Talk:University of Cambridge

Popular culture...

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)

Rankings in the first paragraph

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)

Turning the first paragraph into a refbombed list of rankings is completely excessive. Spike 'em (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

This is why the rankings shouldn't be in the first paragraph. Robminchin (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

certainly looks better. Spike 'em (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

Intro

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)

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)

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)

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)

Let's deal first with the content below. Is there anything factually inaccurate about it? HarvardStuff (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The University of Cambridge is a public collegiate research university in Cambridge, England. Founded in 1209, the University of Cambridge is among the oldest and most highly-ranked universities in the world.

Cambridge alumni and faculty have won 121 Nobel Prizes, the most of any university in the world, according to the university. Among the university's notable alumni are 47 heads of state, 14 British prime ministers, 11 Field Medalists, seven Turing Award winners, 194 Olympic medal-winning athletes, and several historically iconic and transformational individuals in their respective fields, including Francis Bacon, Lord Byron, Oliver Cromwell, Charles Darwin, Stephen Hawking, John Maynard Keynes, John Milton, Vladimir Nabokov, Jawaharlal Nehru, Isaac Newton, Bertrand Russell, Alan Turing, and Ludwig Wittgenstein.

The university's founding followed the arrival of scholars who left the University of Oxford for Cambridge after a dispute with local townspeople. The two ancient English universities, although sometimes described as rivals, share many common features and are often jointly referred to as Oxbridge. In 1231, 22 years after its founding, the university was recognised with a royal charter granted by King Henry III.

The University of Cambridge includes 31 semi-autonomous constituent colleges and over 150 academic departments, faculties, and other institutions organised into six schools. All of the colleges are self-governing institutions within the university, managing their own personnel and policies, and all students are required to have a college affiliation within the university. Undergraduate teaching at Cambridge is centred on weekly small-group supervisions in the colleges with lectures, seminars, laboratory work, and occasionally further supervision provided by the central university faculties and departments.

The university also operates eight cultural and scientific museums, including the Fitzwilliam Museum and Cambridge University Botanic Garden. Cambridge's 116 libraries hold a total of approximately 16 million books, around nine million of which are in Cambridge University Library, a legal deposit library and one of the world's largest academic libraries.

References

Iranian collaboration

This has been (correctly) flagged by GunnarBonk 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,[1] reported in (among other places) the Telegraph [2]] and Varsity.[3] 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)

Endowment size

Pinging @Wealthofnation and EmyRussell: who have edited this figures in the past.

I can see where the confusion is arising here. Cambridge University's endowment, as stated in the 2022/23 accounts (the first two references cited, which are actually the same document in two different formats) is £2,469.1m. This is the size of the endowment in accordance with standard accounting practices, giving a common definition of an endowment that is used across the UK, and as verified by independent auditors. This is also the figure that Cambridge reports to the Higher Education Statistics Agency as the size of its endowment.

What, then is the Cambridge University Endowment Fund (CUEF)? As it says in the 2022/23 accounts: "The CUEF is an investment vehicle, which enables the University to pool assets held on trust and invest them for the very long term". It is an investment fund that has been called the "Cambridge University Endowment Fund", but there is no requirement that everything in it is an endowment, rather than other reserves (total reserves, consisting of the endowment, restricted and unrestricted reserves are £7.167.7m), or even that it belongs to Cambridge University – indeed, the accounts tell us that Cambridge University group has £3,735.9m in the CUEF. The third reference tells us that the endowment fund has a value of £4 billion but this is, again, referring to the size of the fund not the size of the endowment.

Using the total size of a fund that happens to be called the 'endowment fund' as the endowment, rather than the actual size of the endowment, is an understandable mistake, but is still a mistake. Robminchin (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Both of these endowment funds fulfill the accounting definition of endowment, which is defined as "an established fund of cash, securities, or other assets to provide income for the maintenance of a not-for-profit entity (NFP)" The reason why Cambridge University created a second endowment fund (i.e. CUEF) is to allow colleges and other trusts, such as the Gates Cambridge Trust, to participate and achieve better returns. Right now, 15 colleges participate in this endowment fund. As you mentioned, 92% of the CUEF still belongs to the University. If the University has two endowment vehicles, why would you pick and choose which one you count? Seems like Cambridge's endowment is actually 6.205 billion (closer to what the labour unions demanding greater benefits are claiming). With all due respect, this is not a mistake. https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/646b2136c83d961d1122818d/65ae508f9867d80cb520eb09_CUEF%202023%20Annual%20Review%20(final%20web%20version).pdf

I do agree that for Cambridge, endowment from colleges should be excluded on the page. Unlike Oxford, Cambridge doesn't publish consolidated endowment valuation for its colleges. Compiling endowment for Cambridge's colleges was time-consuming for me, as I had to go through all 31 colleges' financial statement. Wealthofnation (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

That is the US definition of an endowment. If the CUEF funds met the UK definition of an endowment, they would be included in the total of endowments in the financial report – CUEF is not a separate fund that is not included in the accounts. If you're applying US definitions to the UK institution, that is definitely WP:Original Research. I have not mentioned any other endowment fund – what is in the accounts is simply the total of reserves (including those in CUEF) that meet the definition of endowments. Robminchin (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

If you look at HESA - Other Financial Statements you will find that, as in the Cambridge 2022/23 accounts, the endowment is stated as £2,469,060. If you are correct that everything in CUEF is an endowment, then Cambridge are falsifying both their accounts and their returns, which seems unlikely to be done so openly. Robminchin (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

When I think of the term “endowment,” I think of it essentially as a pool of money or a fund that an institution uses to generate income for a defined purpose.

American universities report endowment as combined net worth of all types of endowments. In the US, there are four different types of endowments: unrestricted, term, quasi and restricted. 1) Term endowments usually stipulate that only after a period of time or a certain event can the principal be expended. 2) Unrestricted endowments are assets that can be spent, saved, invested, and distributed at the discretion of the institution receiving the gift. 3) A quasi-endowment is a donation by an individual or institution, given with the intent of having that fund serve a specific purpose. The principal is typically retained while the earnings are expended or distributed per specifications of the donor. These endowments are usually started by the institutions that benefit from them via internal transfers or by using unrestricted endowments already given to the institution. 4) Finally, restricted endowments have their principal held in perpetuity, while the earnings from the invested assets are expended per the donor’s specification.

As you mentioned, British universities’ financial statements use different terms. Charity funds are divided into restricted and unrestricted funds/reserves. On the financial statement the UK, the term “endowment” or “endowment reserve” is used to specifically describe fund/asset where the charity is required to invest rather than spend it (equivalent to restricted endowment in the US). I think this is where you’re coming from.

If you’re just reporting amount listed as “endowment reserve” on British financial statements, rather than the entire reserve, you would be under-reporting the totality of its endowment because you’re only counting the university’s restricted endowment. For example, Cardiff University has a total reserve (total endowment) of 677 million, but has an “endowment reserve” of 46 million (under-reported by 93%). While I have no problem with making British universities look poorer than they are, I think it’s important for readers to know they cannot compare “endowment” of British universities with their American or Canadian counterparts on Wikipedia.

I would argue that all British universities’ endowment numbers on Wikipedia should be the totality of their reserves for fair comparison. Cambridge 7.1 billion pounds, Oxford 6.1 billion, Cardiff 677 million, etc etc etc. This way, I know Oxbridge is nearly as wealthy as some top private institutions in the US and not as “poor” as Texas Christian.

P.S. I also reached out to UCIM to see what % of their UCEF fund is categorized as restricted endowment vs other components. If they reply, I'll be sure to post here. Wealthofnation (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Take Gates Cambridge Trust as an example. The scholarship was created with $210 million USD endowment from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Currently, the endowment is valued at 333.9 million GBP (last page of PDF), 100% of which is listed as unrestricted fund on its financial statement. If only restricted endowment counts as actual endowment, then the Trust has no endowment at all. This narrow definition of endowment just doesn't make any sense to me.

https://www.gatescambridge.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Gates-Cambridge-Annual-Report-2023-HiRes_Spreads.pdf Wealthofnation (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

If we're substituting our judgement for the judgement of experts, that's WP:Original Research and contrary to Wikipedia policy. The judgement of what counts as an endowment and what doesn't is made by Cambridge's accountants and signed off on by their auditors. We cannot substitute our judgement for this. We certainly shouldn't be using our judgement combined with American definitions for British institutions.

I also think the difference between US and UK definitions is more complicated than you are making out. Endowments in the UK can be permanent restricted, permanent unrestricted or expendable (see note 3 on p60 of the Cambridge accounts). This is also unlikely to be the only accounting difference between two completely independent systems. There really is no guarantee that the total reserves in accounts prepared under the UK financial reporting standards will come to the same number as endowments in accounts prepared under US standards.

Possibly there should be a "total reserves" line in the infobox in addition to the endowment, but that's a discussion for a different place. What we can't do here is substitute US usage and the judgement of Wikipedia editors for British usage and the judgement of Cambridge's accountants, verified by their auditors. That's completely against Wikipedia policy. Robminchin (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

When I click on the endowment page on Wikipedia, it too, shows the broad definition of endowment. I don’t see a section or page specifically about how UK charity endowment is defined any differently so this is not just my opinion. I have laid out a well-reasoned argument as to why using a very narrow definition of endowment (in this case part of restricted reserve only in accounting terms) is flawed and misleading.

I pointed out two examples – one of which would have no endowment at all under the narrow definition of endowment you use, as it lists 100% of its endowment under unrestricted fund/reserve in accounting terms.

If you are unsatisfied with what I’m saying, I welcome any expert opinion from arbitration. I would respect and abide by a final decision before I start updating endowment figures of all other UK universities. Wealthofnation (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Like many pages on Wikipedia, the page on endowments is likely to give a US perspective. But we do know that the application of the UK definition in Cambridge's accounts gives the answer of £2.5 billion, so if the definitions aren't different then some other assumption in your calculation is wrong.

The Gates Cambridge trust is listed in the accounts as a £0.3 million expendable endowment (note 32, p 92). Looking back, it was listed as a £332.7m expendable endowment as recently as 2021 but was reduced to £0.3m in 2022; at the same time the expendable endowment for scholarships and bursaries went from £20.1m in 2021 to £359.8m in 2022, which looks very much like most of the fund was reclassified. It thus seems likely that the value of £333.9m for the Gates Cambridge Trust reported in their annual report is included in the expendable endowment of the university (although we can't know for sure what is happening, which is another reason for not trying to work out endowments ourselves) – as I said above, the UK definition of endowments is not limited to restricted funds.

I also note that CUEF is explicitly stated to contain "restricted endowments and other balances" (note 12, p 70), not just endowments.

I will ask at Wikiproject Higher Education for a third opinion. Robminchin (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping, I unfortunately do not have much to add other than what has already been stated. @Robminchin I recall reading in one of your edits that Imperial College London has a similar issue on this matter with Imperial also having its own investment vehicle for its endowment investments. There was also a discrepancy between the two figures if I recall correctly.

Whilst I understand that Wikipedia is read by a global audience, I would prefer for the pages of British universities to follow British standards, definitions and accounting procedures. If it becomes difficult for a conclusion to be reached, may I suggest the usage of FOI requests to Cambridge directly to solve any assumptions that can be clarified using Cambridge's own definitions. EmyRussell (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I saw the notification at WT:HED and agree with Robminchin and EmyRussell that the infobox should use the figure for the endowment reserve published in the university's financial statements. That figure would be compatible with the endowment reserves of other UK universities. If reliable sources discuss other calculations of the value of the university's endowment, that could be included in the body of the article. TSventon (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I will use the FOI requests to Cambridge to resolve the matter. I think what you're referring to re: Imperial (and this is probably best discussed on the Imperial page) is that its endowment is 542m per its own website but ~200m on its financial statement. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/about/leadership-and-strategy/college-endowment/

I think the issues I am raising here are 1) Is total reserve a better indicator (or perhaps should be shown alongside endowment figure) and 2) potential confusion from other English-speaker countries (US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) where:

- Endowment includes all funds, regardless of whether they are restricted. Many would wonder why UK institutions' endowments are so low. There should be some sort of notation that explains SORP definition of "endowment" on financial statement is specific to certain funds (see my edits on List of universities in the United Kingdom by endowment). I think it's important for readers to know that they're not comparing apples to apples.

- The term "endowment" is used to describe fund rather than the term "reserve" (i.e. endowment with restriction, endowment without restriction) -- so difference in usage on financial documentation. Many institutions and the media do use the term "endowment" loosely outside the realm of accounting. Imperial College, Cambridge, etc to name a few. Wealthofnation (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that some further explanation is needed pointing out the more restrictive definition in the UK (and in Ireland, which follows the same financial reporting standards, so this would also affect Irish universities). Thanks for putting the text on the list of UK universities by endowment page; it would be good to include something similar on the financial endowment page.

I think, however, that it would be dangerous to assume that the total reserve is equivalent to what US universities call the endowment – £302m of the £677m reserve for Cardiff University you mentioned above is a 'revaluation reserve', for example, which is the difference between the revalued amount and the historical cost for the university's fixed assets (i.e. buildings). Any attempt to recalculate would certainly require some good references to avoid being original research, so I think we would be much safer sticking with the definition of endowment used by the universities concerned and adding text to the financial endowment page to explain that there are differences in definition. Robminchin (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I checked the Harvard 2023 accounts and the endowment appears as a reserve (page 17), as does the Cambridge figure. However Harvard has both "donor-restricted endowment funds" and "Board-designated endowment funds" (page 34), while it appears that only the former are allowed in the UK. Also Harvard's total reserves are much larger. TSventon (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I filed a FOI request, and Cambridge is required to respond within 20 business days. I checked out a couple of financial statements from other English-speaking countries, and the definition of endowment is very broad. They essentially include everything in their investment. UChicago's statement uses terms such as "endowment with donor restrictions" and "endowment without donor restrictions." In the UK, only part of the former (that meet certain criteria) is counted. Wealthofnation (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

As for whether something is considered "endowment" by accounting standard, I doubt most institutions care since it's a technicality when it comes to reporting. It's like the Gates Cambridge Trust is not going to care that its "endowment" on financial statement is 0 when their endowment is in fact 334 million. From an operation standpoint, it doesn't really matter. As long as their total investment vehicles are robust, their endowment reporting is not going to matter. Wealthofnation (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

This is the response I received from Cambridge through FOI request:

The correct figure for the value of the endowment fund is £4.087 billion, of which £3.736 billion belongs

to the University Group, with the reminder owned by Cambridge Colleges or other related institutions.

The other figure quoted of £2.469 billion is the accumulated endowment reserves of the

University. This is different to the endowment fund and represents the cumulative value of donations

made to the University for the purposes of long-term investment, plus interest and gains on those initial

donations, less any spending that has occurred against those donations. Wealthofnation (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like it's mostly confirming what we thought – there's an endowment fund and there is the endowment reserve. I assume by 'this is different to the endowment fund' they're just saying that 'endowment reserve' and 'endowment fund' are different things not there is no overlap between the money in each of the categories (which would be odd, as the endowment fund is meant to be all of the long-term investments, and contrary to what is said in the accounts). Robminchin (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

There was another paragraph that basically said something along the lines of endowment reserve being an accounting concept, etc (basically reiterating the SORP definition). From an operational standpoint, it probably doesn't really matter to an institution how much is in the endowment reserve vs total amount in long-term investment. If we're thinking of using the SORP definition across the board, then we should perhaps add a section in the page specifically about endowment / university finances? Wealthofnation (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

That would seem reasonable, yes. The SORP number is the only standard definition across British (and Irish) universities that is actually given in annual reports, so having this in the infobox avoids original research or inconsistent treatment, but having a section in the text that described the existence and size of the endowment fund, where there is room to explain why this is different from the number for the endowment reserve, should be fine. Robminchin (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I was trying to add "(see endowment)" next to the endowment figure in infobox and link it to the endowment section I just added but I didn't know how to do it. Wealthofnation (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I've added the section link. It's possible to do it using #Endowment in a standard wikilink, but the template is neater. Robminchin (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I expect to receive a reply from Cambridge fairly soon. Will let you know what they say here. They're required to respond by around the 20th. Wealthofnation (talk) 06:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Can't one request the University to share the figure of the combined University & College endowment? Assuming that people reading this wiki will all be aware that the remarkably low (comparted to the Ivies and the like) endowment figure doesn't include billions in college endowments reminds me when about 13 years ago in King's Chapel an American lady asked me what is a fellow? For tourist booklets given at the entrance were referring to these mystical creatures without any explanation whatsoever. Because every visitor is supposed to be well versed in all things Oxbridgey. Obviously. 5.176.12.246 (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

It would certainly be wrong to assume that readers automatically know that the endowment figure doesn't include colleges. That's why the words 'excluding colleges' appear immediately after the endowment figure. Robminchin (talk) 01:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

It's equally wrong to assume the average netizen is aware what an Oxbridge college is, and that they're far more than glorified halls of residence, and that the endowment of Trinity alone is over £2 billion. The average netizen just leaves the page with the impression that compared to peer institutions Cambridge is quite poor. McAnt (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I recommended adding a link to the "Endowment" section for clarification right after "excluding colleges," but I see this was removed. I just got a bit tired with removing other people's edits and work on Wikipedia so I stopped contributing. Wealthofnation (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Fair, will see what can a 'freedom of information' request from the Uni bring: I'm dure they can nicely compile college figures:D For now I've updated the endowment/budget info: noticed that for 2023 the endowment figure was given lower than it was around 6-7 years ago... McAnt (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Diocese defines bishopric church

WP:DENY. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ican see it may be confusing that bishopric church is not directly defined, but it is explained in the article Diocese. Readers deserve an explanation of such a precise phrase as bishopric church. It is clearly something. Linking it to Diocese is the best option for reviewers. Otherwise I suggest we change the phrase and not use bishopric church at all. 73.158.120.223 (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC) Ican't understand why people wouldn't Talk in Talk before starting an edit war. Spectrum folk, I swear. Someone else agreed with me I see. That holds the vote based on what I've seen here. 73.158.120.223 (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC) Cracking up over here. There is a huge nerd crowd, maybe spectrum, that just thinks they are the only ones who can just make changes in edit wars without getting the vote in Talk. Bonkers! BTW - Your other edit is spot on. Harvard is trash and could never ever in a million years be considered a prestigious institution and should be removed alongside these top schools in Britain and elsewhere. Harvard will be bulldozed pretty soon once DOGE is done with it. Thank God. 2601:646:A200:E5B0:35B4:2C4C:70BA:B1C9 (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC) 'Ely Cathedral' would seem the best alternative. As the church was granted cathedral status in 1109 (according to its Wikipedia article and the cathedral's website) this wouldn't be anachronistic. It's a bit odd that 'bishopric church' was used as I agree that this isn't a well-defined phrase. However, it doesn't seem to be explained in the Diocese article either. Robminchin (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC) Ican see bishopric explained upfront in the Diocese article - in the roll-over definition - which makes it pretty clear and useful for a reader. The vote is 2-1. 73.158.120.223 (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC) That's just defining 'bishopric' as an alternative word for 'diocese'. It doesn't define or explain 'bishopric church' in any specific sense that would distinguish it from 'cathedral' - the phrase 'bishopric church' does not appear in that article. Robminchin (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC) Also, the specific church in question here is, and was at the time, Ely Cathedral. Robminchin (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC) Actively it does define it right away. I am sorry you can't see it or it may not make sense to you but it clearly states what bishopric is. The vote is what it is. Sorry. 2601:646:A200:E5B0:35B4:2C4C:70BA:B1C9 (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC) It defines 'bishopric'; it does not define - or even use the phrase - 'bishopric church'. However, even if it did, it would still be better to link too the article on the church in question rather than a generic article. Robminchin (talk) 04:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC) Critically it absolutely explains it. I'm not sure why it doesn't make sense to you. It's right there in plain English what a bishopric church is which is a useful update for users to learn. Either way, the vote is 2-1 and nobody else wants to participate in the Talk. 73.158.120.223 (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC) Strategically, I requested protection for this page so we can just live in harmony without the article Nazis overriding democratic processes and thinking it's ok. Call in the 'Protection Squad'! 73.158.120.223 (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC) Creatively, I would like to understand the nuance and meaning behind this type of church - it's helpful in reviewing and adds to my knowledge base. I vote defining 'bishopric church'. JackDawson00 (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC) According to the page history, the edit has been reverted by three different users, none of whom have done so more than once, and has been put back in by the IP editor each time, so it's pretty clear who is edit-warring here. Robminchin (talk) 04:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC) I support changing the term to Ely Cathedral. Given that three well-established editors support this viewpoint (rather than two IP addresses and a new account, which are probably/potentially the same person), I think we can consider it consensus. I will therefore update the article. Also, a polite reminder that consensus is not established by voting, but by discussion! Godtres (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC) I have reported the three accounts for sockpuppetry. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/73.158.120.223. Godtres (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC) Also support use of Ely Cathedral. I am not "on the spectrum". I am not a Nazi. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC) Ican see the vote is 4-3 for defining what was already considered to be part of a good article. It could be a spectrum thing if you really think about it. 2601:646:A200:E5B0:81B5:E105:1FB7:A5B9 (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC) Crazing has led to resolution. The page is now protected and along with it all the nonsense that took/takes place here. Good work IP! Jolly good job! JackDawson00 (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC) Ican see this page is now lost to the void of new thought! Ha ha ha! Success! 73.158.120.223 (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC) That Ican sure looks familiar... Martinevans123 (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC) Captivating, to be sure. Go pick on other IPs. Leave us alone you mean article Nazi. 73.158.120.223 (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC) Curiousas a nail...if you recognize Ican, what in the sam hell are you actually doing? ____ 73.158.120.223 (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC) I added a warning for WP:NPA at your Talk page. But you replied "Can't I be left alone even a little. Why are you wasting your time on IPs? Loser!" Now you've blanked the page. It all sounds and looks a bit familiar. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC) ClearlyI don't want to interact with article Nazis. This page is protected. It was my goal all along. The goal was reached. You win, I lose. You understand? 73.158.120.223 (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC) I think you're going to be blocked for WP:NPA. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2025 (UTC) Ican see how that may be useful. Can you? I don't want to lose all my hard work. But I certainly don't want to be chased through the Wikiverse by article Nazis for no 'good' reason. 73.158.120.223 (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC) You are making no sense. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC) Creatively I may be better at it than you and I'm not even a Nazi - soy Taino. Move on with your blocking. My work here is done today. University of Cambridge is shut down. 73.158.120.223 (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC) We've still got Talk:University of Oxford to consider. Is your "work" over there all done as well yet? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC) Ah, I see you've now been blocked. I wonder who the sock master might be. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC) Yourefrickenmean Martin. Poor IPs. Brave souls lost to the hope that 'new think' has a place in this god forsaken world. Si se puede! JackDawson00 (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC) I think you'll soon be blocked as a sock master. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC) Crafting the blockage of 'new think' doesn't help anyone. Thanks for the moniker though. I love to be called master. I just started TBH. Hoping to be elite soon! JackDawson00 (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)