Talk:University of Cambridge

message: In a pretty thorough review and edit of this important page, I noticed two consistent errors that I have corrected but that should be avoided in the future: 
First, the name of the university is the University of Cambridge. It's true that it's often referred to colloquially as Cambridge University, but that is not its name. The article included both the University of Cambridge and Cambridge University, and I standardized it as the University of Cambridge when the full name is referenced or warranted. "Cambridge" also should generally be avoided, I think, so there is no confusion between the university and the city. 
Second, for whatever reason, there was an excessive and inappropriate use of italics throughout the article when either the phrase alone required either no qualification or quotes were what was needed. Latin words should be italicized. Names of works of art, like paintings, movies, and book titles should be in italics, and very little else. 
Just two observations from the several hours I spent in reviewing and editing the page. It was already very fact-based, which I am sure represents some great contributions by many, and most of my edits were grammatical, organizational, and stylistic. It now is not just factually on target but also vastly more readable. This is a very globally significant university that has made substantial contributions over, incredibly, 800+ years. I personally learned a lot in going through it. Thanks to all who have contributed to what I think now represents a very well done page.  HarvardStuff (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As has been mentioned elsewhere, the form "Cambridge University" is used in many formal contexts, including the University's own official social media and many of its institutions (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge University Library, etc).  If you can find an independent source, such as the University's branding documentation, deprecating the form "Cambridge University", then this argument has some merit.  Otherwise it's your own preference elevated without warrant into a principle, and doesn't constitute an obligation on any other editor. —VeryRarelyStable 02:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two errors to avoid 

message: How vague are these entries allowed to be?
We can't possibly include every mention of appearance, and a number of recent additions don't seem to be "notable" enough for me Spike 'em (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture... 

message: At the moment, the article has a single ranking in the first paragraph – the one most favourable to Cambridge. This breeches WP:NPOV. This ranking is also refactored to give a ranking inside Europe rather than over the region for which it was calculated, again breaching WP:NPOV (and giving a number more favourable to Cambridge). Finally, analysis of rankings by Wikipedians to determine that a university is "prestigious" is WP:OR. To remedy the imbalance, it would be necessary to give rankings that "represent a comprehensive cross-section of major rankings by national and international publications" (WP:UNIGUIDE), without drawing conclusions beyond the placing given by the rankings. However, making the first paragraph of the article mostly rankings would be WP:UNDUE, and thus also unacceptable. There is unlikely to be any solution that maintains the rankings in their current position. Robminchin (talk) 03:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Turning the first paragraph into a refbombed list of rankings is completely excessive. Spike 'em (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is why the rankings shouldn't be in the first paragraph. Robminchin (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a brief mention later in the lead is justified, rather than complete removal. I would ditch the mention of Silicon Fen and the BioMed centre from the lead, as the text there is about the same size as the coverage further down the article. Spike 'em (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Possibly somewhere in the lead, but it's hard to make it a brief mention and maintain balance as it needs to be a sample of global and national rankings so the first paragraph is pretty much ruled out. Simply referring to 'major publications' doesn't work as that's culturally-informed (a US reader, for example, would probably assume this to include the US News global rankings). Most UK universities don't mention rankings in the lead. Robminchin (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

text:  I've put the text with the full description of the rankings from the UK rankings infobox in the last paragraph of the lead, where it is far less intrusive (I didn't include references, as these can be easily found in the body of the article so aren't necessary here), and deleted the two items you mentioned to keep the size of the lead down. Hopefully this will work as a solution. Robminchin (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

text:  certainly looks better. Spike 'em (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And I've reverted it back to this version. This does not belong in first sentence Spike 'em (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rankings in the first paragraph 

message: The introduction to this article long-referenced that it was one of the world's oldest and most prestigious institutions, and it did that without reference to any of the independent rankings that contributed to that prestige. In my own edits, I sought to bolster the claim by adding the current QS World University Rankings and its most iconic alumni. When one edit suggested that the QS ranking was "cherry picking" (which it isn't, since it is ranked similarly highly presently and previously by the other two major independent rankings), I added the other two (ARWU and Times Higher Education). I've omitted historical rankings, where it has sometimes been ranked as the best university in the world, though that is likely notable.
For the purposes of the intro, the point is this: What are the most notable aspects about this university? Three things: The first is that it is among the oldest (third-oldest) continuously operated university in the world. The second is that is routinely ranks among the best universities in the world by major independent ranking services. The third is that it educated some transformational and iconic historical individuals, which we've singled out in the intro. The first paragraph should make mention to these first two points: its 800-plus year history and the significance of that (as it does currently), and some reference to its global prestige, which is accomplished by either referencing generically that it is ranked among the best and sometimes the best university in the world (along with references) but no specific ranking listed, or listing its current ranking by QS, which is the gold standard of rankings, or all three if necessary. There are three possible suggested options. But the prestige/ranking of the university is its most notable aspect and should not be buried at the bottom of the intro and the intro is certainly not the place to reference every rating, including rankings that do not carry the global credibility attached to QS and, to a lesser but still notable extent, ARWU and Times Higher Education. HarvardStuff (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You can reference all the major rankings, or you can not mention them. If you just pick out the ones you like, e.g. just QS or just global rankings, that's cherry-picking. If you want to mention prestige, you need good references that actually back up any statement you want to make by explicitly reaching that conclusion. Cambridge was considered a great university well before rankings came along, so the idea that its ranking position is one of the most notable aspects does not seem particularly persuasive. Robminchin (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll repost below my proposed introduction, which makes no reference to any specific ranking service but uses the interlink to the aggregated listing of global rankings. When the three most widely regarded ranking services were listed, I ensured that they were properly referenced. In your edits adding a much longer list, which include less notable ranking services that do not belong in the intro and may not even belong in the article, you have no references. So there is no cherry-picking here and the word "prestige" or "prestigious" did not exist in my edit that you reference. Here is what I believe is a substantial improvement to what exists currently and avoids any of the issues you raise. HarvardStuff (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  The inclusion of a generic statement on rankings, based only on global rankings synthesized by Wikipedia editors is absolutely WP:OR, and the omission of national rankings is absolutely cherry picking; the rankings given in the infobox for UK university rankings represent consensus on the important rankings. References do not have to be given in the lead to items referenced in the article, as are all of the teachings. The placement of a long list of alumni in the second paragraph is giving this undue weight. The lead is supposed to summarise the article, so alumni should be mentioned at the end, as they are in the body of the article. Indeed, WP:UNIGUIDE suggests that "Individual notable alumni should be mentioned only in extraordinary cases". Overall, your draft reads like an advert for Cambridge rather than an encyclopedia article. Robminchin (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's deal first with the content below. Is there anything factually inaccurate about it?  HarvardStuff (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: This has been (correctly) flagged by  as needing a citation. It seems the general theme that Cambridge has been accused of undertaking Iranian weapons research is from an investigation by the Jewish Chronicle earlier this year, reported in (among other places) the Telegraph ] and Varsity. However, the specifics are not bourn out by these – there are 11 universities accused, not just Cambridge, and it is Imperial that is said to have worked on drone engines and Cranfield that is said to have worked on fuzzy logic. 
It looks like the text was added by an IP user the day after the article appeared. It seems likely that they mis-interpreted everything as having been done by Cambridge (the Varsity article identifies the Cambridge research as being on graphene and superconductors). For now, I've reduced it to a couple of verifiable sentences – but I think it's worth considering whether inclusion of this is WP:DUE. Robminchin (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iranian collaboration