The contents of the Winter Pool page were merged into University of Cambridge on 8 October 2022. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the University of Cambridge article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 60 days

	University of Cambridge was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 26, 2006 Good article nominee Listed November 26, 2006 Peer review Reviewed September 8, 2008 Peer review Reviewed June 21, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

University of Cambridge This article is within the scope of the University of Cambridge Wikiproject, an attempt to improve articles relating to the University of Cambridge, and to standardize and extend the coverage of the University in the encyclopedia. If you would like to participate, you can help us by editing the article attached to this notice, or you could visit the project page, where you can join the project, learn more about it, see what needs to be done, or contribute to the discussion.University of CambridgeWikipedia:WikiProject University of CambridgeTemplate:WikiProject University of CambridgeUniversity of Cambridge articles Higher education This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles England High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Middle Ages High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

East Anglia Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Cambridge Globalist was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 03 February 2015 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into University of Cambridge. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Two issues there:

1. Not concise & precise enough. The U.Oxford page could be a reference to improvement, summarizing general ideas of all the sections. I see no reason to particularly highlight the QS ranking, especially when Cambridge is within the top 5 on every league, requiring no proof of excellence from a specific consultancy.
2. Nobel affiliate counts are somewhat inconsistent in terms of metrics across different institutions. Extra caution has to be made when claiming "the most" since it all depends on criteria a list adopts. Harvard & Columbia are contestants when it comes to having the most Nobel affiliates, if an unofficial metric same as Cambridge's official is adopted.

I wish to see this page as a GA, but the lead is a mess to me as of now. RoyalRover (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion by HarvardStuff is backed by no valid reason other than "raising the issues on the talk page first" which had already been done up here well before the contribution. The lead before the refinement was, other than the issues aforementioned, wordy, grammatically clumsy with redundant QS ref tags read like an agent commercial written by an elementary school kid whose dream school is Cambridge rather than an objective encyclopedic article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyalRover (talk • contribs) 18:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD would suggest that once reverted that you get consensus for your changes, before making them again, not get into an edit war. Spike 'em (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the reversion is not backed by valid reasons, consensus or any reply to my discussion topic here either which is very frustrating. I will probably slow down the pace to allow more time for discussion on every section of it. RoyalRover (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is not a mess. It is the product of consensus work over months. If you wish to make the case for revisions of the magnitude that you've made, make them here. HarvardStuff (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus from whom? It is indeed a mess for the reasons I have listed that you have not even addressed before your massive reversion. I do not think there is any consensus for every edit or the mess would not have been built up (I remember the last time I read it a year ago it was significantly different). Besides, I did raise it on the talk page first, but I agree to slow down the pace. RoyalRover (talk) 06:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raising your proposed revisions on the talk page means proposing them here first and awaiting the input of others. Your revisions, on the whole, are destructive, not improvements, and they are significant overhauls to a lede and article that many editors labored over for months. I hope that's clear. Raise your proposed revisions here first. I do not see any that you have made that are improvements and many of them detract from both the quality and substance of the article. HarvardStuff (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I too am not convinced that the changes improve the article, so please suggest specific changes here before making them. A vague "It's a mess" doesn't help. Spike 'em (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the below comment. RoyalRover (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HarvardStuff,

1. First of all, I highly doubt if you had received any "consensus" before you built up the mess here with this editing. Did you propose to highlight the QS ranking with redundant reference tags? Did you propose to add commercial phrases like "routinely ranked among the best"? Did you propose to shift the notable alumni part upwards?
2. After which, you have been the sole one who maintained the "quality" of the lead in the name of "product of consensus work over months". Let's be clear, there is no one but you.
3. The lead was a mess with all the reasons aforementioned. I had raised the issues before my refinement and after your reversion. You did not reply with valid reasons of which point I listed is "destructive", other than your massive reversion to protect your own edition.
4. My proposed lead has already been posted above with a link. Read it again.
5. Your edition is a mess for, again and again, the following reasons. Please read carefully because it is extremely annoying to repeat the same issues over and over again with no reply but your reversion:

a) It is unnecessary to single out the QS league since it changes year by year and does not represent the full picture. For instance, UC Berkeley has long been extremely underrated (now at 27th globally) by that controversial ranking while all the other organizations, ARUW, US News & THE included, have placed it well above the top 10. It is more than sufficient to let the reader know Cambridge enjoys a global prestige which is what I did in my refinement, with references to all these rankings. It is okay to highlight a particular league, but not in the lead which is a summary to each section of the article. Read good pages like MIT or other academic powerhouses like Harvard where no proof from a single consultancy is required to support their excellence.

b) The infobox of UK University Rankings has all the defined reference tags: ref name="QS World University Rankings", ref name="THE World University Rankings", ref name="Academic Ranking of World Universities", etc. It is redundant to repeatedly add QS ref tags. Did you even comprehend before reverting my improvement calling it "destructive"?

c) The history part was too short for an 800-year-old institution even as a summary. It provided no other information than the background of its foundation. I expanded to include its milestones of establishing the world's first university press and debate club with well-placed internal links. I mentioned its history in math and physics development before the Act in 1856 which enriched its disciplinary focuses. Which materials did I "destruct"? Which materials did I remove to obstruct readers' understanding?

d) Speaking of utilizing internal links, I condensed

"The university is closely linked to the high technology business cluster known as Silicon Fen, Europe's largest technology cluster. The university is also the central member of Cambridge University Health Partners, an academic health science centre based around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, which is Europe's largest medical and science centre."

to

"Associated with Silicon Fen and Cambridge University Health Partners, it is a core member of the Europe's largest technological cluster and academic health science centre."

with use of internal links. Is this destructive to you?

e) Notable alumni, staff or researchers are all placed the last within the lead of every other university page consistent with the flow of the entire article. I can think of no reason to put it above the history part.

f) I added a footnote clarifying the variance of metrics all these higher learning institutions adopt to claim Nobel laureates. Read again my explanations up here.

Overall, the lead ought to be precise and concise, clear to read without clumsiness. How is the refinement not an improvement? How is it destructive? What is your motive to revert others' contribution in the name of consensus? RoyalRover (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed lead:

The University of Cambridge is a public research university in Cambridge, England. Established in 1209 with a royal charter granted by King Henry III in 1231, it is the third-oldest surviving university with a rich history and global prestige.^[1][2][3]

The University's foundation was largely driven by a conflict between Oxford scholars and local townsfolks.^[4][5] The incident occurred when three academicians, as an administration of justice in the fatality of a local woman, were hanged by town authorities without first consulting ecclesiastical authorities. Fearing further violence, a group of scholars left Oxford for other cities, including Cambridge where intellectual reputation had already been developed by monks from the nearby church, to form new institutions. Often jointly referred to as Oxbridge, the two ancient institutions of higher learning thus share a myriad of common features, as well as a long history of rivalry. Cambridge then founded a handful of academic associations, including the world's first university press in 1534 and the oldest academic debate society in 1815.^[6] Its traditional strength was in math and mathematical physics before the Act in 1856 which reorganised the academic structure to enrich its disciplineary focuses.

Being a collegiate university, Cambridge comprises of central academic departments organised into six schools and thirty-one semi-autonomous constituent colleges. These institutions take different roles in providing students with comprehensive education. Each undergraduate, affiliated to a college once admitted, attends lectures, seminars and/or laboratory sessions organised by central faculties in parallel with weekly small-group supervisions governed by the college.^{[7][8][9][10][11]} Postgraduate teaching, however, is predominantly offered by the central university.

Cambridge operates eight cultural and scientific museums, a botany garden and 116 libraries which hold a total of around 16 million books. Associated with Silicon Fen and Cambridge University Health Partners, it is a core member of the Europe's largest technological cluster and academic health science centre.^[12] The central university and colleges together possessed a combined endowment of over £7.1 billion and overall consolidated net assets, excluding immaterial historical assets, of over £12.5 billion, by which Cambridge tops both the charts as the wealthiest tertiary institution domestically.^[13] In the 2019 fiscal year, the central university, excluding colleges, had total income of £2.192 billion, £592.4 million of which was from research grants and contracts.^[14][16]

Among the university's most notable alumni are 11 Fields Medalists, seven Turing Award winners, 47 heads of state, 14 British prime ministers, 194 Olympic medal-winning athletes,^[17] and some of world history's most transformational and iconic figures across disciplines, including Francis Bacon, Lord Byron, Oliver Cromwell, Charles Darwin, Stephen Hawking, John Maynard Keynes, John Milton, Vladimir Nabokov, Jawaharlal Nehru, Isaac Newton, Bertrand Russell, Manmohan Singh, Alan Turing, Ludwig Wittgenstein, among others. Cambridge affiliates, adopting the official metrics, include some 120 Nobel laureates as alumni, academic staff or visitors.^[a]

The lead after HarvardStuff's reversion:

The University of Cambridge is a public collegiate research university in Cambridge, England. Founded in 1209^[5] and granted a royal charter by King Henry III in 1231, Cambridge is the world's third-oldest surviving university and one of its most prestigious, currently ranked second-best in the world and the best in Europe by QS World University Rankings.^[19] Among the university's most notable alumni are 11 Fields Medalists, seven Turing Award winners, 47 heads of state, 14 British prime ministers, 194 Olympic medal-winning athletes,^[17] and some of world history's most transformational and iconic figures across disciplines, including Francis Bacon, Lord Byron, Oliver Cromwell, Charles Darwin, Stephen Hawking, John Maynard Keynes, John Milton, Vladimir Nabokov, Jawaharlal Nehru, Isaac Newton, Bertrand Russell, Manmohan Singh, Alan Turing, Ludwig Wittgenstein, among others. Cambridge alumni and faculty have won 121 Nobel Prizes, the most of any university in the world, according to the university.^[20]

The University of Cambridge's 13th-century founding was largely inspired by an association of scholars who fled the University of Oxford for Cambridge following the suspendium clericorium (hanging of the scholars) in a dispute with local townspeople.^[21][22] The two ancient English universities, though sometimes described as rivals, share many common features and are often jointly referred to as Oxbridge. The university was founded from a variety of institutions, including 31 semi-autonomous constituent colleges and over 150 academic departments, faculties, and other institutions organised into six schools. All 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. The university does not have a main campus, and its colleges and central facilities are scattered throughout the city. Undergraduate teaching at Cambridge centres on weekly group supervisions in the colleges in small groups of typically one to four students. This intensive method of teaching is widely considered the jewel in the crown of an Oxbridge undergraduate education.^{[23][24][25][26][27]} Lectures, seminars, laboratory work, and occasionally further supervision are provided by the central university faculties and departments, and postgraduate education is also predominantly provided centrally; degrees, however, are conferred by the university, not the colleges.

By both endowment size and material consolidated assets, Cambridge is the wealthiest university in Europe and among the wealthiest in the world.^[28][29] In the 2019 fiscal year, the central university, excluding colleges, had total income of £2.192 billion, £592.4 million of which was from research grants and contracts.^[14] The central university and colleges together possessed a combined endowment of over £7.1 billion and overall consolidated net assets, excluding immaterial historical assets, of over £12.5 billion.^[30] Cambridge University Press & Assessment combines Cambridge University Press, the world's oldest university press, with one of the world's leading examining bodies; their publications reach in excess of eight million learners globally each year and some 50 million learners, teachers, and researchers monthly.^[31] The university operates eight cultural and scientific museums, including the Fitzwilliam Museum and Cambridge University Botanic Garden. Cambridge's 116 libraries hold a total of around 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. Cambridge Union, the world's oldest debating society founded in 1815, inspired the emergence of university debating societies globally, including at Oxford. The university is closely linked to the high technology business cluster known as Silicon Fen, Europe's largest technology cluster.^[32] The university is also the central member of Cambridge University Health Partners, an academic health science centre based around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, which is Europe's largest medical and science centre.

RoyalRover (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep mentioning a bicycle race in the footnote about Nobel prizes? The singular of criteria is criterion. Spike 'em (talk) 04:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.^[1] 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,^[2] 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.^[3][4] 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.^[5][6]

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.

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)[reply]