Talk:St John's College, Cambridge

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

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

East Anglia Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nobel Prizes?

The article originally said that ten Nobel prize winners attended John's.... I can only find information and references about eight (as is claimed by the John's College homepage). I've altered this until someone can prove the original figure correct.

--CharlesRCD

I can't actually find any mention on any pages in www.joh.cam.ac.uk - can you provide a link? That could then be a reference within the article in case anyone queried it. The Stumo (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm not sure where you looked, but the first couple of pages which I found were College website - biographical archive history page and (less specifically) Admissions guide - Life at the College. I've added the first of these as a reference on the Wikipedia page. David Biddulph (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have edited the page again, after discovering that Fred Sanger is the only Cambridge alumnus to have won two Nobel Prizes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieRCD (talk • contribs) 21:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Someone's put it back to ten... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.237.185 (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - When? The most recent change which I can see in that area is Charlie's change from eight to nine prizes (still 8 winners) on 3rd Oct. David Biddulph (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It was reverted back almost instantly. By the time I returned to the page, it was back to nine, which is the correct number. User:CharlieRCD
        When was the change? I don't see anything in the history, & I've been back through the previous edits back to when you changed it from Eight to Nine on 3rd Oct. Did I miss something? David Biddulph (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. vs St

In some ways this is very pernickety but its probably just worth discussing. St. John's College should technically be written as St John's College (i.e. without the full stop).

I think the grammar convention is that a word that is abbreviated but keeps its final letter, as in Saint -> St or Doctor -> Dr don't have a full stop but words which lose their final letter do, as in approximate -> approx. . Also 'St John's College' is actually the name of the college, it's at the top of the official webpage.

I was reading Isaac Newton/The first 15 years as Lucasian professor and St John's College is mentioned and is in red as the page doesn't exist. My question is, what's the best way to resolve this? Should I copy the contents of the St. John's entry to the St John's entry and then redirect the second to the first?

This also applies to the other Cambridge colleges named after saints, St Catharine's and St Edmund's.

(The above reads a little bit like I'm staking a claim to the above and that I must be the person who changes this. It's not supposed to read like that, if you think it should be changed its probably best to just change it rather than try and explain to me what I should do.)

Ams80 01:41 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

This is correct in Commonwealth English (but in case anyone argues, note that the rules are different in American English) Rnt20 19:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a student at John's and I feel I should point out that although tour guides often say the Bridge of Sighs is named after the famous bridge in Venice due to resemblance, they don't look alike at all. The only similarity is that they are both covered bridges. About a month ago I went to Venice and crossed the Bridge of Sighs and found there to be little or no resemblance. I don't claim to know the origin of the name of the Bridge of Sighs in John's, but I will try to find out. Owen, 21st Sept 2004

A member of the British royal family noted that the bridge looked like the Bridge of Sighs in Venice, and the name was then taken for the bridge in Cambridge Rnt20 19:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Thomas Nashe as one of the literary alumni of St Johns, is this OK?

Changed Johns to 3rd largest after Trinity and Homerton. Trinity has ~1100 undergrads and postgrads, Homerton has 1050, Johns has ~900

College Motto

I've asked the College for an authoritative translation of "souvent me souvient" (which doesn't look like 'remember me often' to me). roundhouse 00:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Souvient" is the third-person plural conjugation of "souvenir", which means "to remember". The "me" before it is an object pronoun, meaning "remember me". And "souvent" means "often". So it seems fine to me. ugen64 01:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced, given these facts, that we get "remember me often" (which seems an odd motto). The College have replied, authoritatively, that google yields both meanings, arising no doubt from the 2 versions which alternate on this page. roundhouse 08:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christ's College, Cambridge (same motto) gives 'I often remember'. This seems to me to be much more likely to be correct. roundhouse 10:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current master of Christ's College, Prof Malcom Bowie (French Literature) states confidently that the motto should be translated as "I often remember" and not "Remember me often". "Often it is remembered unto me" is the literal translation apparently, which renders better as "I often remember", or "Often I remember". Since this is mediaeval french, a modern french interpretation on the words is certainly not appropriate. LeBofSportif 14:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as a native french speaker, I can confirm you that it univoquely mean "I often remember", and the form is actually very modern french. A francophone not aware that it is middle french would certainly think it is just french, albeit may be bit old fashioned, just like you have variations that appears over 50 years time.

Also I do not think the form "it is remembered unto me" would be more adequate - though here my doubt would lie in the english part which I am not sure to master well enough - as this form would seem as a passive act, whereas "I often remember" would be a decisive act of will to remember, and whose meaning is implicitly embeded in choosing this as a statement

Now what do you often remember is where the doubt lies. I would imagine that such a volontary declamation of rememberance is both an abidance to the fact that something is built through time, and of which we are only the temporary executors, and a form of hommage to filiation, but I am just getting over myself here, and this would need to be confirmed by other means !

Well done. roundhouse 15:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the "I often remember" is best understood in the context of Henry IV's motto, "Remember me" or "Forget me not". Henry IV had a motto of something like "souvereign" which some people interpret to just mean sovereign, but this is unsatisfactory. More likely, it is an old french word for the flower "Forget me not" which Henry IV had on his crest I think. I am doing this from memory, but I can check book sources if there is still dispute over the motto. LeBofSportif 17:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giving a talk on the history of the College, Professor Boyd (an authority on these matters) stated that the motto meant 'I often remember'. This matches the interpretation used in Christ's College. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.182.232 (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A variant that I heard was that it was a pun - both the meanings 'Remember me often' and 'I often remember' should be read from it. This was from a modern French speaker, so I cannot be certain of the accuracy. The Stumo (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fisher

Any particular reason for "Saint" being in parentheses? Fisher was canonised in 1935 with Saint Thomas More as one of the English martyrs; it's normal practice to use brackets. I've removed them - please leave a note here if you disagree. Squeezeweasel 20:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cocktail

Since a cursory google search turned up nothing, can anyone provide more information on the "red boy" cocktail? are these equal proportions? a more detailed recipe would be great... 72.209.70.84 22:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC) - oops, wasn't logged in HunterAmor 15:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed assets valuation

Does someone have a citation for the fixed assets valuation? 500 billion seems like rather a lot... 86.14.227.200 (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please post new items at the bottom of the page. The figure in the article is £500m, not £500b. A source for this might be the Cambridge University Reporter, Vol CXXXVIII, Special Issue 11, “Accounts of the Colleges” (12 February 2008), which is available in printed form only. — Richie 11:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classification

I've reclassified this as a C-Class article. I think the major thing that's standing in the way of it being B-Class is a lack of references, particularly within the History section. Mrh30 (talk) 10:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In light of recent changes, I think a reappraisal might be in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieRCD (talk • contribs) 18:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I rearranged the above and restored the signature for CharlieRCD to make it clearer who said what) The Stumo (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Sir Nevill Francis Mott.jpg

The image File:Sir Nevill Francis Mott.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May Ball

The reference for the assertion that Time magazine rated St Johns May Ball as the 7th best party in the World appears to be a student newspaper from 2007, which itself cites no sources. Is this a verifiable claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.213.35 (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; I think it should be removed as a claim. I'm a graduate of John's and it is one of those factoids that is bandied around incessantly, but I've had a look through the Time archives and there is no mention of anything of the sort; there doesn't seem to have ever been a list compiled of that name. Unless anyone can provide a primary source, then I will delete this claim, and maybe make mention of it in the May Ball section as an unverified claim, or even a common misconception. instantn00dle 12:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be another attempt at generating publicity for the May Ball using this claim. The anonymous IP provides three purported sources [1] [2] [3], but they all just repeat what Time magazine allegedly said. Hearsay. What is required is a primary source, i.e. in which year, issue and page of Time magazine this list appeared. — Richie 22:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motto

The Info-box translates the college motto as "I often remember". I'm not an expert at Old French, but surely "Souvent me Souvient" means "They often remember me"? Unless anyone objects, I'll change it. Hallucegenia (talk) 09:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed above. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Courses / Programs

Wouldn't it be better if the article actually talked about what is being taught in this "college" rather than the typical British self-centered BS?! Is it just another club where wealthy British aristocrats and noblemen sit on leather chairs drinking tea and reading newspaper while making racist remark regarding the rest of the world or is it a business school?! engineering school?! law? economics? or is it a medical school? graduate? undergraduate? or may be it is a research institution?! yeah right 175.139.16.64 (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

St John's College is, as the article states, a constituent college of the University of Cambridge. Primarily teaching is done outside the college, by the academic departments of the university, which is why it is not covered in this article. Details of subjects can be found on the University of Cambridge main article. Of the subjects offered by the university, students applying for the subjects listed here - http://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/subjects-st-johns - may apply to St John's. St John's is not a 'college' in the American style (think of it as a residential hall, if you're too dim witted to read the Cambridge article). The University of Cambridge teaches a broad range of courses, covering all of the subject areas you have listed, and offers education to undergraduate, mature undergraduate and postgraduate students. As part of the university, John's is extremely active in academic research. I think that covers all of your ignorance - aside from the xenophobic remarks you made, which I shall dignify with no response other than mockery and condemnation. --WDaws (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't help but notice the first idiot's IP address is from Malaysia, not the US! Dear 2nd idiot, do an IP-to-location search before making assumptions. 23.243.153.4 (talk) 08:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't help but notice that the third idiot made the assumption that because an American style of university was discussed, it meant the second idiot was assuming the first idiot was actually from that country... ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

I removed a number of External Links from the page. One (a link to a Gutenberg copy of a book) I moved to "Further Reading". The others (to the JCR, SBR and Boat Club's websites) seemed to me not to fall within any of the items under "What can normally be linked" or "Links to be considered" in WP:EL, so I removed them. To my mind, these sites are in no way necessary to an encyclopaedic understanding, and including them is effectively promotional. Ebonelm, you have restored them. Please explain why, under the principles of WP:EL, these belong in the article. --ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ColinFine, the links to the JCR, SBR, and Boat Club fall under WP:ELOFFICIAL, as official websites of their respective bodies which are mentioned in the St John's College, Cambridge#Student life section. Educational institutions, particularly colleges in collegiate universities, are relatively unique in having multiple (sub-)organisations associated with them. While under WP:ELMINOFFICIAL only one link should usually be provided there is an exception if: the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances. One of the examples given is if a politician has a government website, a political party website, and a campaign website; these would all be considered appropriate. This appears to be an analogous situation given the status of the JCR etc... to St John's. It is also probably worth mentioning that nearly every college page for: Cambridge, Durham, Oxford, and York, contain links to JCRs, MCRs etc... Furthermore the same can be said of most universities, the University of Cambridge page for example has links to the student union and the graduate union. Essentially it is an established convention to have these links. If you feel that this answer is not satisfactory then I would suggest rather than making St John's the exception that you start a broader discussion on the issue at maybe Wikipedia talk: External links, Wikipedia talk:College and university article guidelines, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities (and post a message about the discussion on the other two talk pages). Ebonelm (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I can sort of see it about the JCR and SBR (particularly since these have been given parameters in the infobox). But the Boat Club? Why that and not fifty other college societies? --ColinFine (talk) 10:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on St John's College, Cambridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:St John's College Chapel, Cambridge, UK - Diliff.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:St John's College Chapel, Cambridge, UK - Diliff.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 28, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-07-28. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

The interior of the chapel at St John's College, Cambridge. Constructed between 1866 and 1869, to replace a smaller chapel which dated back to the 13th century, this chapel was designed by George Gilbert Scott in a style similar to that of Exeter College, Oxford. It is home to the Choir of St John's College, which has sung daily services since the 1670s.Photograph: David Iliff

Archive – More featured pictures...

May Ball bans

I have removed the sentence about the five male undergraduates banned from attending the SJC May Ball in June 2016. The editor adding the content first added it prominently to the history section and then, copy-pasting sensationalist headlines, prominently to the student life section. A more careful summary by me of the 2016 update in the Telegraph was reverted by this editor. The headlines were sensationalist and undue, and no context was provided. Could the editor explain why he thinks this content had any value and why he thinks incidents like this deserve to be mentioned? The story came out in a student newspaper "The Tab" and was picked up by the Telegraph (and the Mirror) but not the Cambridge News. If there was more general context to this topic, perhaps it would merit being mentioned; at present that does not seem to be the case. Mathsci (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Tab also runs stories like this.[4] The 2016 Telegraph article links to an article about a named individual from Queens College, Oxford that could not be reported on wikipedia, because it would be an obvious BLP violation. The banning of the Wyvern's "jelly party" by the Master and Fellows of Magdalene College is not mentioned on wikipedia. It has been reported in the press. Mathsci (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What matters is the most reliable source to publish the incident. In this case an internationally reliable paper, the Telegraph, published the story not just once, but furthermore a followup. This makes the story fulfil the notability and reliability criterion and should be included. In fact, this text is the only referenced text in the entire section of five paragraphs, and so following WP:RS we should first turn our attention to other text in this section. For example, another paragraph in this section describes how the College chef (named in violation of WP:BLP) oversees the intercollegiate Stewards' Cup. I think that we should first remove such unsourced information about the out-of-work activities of the College chef, rather than the only referenced text in the entire section that was twice featured in the international press. There are many other sections of text in the same section that are unsourced, trivial, and read like a College prospectus.77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The (unnamed) drinking society is banned by the college and prohibited from having meetings on university or college property. The present content concerns five individuals and a student sub-culture which has very little to do with the functioning of St John's College. The source of this particular story is The Tab as indicated in the subsequent local and national newspaper reports. (There was also a report in the Daily News of India, but it was riddled with inaccuracies.) I still don't think this story merits being included in the article on St John's College, which concerns permanent aspects of the college. Incidents involving drunken or unruly students are not a recent phenomenon; they do not seem to have found their way into other wikipedia articles on academic institutions. In addition, apart from the link lad culture, I can find no information on wikipedia about drinking societies or "swap" parties. As your account seems to have been created with the main purpose of adding content about this very specialised topic, are you intending to write a wikipedia article on "student drinking societies" and "swap parties"? Mathsci (talk) 09:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand your general comments. The other information in the article is publicly available and easy to verify on the college's website, in their handbook/prospectus or the college magazine. It gives an anodyne, neutral and informative description of the college and was possibly edited by students. Mathsci (talk) 09:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The allegation made by talk that my account is a main purpose created for editing articles solely about drinking societies is not true. In fact out of all my edits only 5% relate to drinking societies, and those are only for this sentence in the St Johns article. I would therefore suggest that User talk:Mathsci withdraw this allegation and apologize for making it. Putting forward ad hominem allegations with no evidence detracts from any credibility that User talk:Mathsci has for taking part in this discussion, that I would also suggest that User talk:Mathsci now withdraws from.77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 11:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing conforms to WP:SPA fairly closely. Your very first edit was problematic. Mathsci (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(User talk:Mathsci) is making serious accusations and needs to provide definitive evidence of WP:SPA. Referring to a edit of (User talk:77LmTA6knQ6) out of hundreds does not comprise WP:SPA . Please refer to WP:SPA and either provide proof or return to a discussion about this current page on the basis of facts.77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As no evidence of WP:SPA is forthcoming and (User talk:Mathsci) has withdrawn from the discussion I have reverted the text to the agreed version.77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently you are an individual with an axe to grind; a WP:POINT to make, which is why in your very first edit you inserted exactly the same scare quotes in the most prominent place you could find in the article. Instead of adding balanced content, you have preferred to revert to the shrill language of gutter journalism, with scare quotes and no context at all. Indeed it seems that any attempt to provide context—the nature of these university social events, their banning by colleges, their occurrence far from the established colleges—is not to your liking. You prefer to add WP:UNDUE content to shock the reader. There are four individuals involved in this minor event (it is, even if their conduct in private and in a drunken state was poor) who have just started their third year as undergraduates. Your purpose here has been to single them out amongst undergraduates in Cambridge. Given your insistence on not representing their interests properly, I suspect that is a BLP violation. Please read the Varsity article below, written by a female Johnian who knows one of those concerned, to understand the possible problems. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am grateful that (User talk:Mathsci) has dropped the accusation against (77LmTA6knQ6) of WP:SPA because it is not true, and await an apology. (User talk:Mathsci) has now accused (77LmTA6knQ6) of WP:POINT. This is a serious allegation so needs proper evidence. Examining WP:POINT it is not clear which of the examples (User talk:Mathsci) accuses (77LmTA6knQ6) of, and the evidence for that. Please would (User talk:Mathsci) make this clear with strong evidence, or withdraw the allegation and apologize for making it, so that we can return to sorting out the St Johns page.77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As no evidence of WP:POINT is forthcoming and (User talk:Mathsci) has withdrawn from the discussion I have reverted the text to the agreed version.77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't think we can be confident of the reporting in the national press. In the established university student magazine Varsity, a female third year undergraduate reading English at St John's has given her views on the incident and its aftermath. She has also described the reporting and misreporting in the national press, particularly the misleading headlines.

[5] Mathsci (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has changed in this discussion. The content here is highly inappropriate for the article. It was never a serious news story, just recycled student news; it does not represent in a balanced way student life in St John's Colllege. The inclusion of the material is undue and not neutral. Two IPs have removed it; the last one said it had no relevance and at this stage I agree with that IP. All the reasons have already been outlined above. Undergraduate misbehaviour is not new. It has been present in all higher educational institutions since their creation in every country. In this case 4 undergraduates, now in their third year, behaved poorly on one drunken evening. It seems to have happened outside the academic term and not on university or college property (Sesame, long since shut down). As revealed in the Varsity article above, these undergraduates have probably now learnt their lesson. The reinsertion of this material seems to be an attempt to villify those 4 individuals. That appears to be a BLP violation. The editor including this material has been warned before about his disruptive editing here and now is repeating that conduct with their edit warring. This seems to be an example of WP:POINT; and also probably WP:NOTHERE. Mathsci (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci has previously made allegations against 77LmTA6knQ6 further up this talk page but never provided any evidence. Before we continue the discussion can we assume that Mathsci has now withdrawn these allegations? We then need to remember that what is important is WP:VNT. Following this established wikipedia policy what matters is the most reliable source to publish the incident. In this case an internationally reliable paper, the Telegraph, published the story not just once, but furthermore a followup. This makes the story fulfill the notability and reliability criterion and should be included. In fact, this text is the only referenced text in the entire section of five paragraphs, and so following WP:RS we should first turn our attention to other text in this section. Mathsci claims that "it was never a serious news story", "it does not represent in a balanced way student life in St John's Colllege", "Undergraduate misbehaviour is not new", "it has been present in all higher educational institutions since their creation in every country", "these undergraduates have probably now learnt their lesson". To avoid being WP:OR each of these needs a citation from an external source please, and even more reliable than the Telegraph, otherwise they cannot be considered as valid points. Please refer to WP:SOURCES as to what constitutes a valid source. WP:BLP is not an issue here because the article does not mention the names of the individuals involved, so conforms with WP:BIO1E. 77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing on wikipedia at the moment consists of (a) edit warring (b) WP:IDHT (stubborn refusal to recognise a student newspaper story which has become irrelevant) and (c) WP:SPA, this unencyclopedic content seems now to be your main interest. In those circumstances, isn't your account just a classic example of WP:NOTHERE? Certainly, even without future reversions, your account could be blocked since all you do is try to edit war this undue material into an otherwise anodyne and neutral article. That indicates your own WP:POV. I do think BLP is an issue, because real life identities could easily leak out at any stage. You have no idea about that and you obviously don't care. Mathsci (talk) 10:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please would Mathsci provide evidence of 77LmTA6knQ6 edit warring. This is a serious allegation so needs proper evidence. Previous allegations against 77LmTA6knQ6 made by Mathsci have never been followed by evidence and withdrawn, and in fact in August 2016 Mathsci had an arbcom judgement against them for "belittling other editors with different skills". Please would Mathsci provide hard evidence for each allegation or withdraw them so that editors can return to focus on the page at hand.77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious from looking at your contributions or the edit history of this page: they make it clear that you have been edit warring and are essentially a single purpose account. Your edits could be reviewed at WP:AN3 if that's what you want. Mathsci (talk) 02:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed on 15 October 2016 there is no evidence that 77LmTA6knQ6 is a single user account. Mathsci needs to present evidence or should move on with the editing of this page. Regarding the page, the remaining issue brought up by Mathsci is WP:BLP, and whether the names of the people involved will be included in the article. According to WP:BIO1E because the identities of the individuals is not mentioned there is no problem, so we only need to return to consider WP:BLP if the names of those involved are included in the article in the future by an editor. If there are any other objections to the paragraph under discussion please raise them now.77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 10:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are an WP:SPA evidently WP:NOTHERE to improve wikipedia. It's clear from your edit history: just disruption. Your first edit made clear the purpose of your account and you have stuck to that, POV-pushing out-of-date and undue recycled student tittle-tattle. Your only interest in academic institutions seems to be negative. This content does not fit with the article. In due course, when I am less busy, you will be reported on WP:AN3 for slow edit-warring on this content. Mathsci (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would be sensible to focus here solely on the paragraph at hand. Right now no objections to the paragraph have been raised that have been mutually agreed by the Editors so the consensus is to retain the paragraph as it was.77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the content. It was about the private lives of 5 individuals (events now buried in the mists of time), nothing to do with the college. The initial content you created was composed purely from scare headlines. You claimed that it was properly sourced. But it came (indirectly) from a student newspaper (The Tab). You refused to add context. Presumably you wanted to make it look as if this was not a private event (held in the Sesame restaurant) and had something to do with the college. The link was tenuous. You refused to add context about the college, the university or the undergraduate culture of swap-dinners, which was completely unexplained. I tried to improve that; but from the outset I felt the material was non-neutral (your extreme POV) and inappropriate, because there was no direct relation to the college as an established academic institution. The content was completely at odds with the rest of the article. It stuck out like a sour thumb and had no place there. That is why it has been removed. Why do you think it should be permanently in the article? Your responses here have not addressed that point. Please observe WP:BRD before attempting to restore this content, which seems to be malicious content about 5 individuals: they behaved inappropriately when drunk but not to the extent it warrants being described on wikipedia; and their identities are not necessarily protected—you have no idea what could leak out. This content does not improve the article and cannot be described as encyclopedic. You seem to want to WP:OWN it. Mathsci (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on St John's College, Cambridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927004149/http://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/library/biographical/bioghistory/ to http://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/library/biographical/bioghistory/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://collegestuddedmarsh.com/St%20Johns.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]