rayleigh, Thompson, Bragg, Crick, Chadwick, Cockcroft, Walton, Sanger and so on, all spent substantial parts of their careers at Cambridge. They are mentioned, but none is shown.
As to the Analytical Engine, it is arguable how influential it was on subsequent developments, as most of Babbage’s innovations were unknown and had to be re-invented. It has never been built, so to that extent, we are still ‘without it’. 85.210.169.114 (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)