Talk:Cambridge

Photos

I was surprised by this comment from 81.6.229.151

21:15, 4 Dec 2003 . . 81.6.229.151 (picture deleted.....does not give the college justice. Put a better photo in next time!!)

I'd love to know in what sense the picture of King's College was unsuitable. It seems to me to have been better than the one added later, further down the page!

It's not worth arguing over, but I was puzzled! Chris Jefferies 23:29, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Chris Jefferies that there was no reason to remove that photo. The view of King's College from the Backs is widely held as the iconic view of Cambridge, as evidenced by the photo and the logo on the home page of the City Council. If the particular photo is not considered pretty enough and someone can provide a better one of the same scene which is usable under copyright restrictions, then fine, let's use it instead. Meanwhile I will restore the old one (assuming the Wiki lets me get that far -- it's being excruciatingly slow at the moment). --Trainspotter 15:06, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well it has taken a while, but here is a new image. -- Solipsist 07:11, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cambridge city centre

On a less savoury note, a study done in 2004 named Cambridge city centre (postcode CB2 1)...

Cambridge city centre isn't just CB2, though; CB1-4 meet in a pie-like formation in the centre. Marnanel 00:18, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Midsummer Common is CB5, so it's CB1-5... - JVG 11:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Punting

No mention of punting here, which is a classic cambridge activity. Surely someone can pen a few words? "Working people as well as students (or "town and gown") both enjoy "punting" on the Cam, an activity where a flat-bottomed wooden boat (the punt) is propelled by pushing with a pole on the bottom of the river. There is a definite nack to this means of travel, and watching the many tourists attempting it is very entertaining. In recent years a highly profitable business has started up, with "punt touts" selling tickets for punt tours of the backs of the colleges, with a guide to push the boat and explain the sights. The touting can be very repetitive and persistent, and has led to complaints publicised in the local and national media. Prices are negotiable."

Hi - You are right. There is actually an article on punting that mentions the Cam, but there should be a link from here. What you have there look fine to me, so be bold and put it in the article. Any further tips on how to hack your way past the 'punt pimps' would be good too. -- Solipsist 10:43, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Avoidance Maneuvers

When one is traveling through Cambridge, you are sure to run into one the many 'punting pimps.' These are the young men and women who try to solicit punting tours to visitors. There are several ways to rid yourself of these reoccurring disturbances, and they are as follows:

1. Be Rude. Very few people can handle a rude tourist, and if you tell one of these map toting, flat hat wearing fellows to "shove off!" You are not likely to get bothered by any him/her, or any of their comrades within earshot.
2. Be Fast. When you see one of the sharks lock you in their gaze, pick up the pace. They can't talk to you if they can't catch you.
3. Be Comical. If you have several minutes to burn pretend to be hard of hearing, and misquote them every time they open their mouth. You can even try to act like you don't speak English. Cambridge has visitors from all over the world, simply mutter some gibberish under your breath and point at them with a confused grin on your face. They'll get the picture very quickly.
4. Be Honest. Simply tell them 'no,' and keep moving.
5. Go Incognito. These people are highly trained in the art of spotting tourists. If you can at any point, do not carry all 25 of your cameras around your neck and point at every tourist attraction in the city. This is also a good skill to use when wanting to avoid pickpockets and the likes.
6. Be Firm. No matter how you choose to go about ridding yourself of these persistent panhandlers, be firm and confident in your decision.

Touting Banned

The touts have now (or are about to be) banned by a Cambridge bylaw. Excellent! --Ceramic 07:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Market Hill

The square in the picture of the market (originally captioned "Market Square") is actually called Market Hill. "Hill" in this context referring to a open space -- a peculiar local term derived from an Anglo-Saxon word (I think). Can anyone confirm the origin of the term?

Good call. The naming was my mistake. -- Solipsist 07:10, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There's a book on Hobson's Conduit which gives this derivation of the word "Hill" (as an open space) in Cambridge streetnames. Another theory is that they literally were hills - areas of the town that were not liable to flooding in Saxon times. If you look at the locations of the old Saxon Churches, you will see that they tend to congregate on a ridge of land following Trumpington Street, where these hillocks were supposedly located. -- Bluap 11:54, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cycling

I've got to ask - which woods and Roman Roads is it recommended to cycle on? And should this information be in Wikipedia - it's not a tourist guide...

Typo

At the end of the History section is a sentence beginning "The University use a pseudo-Latin adjective cantabrigiensis..." Was that supposed to be "The University uses" or "The Universities use"?

Probably "the University uses" - JVG, from Cambridge 11:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. Stephen Turner 11:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

How far from London

Someone's changed it from 50 to 60 miles. I can say with reasonable certainty that the distance sign at the top of the M11 (near Junction 14, on the north-west fringe of Cambridge) gives a distance of 59 miles, but that includes all the turns the motorway makes, including a notable swing around Cambridge to it's south to meet the A11. The distance is probably about 55 miles (88.5km) from centre to centre, but can someone please check the distance "as the crow flies" - JVG 11:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course it depends where you think the centre of London is, but it's 49.8 miles from Christ's to Hyde Park Corner. I'll change it back. Stephen Turner 11:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure it is that important, but in any case distances in the UK are typically measured to the Eleanor Cross at Charing Cross (see Milestone). I can't give you the as-the-crow-flies distance (we have the coordinates for each location so someone should be able to calculate the geodesic), however using the shortest road route calculated by Multimap gives a distance of 59.3 miles. It looks fairly direct, so I doubt a crow would be able to shave more than a few percent less, so 60 miles seems a better rule of thumb than 50. -- Solipsist 12:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

From the front of Christ's to TQ302804 is 49.4 miles. (You'll be telling me it should be Great St Mary's next...). Stephen Turner 12:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, well come to think of it, that's where it does get more interesting. I used CB2 1AA which often gets taken as the centre of Cambridge, but actually appears to be on Regent Street. However, distances in Cambridge should indeed be measured from the west door of Great St Mary's Church (TL447585 apparently) on King's parade (as mentioned in the caption of the picture in the article) — I think the church is cited as a datum point in some University statutes. In 1725 William Warren from Trinity Hall errected the first milestones in Britain since the Romans left, starting at Great St Mary's and heading down Trumpington Road. There is a plaque on the side of the church and you can also find the first milestone opposite the end of Brooklands Avenue on Trumpington Road (for more see milestonesweb.com). ...well, you did ask :) -- Solipsist 14:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Then somewhere in Hertfordshire one of Dr Warren's milestones gives 37 m to London and 14 m to Cambridge, so yes 50 miles seems like the best bet, even for road distances. -- Solipsist 14:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Probably... 50 miles sounds about right. - JVG 14:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)::::

Skyline of Cambridge

What about the Catholic Church? (Sorry I can't remember its proper name)It's one of the tallest buildings in the centre of Cambridge. Carter Bridge is also tall enough to merit lights on at night.

--Two Tone 17:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It's called Our Lady & the English Martyrs, or OLEM or just the Catholic Church for short. However I don't know what Carter Bridge is. Ben Finn 18:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Carter Bridge is the red cycle bridge by the station. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, and I could be wrong, only the chimney of Addenbrookes is taller than the Catholic church. - JVG 11:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, the cranes building the new john Lewis, shops and car park have been dominating the sky line for quite some time now, not sure whether to add it or not.  Tiddly Tom  20:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Smoking

I have removed the following text:

A study by the consultancy firm CACI in 2004 named the postcode area
CB2 1, part of Cambridge city centre, as the "smoking capital" of the UK, as the
average resident in this area apparently spent more money on cigarettes than
those of any other region in the country, over 2 thousand
pounds per annum. The area is home to several of the
university's colleges, including Clare,
King's, Corpus Christi
and Trinity.

Let's face it - this text isn't particularly encyclopedic (and could easily be the result of dodgy statistics) Bluap 00:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

probably right - I'm sure I've read the same statistic about half a dozen other places(Tyne and Wear, Glasgow). Mammal4 17:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

King George's field

Where in Cambridge is the King George's field? It's not one I have ever heard of. Perhaps it's one of the college playing fields? --VinceBowdren 22:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. The List_of_King_George_V_Playing_Fields_(Cambridgeshire) page will also need updating when we do find it.

According to the map o the second page of [1] it is the playing fields in the centre of Byron Square, Trumpingdon. Bluap 16:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Notable Residents

I was hoping I could somehow get "radio guy" in notable residents, does anyone know his name? If you're from near Cambridge you should know who I'm talking about. He's a guy that's always biking around near the fudge kitchen and near the market with a radio on full blast, he always goes in circles, never get anywhere and his batteries never run out. anyone know who i mean? :p

KJ

Yeah, I know who you mean, but unless, say, the CEN wrote a story about him, it would be hard to find verifiable sources or to add him without doing original research. --Grouse 13:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Even if the CEN wrote a story about him, he still wouldn't be notable enough for inclusion in the article. Bluap 16:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree - definitley not notable enough. Maybe he powers the stereo from a dynamo on the bike, and thats why he keepscycling in circles? Mammal4 17:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This should be a dab

I think Cambridge, Massachusetts is equally notable as Cambridge, England, and that this article should be a disambiguation page. Cambridge, MA has as many people as Cambridge, England, and it is the home of Harvard University and MIT, which are two of the top schools in the US and are well known to people in other countries. I know that this is the original Cambridge, but I don't think that an article's precedence should be judged on chronology. Rather, it should be based on notability, which is why I think this should be a disambiguation page. I'm not advocating this for every British city that has an equivalent city in the US - just when they seem to have equal notability, as is the case here (and with Worcester, see Talk:Worcester). --Schzmo 02:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the criterion for a separate disambiguation page is notability, but "When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they realistically be expecting to view as a result." In most of the world, when people say "Cambridge" they mean the one in the UK. From my experiences in the U.S., in the northeast people might expect "Cambridge" to mean Cambridge, MA, but in the rest of the country an unqualified Cambridge is just as likely to mean the original Cambridge.--Grouse 06:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I can't disagree with you. Maybe it is because Harvard and MIT do not bear the name of "Cambridge" so people in other parts of the world would not know exactly where they are located. But in any case, I think there should be a link to Cambridge, Massachusetts along with the disambiguation page. --Schzmo 11:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Although I'm with you on Worcester, I got to disagree here. Maybe it's because the name of the university in England is also "Cambridge", but this is definitely the most well-known Cambridge to me. I hear/see Harvard and MIT attributed to Boston (as in the metro area) just as much as Cambridge. Kirjtc2 15:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This one should definitely stay. The number of people in Cambridge, MA is not relevant, but how well known the place is. JPD (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

CAMBRIDGE should be a DISAMBIG page!! Please don't let this opinion hurt your pride either. Cambridge University is more famous than this town and Cambridge Massachusetts is at least equally as famous... Whomever keeps on defending that queries for "Cambridge" should redirect here, you have a lot of hubris!!! Cambridge MASS (easily the most referred to Cambridge among Americans) and the university were named for this town, but they've both become at least as famous... Bring on a DISAMBIG page!!!

P.S. Same with queries for "Plymouth." It redirects to the British town, when an automaker, and an American Rock and town in Mass are at least as well-known.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.217.27 (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Festivals and events

This section on festivals and events seemed a bit thin to me. Although Wikipedia is not an events guide, I thought perhaps this section didn't give a full idea of the events in the city. I was proposing to add:

• Lent bumps
• May bumps
• Town bumps
• The Big Weekend
• Comedy Marquee
• Pink Festival

with a short description as per the other events. I was using the rough criteria that they are large, public, well-attended annual events that have been running for a number of years.

Not sure about adding London to Cambridge Bike Ride and Chariots of Fire run, probably not.

So I'm inviting comments on this. Rich257 20:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's hard for me to think that the last three mentioned are notable enough for inclusion. Personally I have never heard of the Pink Festival outside of previous efforts to include it here. --Grouse 22:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's debatable; certainly the bumps are significant events in Cambridge life, but they're mostly a university thing (and so deserve their existing mention in the university article more than they deserve one here). Rather than in the festivals section, rowing probably deserves a mention in the sport section - I believe (though don't have a referenceto hand) that participatory non-university rowing is unusually popular in Cambridge, even compared to similarly-sized cities with an equally suitable river. --VinceBowdren 23:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Really I think that the events section should be limited to events that Cambridge is particularly noted for, or that are unique to Cambridge. On that basis, the beer festival is already a bit dubious (CAMRA holds similar events all over the country). Apart from the bumps, I don't think any of the events listed above would make the grade. Surely the Comedy Marquee is considerably significant than the summer outdoor Shakespere festivals - and those are really just a long running commercial theatre.

The bumps are perhaps significant but probably ought to be mentioned in the sport section with a general expansion about rowing. We've already got quite a few articles on Bump (rowing) and related May Bumps, Lent Bumps and individual annual results articles. City rowing is indeed relatively popular. The Town Bumps follow the May Bumps by a week or two and have a similar number of teams competing. In fact it would be worth checking to see whether we haven't already had information on this that has been inadvertantly deleted. -- Solipsist 13:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

A14 talking point

The article contains an opinion that sounds like a Cambridge Evening News talking point

"The A14 is considered by many local people to be dangerous, and unnecessarily congested. This is particularly true of the section between Huntingdon and Cambridge where the east-west traffic is merged with the A1 to M11 north-south traffic on just a 2-lane dual carriageway."

That section has a dense flow of traffic for a non-urban route, but you are taking a subjective viewpoint if you talk it up to include words like "dangerous". The A14 is still pretty much a full speed route unless blocked by an accident on one particular day - compare very congested roads like the M25 or motorways around Birmingham. In the context, the statement reads like a warning to avoid the A when travelling to Cambridge, and that isn't good advice.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.138.244 (talk • contribs)

It also uses weasel words. Feel free to change it to something better. Grouse 23:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Football

I think the section on sport should mention Parker's piece and the innovative Cambridge rules of football. Most cities would be really proud if they had this history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.129.74.224 (talk • contribs).

Good idea, although I don't know enough about it. Do you want to add something? Or anyone else? Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've now noticed that it is already present in the section on "Beginnings of the University". Which is probably the wrong place — I'll move it. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Residents

Is the section on Notable Residents allowed to include people who used to live in Cambridge but no longer do? Someone just included Nick Hornby, who I'm fairly sure lives near Arsenal. I removed it, because I always assumed residents was for current residents (though Syd Barrett can't be counted in that category any more).

Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed the title to "Notable current residents." If we allowed past residents, it would be a very long list indeed. Best handle that through a list page or a category, such as Category:People from Cambridge. Grouse 15:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That sounds sensible. But does anyone know if all the people remaining on the list live in Cambridge currently? Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

university

are you going to talk about the two universities in Cambridge ? you have cambridge colleges making up a university and you have anglia ruskin university User:Jesselp 17:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Notable current residents

How can "the late Syd Barrett" possibly be a current resident? Is he buried in the city? And anyway does anyone care which notable people currently live in the city? Rich257 10:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

My worry is that if the list were anything like comprehensive, it would be unmanageably long. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you concuring with the idea of deleting this section? Rich257 10:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I am, yes. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree - these lists of notable residents are a pet peeve of mine. They are often contain many not very notable people with tenuous links to the placeMammal4 11:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted material

Have a read of this article, and then go and read the Cambridgeshire Tourist Guide, which is copyrighted (it says so at the bottom). Some of the text is exactly the same - who has copied whom, and what do we do about it if it is a breach of copyright on our behalf? -- Roleplayer 08:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

They've acknowledged Wikipedia at the bottom of their article, but they still need to include a link to the licence, I believe. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, their copyright notice on the page might be a bit confusing as they don't have the copyright on that text? Rich257 09:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There should be a separate copyright notice at the bottom of the right-hand column to make it clear. (I've also got a funny feeling that this is one of the sites that was spamming their link onto every article about every Cambridgeshire village a few months ago, but I could be wrong about that). Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Via Devana

The Via Devana goes to Chester, not Lincoln, but does it go through Cambridge? [2] -- 博 09:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the City Council [3], Huntingdon Road is on the line of the Via Devana. However, an article from the Cambridge University Press [4], [5] states: "It [Huntingdon Road etc.] is often called the Via Devana, but this is again a name mistakenly given by antiquarians who believed it was part ofa road that led from Colchester to Chester." --Heron 16:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, i could have been clearer: it isn't just the name i am questioning. If you look at that map (which i found on "Ermine Street"), C isn't even established as on the route. I propose we remove the claim. -- 博 06:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Districts

I have moved this section from the main page as I think it needs considerable revision before it can go in the article. Things that could be improved:

• Too vague or uninteresting, eg there are shops in the city centre, well kind of true if you ignore Grafton and Newmarket Road.
• It is 'unreferenced, especially considering statements like "large muslim community" and "Notorious among Cambridge residents as areas of high crime"
• What is the criteria for the areas? The city centre is divided into areas such as "Kite". Where is the whole of the west of Cambridge? Where's Romsey town? I though Cherry Hinton was south east rather than south. Grantchester isn't in Cambridge as far as I'm concerned, or if it is what about Milton, Girton, Trumpington
• A map showing the areas would make this much easier to interpret.

Rich257 20:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Districts

Like most European cities, Cambridge is roughly circular with the oldest buildings in the City Centre and various modern estates around the edge.

City Centre

Home to the majority of the Colleges, and a large amount of tourist attractions and shops. Most punt outlets run from locations within the City Centre.

Petersfield

Residential district divided by Mill Road, a cultural area well known for its shisha bars, internet cafes and Turkish, Arabic and East Asian supermarkets. Since the area has a large muslim communtiy the area is also home to the Abu Bakr Mosque. Many of the shops and bars remain open well into the night.

Grantchester & Newnham

Located across the river from the City Centre, Newnham is home to the famous Backs. Grantchester is further on from Newnham and has more of a village feel to it despite being within Cambridge. Many tourists travel upriver to Grantchester by punt and visit the orchard, a famous haunt of Rupert Brooke.

Arbury, East Chesterton & King's Hedges

Resisdential areas to the north side of the city, mainly consisting of council houses and flats constructed in the 1960's and 70's. Notorious among Cambridge residents as areas of high crime.

Cherry Hinton

Residential area to the south of the city. Home to the grounds of Cherry Hinton Hall, where the famous Cambridge Folk Festival is held every year. The rest of Cherry Hinton mainly consists of council housing, and is also home to a fairly large amount of crime.

• Thanks, Rich. What about Romsey, for that matter, or West Chesterton, or Castle ward? And it's all a bit POV at the moment. A section on the areas of the city is not a bad idea, but it would have to be comprehensive, and less anecdotal. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Many of these "districts" already have their own Wikipedia articles, for example: Cherry Hinton, Grantchester, Newnham, King's Hedges, Chesterton; there are probably others. These articles variously call the locations "districts", "towns", "villages", or "suburbs". They probably need to be reviewed and updated to be consistent. I don't see the point in repeating this information in the Cambridge article – a link to these articles is all that's required. -- MightyWarrior 09:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The bit about Arbury is hilarious, the crime rates may be high by snooty "detached from reality" cambridge standards, but in reality they are still low, unless not doffing your hat to passing ladies is a crime. --212.159.16.241 (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm adding a small start on districts back into the article because I've found a source regarding Kite, Fitroy etc. These areas are very confusing and I think it would be interesting if we could get the section expanded. I'm hoping with a citation this will be a more structured stub to work from. 83.244.153.18 (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

DNA

I don't know if this has been mentioned before butI think there should be some reference to the fact that Watson and Crick worked out the structure of DNA in Cambridge.

It is one of the biggest discoveries in history.

Tobyjay 11:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The electron was also discovered in the same building about 50 years earlier! But I'm more inclined to think it belongs in the University of Cambridge article. We can't really do justice to the extent of the university's achievements in this article, and don't want to try and duplicate everything which is in the university's article. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Transport

Hi. After reading the section on transport, I see no mention of the guided bus or the congestion charge. I am not confided with my level of English to write it into the article, could anyone else? Thanks.  Tiddly Tom  20:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Uniracial vs Multiracial Cambridge

This is in danger of descending into an edit war, so let's discuss it first. In my opinion, the recent comments by user 212.159.16.241 were clearly showing a point of view; here's my 2pworth on what we should and should not include:

• No referring to a 'lack' (or the opposite, an excess) of any ethnic group.
• No cherry-picking items from the census. Obviously we can't include all the census data, but we have to have a representative overview of the main census data items.
• No comparisons to a national average (presumably the mean). Towns and cities across the UK vary enormously in their ethnic makeup for historical and geographical reasons, and a single average figure is not very meaningful.
• Valid comparisons might include:
  • e.g. if Cambridge is more multicultural than similar UK cities without a university, and we have a reference arguing that this is due to the university's influence, let's state that.
  • e.g. if Cambridge has a lower percentage of particular ethnic groups compared to similar cities in similar geographic locations (and again we have a suitable reference) then let's state that.

--VinceBowdren (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I broadly agree, except I think stating the national average is helpful. Who knows whether 27.6% of manual workers is high or low? The notion of trying to compare with "similar cities" instead is, I suggest, a dead end. Every city has exceptional circumstances. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the point of view that Cambridge is very white and middle class, in the same way I have a point of view that rubies are red. I don't see what was wrong with what I put; the national average is surely representative. And at least I had a source, unlike the 'multicultural' section. If the uniracial section goes, so should the 'multicultural' one (as it has). What I don't understand is why you guys seem to being trying to hide cambridge's "dirty little secret". It's just a fact isn't it? But yes, let's continue to keep it amiable, I won't edit war. --212.159.16.241 (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Cambridge is actually 321st out of 376 local authorities in England and Wales for proportion of white people.^[6] Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes but there are lots of local authorities with about 3 people in them. Comparison to the national average is less misleading. You still haven't answered why y'all want to make out that Cambridge is some cosomopolitan "rainbow city" or something. --212.159.16.241 (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The way you picked out only a few census facts to point out how white and middle-class Cambridge is struck me as a breach of WP:NPOV#Undue weight, and the critical tone of your comments objectionable. Imagine if somebody wrote of Newham borough 'there is, especially, a lack of white british people' - it would rightly be taken as offensive. As for the white middle-classness; well, yes. The historical norm for british places is to be white-dominated; and a city like Cambridge (small, provincial, university-dominated) being mostly white and middle-class is exactly what you'd expect and doesn't really need such emphasis (nor is it anybody's dirty little secret). --VinceBowdren (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "points of view". Or should we also mention the point of view that Cambridge is full of black people (is anyone that deluded?)?? And your idea of comparing it to "similar cities" is laughable - by definition they'd just be similar! It's true though, that I didn't mention other aspects, for instance that Cambridge has a higher proportion (4.75 times) of Chinese people. Perhaps adding that sort of thing add some balance would mean the section could return? And yes, I picked out the relevant census data, of course. Did you expect me to mention how people travel to work when looking at Cambridge's racial makeup? The reason my comments were critical is because I was criticising an incorrect aspect of the article! And saying (rightly) that Cambridge is not very cosmopolitan is not wrong, and certainly not worse than pretending it's some kind of wonderful mix of all different races and classes living in harmony. --212.159.16.241 (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Draft for population §

OK everyone, here's a draft for the § on ethnic make-up of University/town, before it gets too crazy on the article page.

In the 2001 Census, 89.44% of Cambridge residents identified themselves as white, compared with a national average of 92.12%.<ref>Office For National Statistics 2001 Census (Ethnic group, Cambridge local authority)</ref> Within the University, 84% of undergraduates and 80% of post-graduates identify as white (including overseas students).<ref>[http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/press/factsheets/ethnicity.html Univeristy of Cambridge Fact Sheet: Ethnicity], retrieved 17 January 2008</ref>

If there's a significant ethnicity other than white, that should get a separate ref, but bland comments like "not many black people" are true but pointless, given the national averages.

I've used the "including overseas students" figure here, because this article is about the town, and gives an idea of who you'll see in the street. Detailed comments about ethnic make-up of the University, admissions, schools outreach, etc, should be at the University of Cambridge article (which does need this added. Target has been going for decades).

Anon, pls don't ref things "ibid" - it's not good on WP where people might reorder your sentences. Use:

<ref name = "Census">FULL REF</ref>

the first time, then just

<ref name = "Census"/>

thereafter. Cheers, JackyR | Talk 23:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks reasonable. I would add "(held during University term)" immediately after "2001 Census". Bluap (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, plus lk for white people. JackyR | Talk 19:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW where did you get 92.12% as the national average of white ppl? I make it 90.92% (from (42,747,136+624,115+1,308,110)/49,138,831 = 0.9092475... (from table ks06).--212.159.16.241 (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

E.g., http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=273.

I've reverted back to the agreed version. Please get consensus on changes here first. In particular, the reference from the University of Oxford only refers to first year undergraduates in 2002. Stephen Turner (Talk) 03:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

We should use gov't-calculated figures as much as possible, as our own calculations will suffer rounding errors (and from any omissions in a particular table). Annoyingly, I can't view table ks06 without a down-load, but it's no more recent than the gov't-calculated http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=273. I will add the latter as a ref if there are no objections.

Anon, you added the following:

There are very few black people in Cambridge, however, and the proportion of ethnic minority students is somewhat lower than that of Oxford, and greatly lower than some London universities, such as King's and LSE.

Can you explain why you choose to highlight specifically black people (as opposed to, say, Chinese people, whom you identify above as being significantly more than the national average in Cambridge and therefore an interesting figure)? Because to the reader this looks like intentional UNbalance - particularly with that phrasing. JackyR | Talk 23:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that anon's percentages above (ie the 90.9%) are based on the figures for England, rather than the national figures for the UK. (For example, see [7].) Bluap (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

When it says "within the university" which one does it mean? What about the other one?81.102.15.200 (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

From memory, the 2001 Census was held during term-time for both Cambridge University and Anglian Polytechnic University (it's probably worth double-checking the date). This may (or may not) be important, but I think that the potential impact of students on the census figures is worth being explicit about the term-time status. Bluap (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the reference is a University of Cambridge factsheet, I would presume it's the more famous one rather than Anglia Ruskin or the two combined. - JVG (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well found, Bluap. So we can use absolute rather than rounded figures for calcs, and be explicit about Eng&Wal vs UK. And indeed which uni.

By the way, what's actually the point of this section? That might make things clearer. Originally there was stuff about different cultural/religious groups. 212.159.16.241 removed this three times [8][9][10], adding comments about ethnicity instead. My own feeling is that, to give a snapshot of a town it is valid to include info about economic groups, cultural groups, ethnicity and indeed place of birth, and to compare that to a) a national figure and possibly b) a local/county figure (Cambridge city is probably quite different in make-up from the villages around it). CU is worth mentioning as an obvious influence on this; we could find out if Anglia Ruskin University acts similarly or is primarily a "local area" university. But please let's DISCUSS this - anons, this includes you. Cheers, JackyR | Talk 17:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

London overspill

I put a tag here because I wondered if it was actually true. Were Arbury and Kings Hedges estates planned for 'London overspill', ie was Cambridge a designated 'expanded town' under the Town Development Act 1952? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.15.200 (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the river called?

I was looking for a quick answer to this question. The name of the river that Cambridge is on, should appear in the first paragraph. --86.136.179.179 (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Its the Cam. As in, Cam-Bridge. Though apparently it used to be called the Granta William M. Connolley (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

My understanding (which may be inaccurate) is that it was called the Granta, and Cambridge known as (something like) Granta-bridge, then when the town became known as Cambridge, the river changed to the Cam as a back-formation. Regardless, it's known as the Cam now, although usually as the Granta upstream from the town. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this is highlighted by the fact that people from Cambridge are referred to as Cantabrigians, which shows that 'Grantabridge' first became 'Cantabridge' on it's way to becoming 'Cambridge'. Pontificalibus (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Duroliponte

I have removed the sentence citing the Anglo-Saxons as the first to mention a bridge at Cambridge. The preceding paragraph gives the Roman name for Cambridge as Duroliponte. Pons, pontis is the latin for bridge. Please do correct me if I am wrong. Susanna144 (talk) 07:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not certain that Duroliponte is actually the roman name for Cambridge. From memory, the only mention of Duroliponte is in a list of towns that you pass through on a certain marching route. It's also unlikely that the Romans had a bridge at Cambridge - it's more likely that there was a ford. (For example, the current site of the bridge is slight off the roman road. This is typical when people built a bridge parallel to an existing ford.) The most likely time for the first bridge to be built is in the time of Offa. Bluap (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Cambridge in Literature and Film: in Cambridge vs. in the University

Regarding the change http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cambridge&diff=next&oldid=262323309

I'm not sure that I agree that something should not be mentioned in the 'Cambridge' article, just because it is set in a college or other part of the university. Such a distinction isn't necessarily an easy one (I haven't read any of the books in question, but I find it hard to believe that there is no action whatsoever away from university buildings) - nor in my view a helpful one to someone reading this article wanting to find out about books featuring Cambridge. Therefore I'd suggest reverting this change, but I wondered what other people thought. The Stumo (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I made the edit, removing only those works that I believe to be set in the University, which is in many ways distinct from the city. Perhaps the best compromise would be a note to also see University of Cambridge#Literature and popular culture. Dancarney (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking for some time that this change would be useful. Otherwise we end up duplicating the whole of University of Cambridge#Literature and popular culture, which seems rather pointless. We should point to that article though. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)