Talk:Oxbridge/Archive 2006-8

message: Quote: "In both places students enjoy punting, although the punter stands at the opposite end of the boat in the two cities."
Not only is the second half trivia, but the sentance currently resides in a section headed with "Collegiate structure" which is surely inappropriate?  I recommend it is moved or deleted.
Also are not punts used elsewhere and would a survey of global direction of usage reveal if there is an anomaly in usage at one of the universities?
Mu2 10:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punting directionality sentance in wrong place? 

message: I'm a little unsure about the line in the second paragraph:
: "Oxford is the older of the two (and some equate this with more prestigious)"
People have different opinions on Oxford and Cambridge, but im not sure many would consider Oxford's greater age as a major factor...
I'd be interested to hear opinions on this.
: Age is normally (although not always) linked to prestige. One of Oxford and Cambridge's main boasts is that they are two of the oldest universities in the world, and I suppose Oxford has the slight edge in that it can say it is the oldest in the English-speaking world (having to claim you're second at anything isn't so desirable).
: I live in England, so maybe I'm not too objective, but I've always had the impression that people from other countries see England as a place obsessed with tradition, so they assume our oldest university would naturally be the best.
:: Ok, fair point but... I'm also in England, and don't feel that too many lay-people actually can make a distinction between them...I don't believe the main Oxbridge boast is their age (although this is significant). If age were the main thing then people would probably consider the ancient Scottish universities in approximately the same category (as they are all over 500 years old) but this is not so - many newer universities are considered superior. Both universities (Oxbridge) have made huge contributions to academic development and this is what makes them prestigious. The mass of good work on both sides I think cancells the extra 80 years or so that Oxford has.
:: Thanks
::: The first medical school in Europe was at Aberdeen Uni so there.
::: Well, you're certainly right that age isn't the only factor that contributes to prestige. I'll admit I have a Cambridge bias in any case. Most laypeople probably don't distinguish between the two universities.
:: I'm afriad I am similarly biased (as you've probably realised), which is why I didn't simply edit the article...anyway, its nice article all in all.
::: Heh...thanks. I thought we were pretty subtle about which side we were on.
We at the Sorbonne find these dispute between young upstarts rather endearing Rhinoracer 13:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relative age a factor? 

message: Speaking of ... is it true that they're quite insistent on their respective Latin pronunciations esp of the u/v? ie one is adamant on veenee veedee veechee and the other weenie weedy weechy? =) I forget which bit of Britcom I got that from ... 142.177.15.145 03:06, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "Linguistic differences"

message: "Oxford students nickname their Cambridge counterparts "Tabs", short for Cantabrigians...although the term is meant to be derogatory, it is unclear how this is implied by the word. In turn, Cantabrigians sometimes refer to Oxford as being 'a complete dump'."
Another great passage from the Wiki Wonder Web :-)
: Indeed. Also, anyone who thinks we 'Tabs' do not have a return name for Oxford is dreaming. We're far more straight forward - they're the Scum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.226.61 (talk) , at 01:12, 20 March 2006
: I wonder if the "complete dump" phrase is taken from Blackadder, or whether it was included in Blackadder because it's common in Cambridge...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.173.227 (talk) 09:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicknames 

message: What about the time when some Oxford johnny sent thieving troops from Oxford to Trinity Cambridge to steal their silver instead.  I think they were Royalist troops if my memory serves me right.  Such rivalry surely deserves a mention, as virtually the rest of the article is contemporary rivalry.  I am not up with the facts though, so if someone else could oblige....--JRL 14:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I recall that in the late 17th and 18th century Oxford was generally High Church, Jacobite and Tory whilst Cambridge was more tolerant of dissenters, Hanoverian and Whig. Are you sure Cambridge rather than Oxford was more Royalist during the Civil War? In any case the association of the two with different sides during key parts of the country's history is clearly notable - does anyone know enough to enhance the article? Timrollpickering 12:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Likewise, I've read that 14th-century popes tended to side with Cambridge, because of Oxford's association with John Wycliffe Bluap 16:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil War 

message: The article states: "This type of teaching is not unique to Oxford and Cambridge (despite their claims that it is)". Where else, then? This is a bit POV unless justified, I think... Steve Roberts 23:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tutorials/Supervisions unique to Oxbridge? 

message: Car Factory? I've never ever heard the Cotswolds Poly/the Other Place/the Dark Side described as such, and have been here for three years... the three terms I used in this message are in general use, so would there be strong objections if I returned them to the page? MikeMorley 19:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm worried that this section is becoming a vehicle to insult each other. Everyone seems to want to insert any transient insult that they've heard recently, although I suspect most of them haven't gained general currency. There never has been a standard Cambridge slang for Oxford, as far as I'm aware, although people seemed determined to include several in the article. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: ...And it's just got worse again. I propose to delete this section entirely. I think it's unsalvageable. Any agreement/dissent? Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've been bold and deleted it. It could perhaps be restored if it could be made neutral, sourced and unattractive to vandals. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insults... 

message: I would like to propose merging Oxbridge and Oxbridge rivalry.  Currently, there is a lot of overlap between the two pages, with Oxbridge rivalry actually being more about the similarity between the two universities, and how they differ from other UK universities (material which is probably better placed in Oxbridge).  I would suggest using Oxbridge rivalry as the basis of the merged article, but that the article be located at Oxbridge. Bluap 13:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this proposed merge. Rivalry should be a section of the Oxbridge article. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There being no objections, I have performed this merge Bluap 11:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Why are half-blues mentioned, but not full blues?  Saccerzd 15:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full Blues 

message: Am I the only person to notice that TSP is a Doxbridge graduate but not an Oxbridge graduate, and has also been heavily involved in the durham students' union, and thus should be considered highly biased? Gangeska
: No - as you will see from the discussion I had on my talk page with Cantabrigian Sjb90, he and other editors have been perfectly well aware of this fact.  However, as I have been arguing throughout based on the facts of the case, who I am should be irrelevant.  In addition, while there was significant (and justified) dispute over the original wording of the Doxbridge section of this article when it was merged, at least three other non-Durhamite editors, including 62.253.64.15 who originally proposed the VfD, have expressed their approval of the current draft.  TSP 10:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "camperial" - show a source please? 62.253.64.14 22:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are a few Google hits - I was basing it off this message board, which is one of the things I stumbled across when I was trying to establish if Doxbridge was in real use.  It does not seem to be in real-life use, but I wondered if some balance to 'Doxbridge' was required by mentioning that other combinations had been proposed (though Doxbridge is in live usage, at least as the name of a sports tournament, where the others do not seem to be. TSP 23:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes - I followed the link and found two students in a blog using the term. No more makes it a "current term" than my use of Dhavard a few minutes before to my cat (and I did use it to my cat so by your logic it would seem to be a term in current usage). Doxbridge is pretention of the first order - while I have no objection to its use for the sporting event - the sentence about "feeling in common" is just nonsense. I may feel like I have a lot in common with The Queen - doesn't mean I get to sit in the royal box at ascot, 'cus she dont feel nothing in common with me! 62.253.64.14 23:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's more than one Google hit for 'Camperial'; as I said, it's not a term in current usage; but it is something that has been proposed outside of Wikipedia.  If you don't think the mention is appropriate, please feel free to remove it again, but please don't make bad-faith edits parodying it (see this guideline).  As far as Doxbridge goes - fine, please do rephrase it differently; but please avoid (a) breaking the Neutral Point of View policy, (b) implying that this is a phrase solely in aspirational use at Durham (because this has been shown not to be the case), (c) stating that the term refers solely to a sporting event (there are other uses, though this is by far the most common) or (d) removing the mention completely (because Doxbridge has been redirected here after VfD did not reach concensus to delete).  TSP 23:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  "implying that this is a phrase solely in aspirational use at Durham (because this has been shown not to be the case)," - other than the sports event - where? 62.253.64.14 23:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  On a quick glance I see the Doxbridge Rag Jailbreak, an entirely unrelated event.  Excluding the tournament does indeed show very few uses - at Durham as much as at Oxford or Cambridge (as I keep saying, there seems to be no evidence that this is a phrase Durham students use to a greater extent than Oxford or Cambridge ones - I've been at Durham for 7 years and have barely heard it either); but there are a few, so it does seem to be the case that it is simply an uncommon word used for the few occasions where Oxford, Cambridge and Durham all do things together.  TSP 00:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text:  With the very greatest of respect this is entirely on a par with my using "Dharvard" to my cat. 62.253.64.14 00:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  A well-publicised collaborative event organised between official student organisations of the three universities referred to is of equal value in demonstrating use of a term to a statement that someone once said the word in the absence of any other people?  TSP 00:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks - we got to something good in the end, I think.  A lot of the credit should go to  User:213.48.162.7, who turned up from somewhere with a lot of good material on the term Oxbridge which has put the whole thing into a much better context. TSP 16:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding of Doxbridge - and this is all or mainly based on what a Durham student who I interned with once told me (I think) - is that Durham is associated with Oxbridge as an uni with an old-fashioned reputation for have an "upper-class"/"toff" flavour to it i.e. Upper class kids who couldn't get into Oxbridge had Durham as their main English fall-back (I suppose the other fall-back would be St. Andrew's in Scotland). Like, current formal halls at Durham are supposed to have in general more of a traditionalist air than ones at Oxbridge (my Durham friend told me that singing the national anthem/toasting the Queen sometimes occurs at Durham formal halls, but this is unheard of at Oxbridge.). And "Doxbridge" comes from sporting and social events held between the uh, "toffs" of the three universities. Anyway, basically hearsay but perhaps someone can come up with refs. Bwithh 18:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Incidentally - Doxbridge Tournament?? Bwithh 20:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't mind the current version which says, roughly, "other portmanteaux are occasionally derived from Oxbridge, such as Doxbridge and Loxbridge, but have not achieved widespread use". That seems pretty accurate to me. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just to point out that I have already linked above to the Doxbridge Rag Jailbreak, another event, organised between recognised student organisations of the three universities and unrelated to the tournament, using the term 'Doxbridge'.  I also note that the Durham Union Society says on its webpage that it is debating 'Doxbridge' this term, and the 'Icons' website mentions it in its writeup on Oxbridge.  So, an obscure term, yes; 'no evidence ... apart from hearsay', no. TSP 11:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've rewritten the paragraph again, making it absolutely clear that such words as Doxbridge and Loxbridge are used for a small number of specific events, and are not in general use. I think the new version agrees with your view of the status of these terms. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doxbridge 

message: The text says:
:In the Times Higher Education Supplement's university league table Cambridge and Oxford are ranked respectively as the second and third best universities in the world. In a survey in which 3,703 academics worldwide were asked to name up to 30 universities which they considered the best research institutions in their field, Cambridge came first, and Oxford second, leaving Harvard - which tops the overall table - in third place.
An anonymous editor added this question, which I'm moving to the talk page:
:This is unclear. In which estimation is Harvard ranked first and in which survey are Oxford and Cambridge ranked higher than Harvard? Is the Times supplement different from the survey of 3,703 academics? If not, please make this clear and tell us the survey's name.
For what it's worth, I agree. The BBC article cited doesn't seem much more clear either. Does anyone have a better reference?
Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cambridge and Oxford came first and second in the academic peer review section of the THES World University Rankings 2006 (Available here directly from THES). This was the survey of 3,703 professional academics internationally who were asked to name the top institutions in their own field. In the overall ranking, which combines the peer review survey score with other factors such as academic-to-student ratios, graduate employer opinions etc etc, Harvard came first, Cambridge 2nd, Oxford 3rd.  The academic peer review section is given the heaviest weighting (50%) in the scoring, but there were several other factors. The paragraph is not structured clearly, but its basic information is correct. Bwithh 10:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, thank you. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey confusion 

message: OXBRIDGE COOPERATION - plagiarism
The content for this part of the article seems to have been directly plagiarised from:
http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/oxbridge-rivalry/oxbridge-cooperation.html
:You're right and I have now removed the section. Many thanks. asyndeton 13:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think that site is copied from here. I've reinstated it. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-merge topics 

message: There has been a long running debate over the relationship between this article and Oxbridge rivalry.  Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxbridge to get some idea of the relevant history before making major changes. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And also read the merger proposal above - the two articles had been merged last October, before an anon reverted the change (without discussion) this June.   It's possible that two article are warrented, but if so, then a lot of the material in Oxbridge rivalry actually belongs in this article. Bluap (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  First of all this article is about the portmanteau and its origins; it's not an in-depth synthesis of original thought regarding the ins and outs of university rivalry just as we don't have articles on, say, the rivalry between University of Liverpool and Liverpool John Moores University or any other number of possible combinations. Second, the AfD discussion indicated a consensus for keeping the two articles separate: part of the problem with the article was the swathe of WP:OR which surrounded the rivalry content. Consensus can change, but if the two are merged again it's likely that another AfD will be proposed to tackle the problem. ColdmachineTalk 14:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The articles merged in October 2007, and the combined article faced an AfD started by Coldmachine.  The consensus was for keep, but with a strong side-order of trim agressively and/or split.  This was implemented by Smerus in March, effectively undoing the original merge.  I am confused by the references above to "an anon reverted the change (without discussion) this June" which I can't place.  Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Look at the history of Oxbridge rivalry Bluap (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

text:  Thanks; I think I now understand.  The heavy trim by Smerus wiped out most of the merged material, but didn't move it back anywhere.  The anon user simply recreated the old Oxbridge rivalry so that the text would be available somewhere for future work.  Seems like the people with WP:OR concerns either didn't notice this recreation or didn't care as long as it was hived off. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  And then N3r9 effectively re-did the same merge as I did back in October.  And we're now half-way through a repeat of the cycle.  Bluap (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

text:  Exactly so. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

text:  Ah, I didn't have the other article on my watch list else I'd have noticed this sooner. I've no problem with properly sourced material going into Oxbridge rivalry provided it meets WP:V and the other content policies and also avoids the all-too-easy synthesis of OR problems which are endemic to the subject matter. The revert which Jonathan A Jones made here on Oxbridge meets with my endorsement. Meanwhile the content which was removed could go back on Oxbridge rivalry and be tagged for citation requests where necessary or trimmed aggressively where it fails on WP:OR etc. ColdmachineTalk 19:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxbridge and Oxbridge rivalry