Talk:University of Cambridge

Institutional bias?

User:Doogely has made a number of reverts to recent edits by my (e.g. this revert) which remove the inline attribution of the claim made in The Guardian that Cambridge admission is biased against ethnic minorities, and removed the response (reported in the same article) made by the university to these accusations. I think such a strong claim requires in-text attribution, and that the article should not be cherrypicked to present only the accusation, not the response. I am not even sure that, since The Guardian appears to have obtained and analyzed the figure itself, the claim even qualifies as RS since this is in some sense a primary source that has not been reviewed: the article is at best a source for what the Guardian is claiming. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

This particular user appears to be soapboxing by making related edits on the Oxford University article. I will raise the issue at their talkpage and direct them to this discussion Jebus989^✰ 12:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I reject any claims of soapboxing. I went through both Guardian articles, and the data they released. Therefore I have updated wikipedia with the facts stated in the articles- nothing more.

These are the reasons for my edits:

1. The Guardian didn't crticise the Universtiy. The Guardian reported certain facts, which is all that should be entered in the article.

2. The University claimed the costs to provide more data were too high. There is no evidence that indeed it was too high. Hence it is fairest to state it precisely that the University "claimed" the costs were two high. Since Oxford provided more data, it is reasonable to not to necessarily take the University's word for it.

I believe these two reasons above are valid, and can't see why anyone would contest them.

3. The reason for removing the Unversity comments: they don't say anything relevant, are not backed up with any fact or insight. Further they are unbacked opinions/ claims written in bureacratese and don't cite any substantive data or reasoning. To place them would be indeed cherry picking, and non-encyclopedic.

Further the argument made by the University that the analysis is "superficial" is misleading, and very spurious and not credible. The facts reported ethnic minorities do have lower success rates even with the same grades is uncontested. That is all wikipedia should mention. This fact is not irrelevant, (for one on the University website it is written that A levels are the best predictor of success). Unbacked claims by the University administration is irrelevant for the wikipedia article, in my opinion.

Now for the argument by Alexbrn:

1. The Guardian isn't a reliable source. I find this claim rather odd. The Guardian is one of the world's most respected newspapers. Further the Guardian isn't an opinion piece making unbacked claims. The article is a news report reporting facts. Further the Guardian data was cited by the journal 'Science'. If it is good enough for 'Science', then surely it is good enough for wikipedia?

Doogely

A few concerns here:

• WP:CHERRYPICKING. WP's guideline states "the main information from a source, insofar as stated in Wikipedia, must be accompanied by any contradictory and qualifying information from the same source. ... Failure to do so often violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy ...". For this reason the University's response must be given.
• In The Guardian the neutral verb used for the University's statement on FOI cost is "say". Here it has become "claim" which falls afoul of WP:CLAIM.
• While The Guardian may be a reliable source for many things, here it has obtained a data set and run an analysis on it which has apparently not been subject to any kind of expert or independent review. At the very least the claims it is making should be attributed.

If this information is referenced in a journal, that would make a much better source - where is that exactly? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• The first fact being cited is that ethnic minority applicants with same A levels have lower success rates. This isn't qualified or contested by anyone including the University, or the Guardian article. The next fact mentioned in the wikipedia article is that claims of institutional discrimination have been made. This too is uncontested, and is not qualified by the Guardian article. No one contests whether the "claim" of institutional discrimination has been made.
• All the University contests in the article is the fact whether or not institutional discrimination is taking place, not the fact that a claim was made (by MP David Lammy among others). If wikipedia stated that there was institutional discrimination, then perhaps for neutrality sake the comments made by the University would be needed to ensure neutrality. That is not the case here.
• The University provides unsubstantiated counter-claims in bureaucratese which have no relevant encyclopedic content without any informational value, supporting data or substantive reasoning. To insert it would be unencylopedic.
• There is no semantic difference between the University "says" it is too costly, to the University "claims" it is too costly.
• The Guardian article is the primary source. It is a reliable source. To say otherwise is bizarre, and to suggest all sources need to be 'independently verified' or whatever is bizarre, and would result in most of wikipedia needing to be erased. It is cited in other papers and in the Journal Science: http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2013_03_21/caredit.a1300048

DDoogely (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's an editorial piece from Science's Careers magazine. It's a good example of how this Guardian piece should be neutrally described (rather than the biased way Wikipedia has now): it has attributed the accusation and included the University response. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

That Science article is report of the original story, which includes the univeristy's statements. It isn't an entry into an encyclopedia. There is no point in interspersing undisputed fact with unsubstantiated and rather spurious claims in the name of neutrality in an encyclopedia. Further including the University's statement adds no informational content. Doogely (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I've inserted a line: "The University denied the claims of institutional discrimination by stating the figures didn't take into account "other variables"" I think this contains the University's response in full. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doogely (talk • contribs) 16:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Charles Darwin

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"

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. 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

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? cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 17:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Chomsky

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)

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)

ain't no love for sir charles effin babbage

where's it at yo? aint shiz going down without sir charles' innovations. holla analytical engine.