Talk:Cambridge University Press/Archive 1

Press?
Is refering to CUP as "The Press" with a capital "P" correct? --BozMo talk 17:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, this appears to be their usage. Morwen - Talk 17:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

POV-check
POV-check: To characterise an institution as showing 'incredible cowardice and dhimmitude', whatever the latter may mean, hardly seems neutral. 131.111.253.205 11:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Alms for Jihad
Now that a separate page (Alms for Jihad) has been set up on the controversy, I've been bold and moved most of the text about it to that page. Bluap (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Schneider "controversy"
Isn't the Dan Schneider section in 'controversy' a bit long for something that seems like a bit of a storm in a teacup? I appreciate it must be infuriating for him but I'm sure lots of authors have issues with the way their work is quoted - it just looks a little out of place in such a broad-brush encyclopaedia entry. Surely a sentence and a link to his article would suffice, if it is needed at all? IJBLondon (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk about recentism
Wow, a couple of recent controversies dominate this entire article on a major academic publisher! Here I was hoping to find some serious information. Metamagician3000 (talk) 13:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

New image
I've recently uploaded a 17th-century engraving of this press's device (right) by Wenceslas Hollar. Feel free to use or not use it. Dcoetzee 02:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversies section
I have reinserted the Schneider info, with citations. While personal website are not usually reliable sources, in this case it qualifies because Schneider is commenting upon a CUP publication which quoted by name one of his reviews. Per self-published sources, this type of citation is valid "When produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." By Schneider being published in this CUP book, CUP is acknowledging him as an expert as far as this one book of theirs is concern. Therefore, it is valid to reference Schneider's comments about the book.--SouthernNights (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm missing something here. I'm not seeing how we have any sources that are independent of the supposed controversy. --Ronz (talk) 03:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is one of the cases when a self-published article is acceptable, as explained above. --SouthernNights (talk) 11:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm asking for a more detailed explanation, specifically to identify what sources we have to justify giving this any mention at all per WP:UNDUE.
 * We have only two sources, right? Neither independent of the supposed controversy, right?  If so, then why are we mentioning it? --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE doesn't mean you can simply remove information. If you wish to shorten and tighten it, fine. But the bigger problem is that the article is too short and not very detailed. I mean, this press has existed for just under 500 years. There's way more info which could be placed here.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE says, "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views" and "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia..." Based upon that, I've removed it.  We have no independent sources showing it is a controversy worth any mention in Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, Mr. Ronz, do not remove articles or information simply because you have a personal bias. The previous editor is an admin and quoted the proper text relevant to why the information is sound. This is important information about the editorial practices of a respected press, and it deserves mention. Also, please do not harass me by removing my comments. It is unfair and biased. You have been shown to be wrong per Wiki guidelines. Mudsnakezim (talk) 12:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And I've reinserted it. We're talking around each other and obviously disagree. So I'd be interested in hearing from other editors and reaching a consensus on this. Based on the comment from the previous editor, not everyone agrees with you removing this.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote. I'm not talking around anyone.  I've provided policy-based reasoning for my viewpoint.  No one has addressed that reasoning. --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought I'd chime in. Years ago I had a letter to the editor of a local newspaper severely edit a letter of protest I'd written about a local political issue published. What angered me was that the editing made my opinion seem petty and based on a NIMBY issue (not in my back yard) when it was not. It seems to me that several issues are at stake. First, whether or not the reference conforms to Wikipedia policy. The editor or admin who wants it back points to a pretty convincing text. I understand Wikipedia's bias against blogs, but this case seems to be the exception. Imagine a scientist has his discovery derided in a major journal. If it is important to the topic in the article, there's a reason for the denunciation. But, as stated if the journal noted accepts the scientist's discovery (even if wrong) as important, then the scientist's rebuttal or proof has to be presented.

It's not an exact analogy, but what we have here is a piece about a well known press's controversies. Since the policies of a press are essential to its business, they have to be important. No one is denying that the Press acknowledges the writer as important. Whether we agree is irrelevant. CUP does. And the writer apparently detailed that they distorted his writing and refused to acknowledge him properly. His counterclaim, then, is perfectly reasonable. The wording seems to fit NPOV policy: i.e.- the writer "claims" this or that. Plus, as the policy referenced concedes, the Press itself has established the writer as an expert by printing his words in their book. therefore, his criticisms are those of an expert. NPOV does not apply. Again, imagine a famous journal derided a scientist's theory. If they elevated it to worthy of discussion by writing on it, then the referenced scientist is "the" expert on that topic, and his opinion (pro or con) is legitimately worthy of inclusion on that topic. And I agree it certainly is not trivial. Tell a scientist the granting process is trivial and not worthy of comment.

Now, if someone can prove the writer's claims false, that's another story and issue. But that's not the stated case, as far as I know. Looking through the links it seems that even employees of the university acknowledge the writer was wronged. So it seems that the issue is one of import. If we all agree that the editorial policies of a press are important enough to bear criticism, then the mention and reference should stay. How can it be otherwise? Because the accuser is an individual and not some British tabloid, has nothing to do with the substance of the claim. Nor does the writer's controversial nature, or the fact that certain people do not like him.

Another issue seems to be that very thing: the writer in question is somewhat controversial. The editor who dislikes the mention, Ronz, seems to have a history of deleting references to this writer based upon--I do not see how Mudsnakezim's mention of this fact constitutes harassment. It took me a couple of minutes to confirm this. I also read, in this editor's own words, that he has little regard for politeness. Obviously. But that's not a criticism, just stating what the editor himself states. But, even if all those prior deletions followed policy, it seems that SouthernNight's reason for reinsertion, based upon policy, should triumph. There are exceptions to rules, and he has a valid case, backed up by the site's own words. Also, his logic is more sound.

Also, I removed the collapsable comments that the editor Ronz put around the initial adder (or readder?) of the information. I think it a dubious and dishonest thing to do. He also seems to have removed earlier comments that pointed out Ronz's conflict of interest and POV against the author in question. One does not have to scream or accuse another person of things, or try to minimize their comments with little tricks. Simple conversation should suffice.

But, I doubt that will work at Wikipedia. I am not going to get into an edit war, and only commented because of my personal distaste for censorship and dishonest editing in newspapers and on Wikipedia, as I mentioned. So, I support this information's reinsertion. I think it is valid, follows the guidelines that SouthernNights references, and is very helpful to would be writers or contributors to CUP in the future. Ibroan (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

And I see I could not even finish my reasoning before my edit was undone. Reason indeed! Ibroan (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My concern is that we have no independent sources demonstrating that this "controversy" is anything more than a "storm in a teacup". --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"Publishing highlights"
I've removed this unsourced, POV list of "highlights" from the main page. I suggest it is not added until it is fully referenced and an explanation of "highlight" is given. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It appears to be a copyright violation from articles such as . --Ronz (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In which case I'll remove it from here too! Thanks for keeping your eyes peeled.  Keep in touch with me if anything more needs to be looked into on this article - I've semi-protected it for 2 weeks so we avoid more IP additions.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Article contributions
Hello, my name is Hannah and I work at Cambridge University Press. I'm here to contribute information that will improve the quality of Cambridge University Press-related pages. I am aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and I will abide by them. The Rambling Man has also agreed to monitor, review and seek others' opinion of any proposed edits. My edits will be restricted to talk pages, and I will not engage in editing directly any Cambridge University Press-related page. Instead, I hope to volunteer information on the talk pages, and ask for Wikipedians' help. If you want to contact me, please leave a message on my talk page Cmdcam01. Many thanks.Cmdcam01 (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note to say that I have, indeed, agreed to monitor the contributions of Cmdcam01, paying due diligence to WP:COI. I am grateful for her providing such an up-front and honest statement of intent, in accordance with the advice given in our own declaration of interest guidelines.  If anyone wishes to discuss this further with me then feel free to contact me on my talkpage or via email.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Article contributions
Hello, as per the message above, I'm proposing some relevant changes to the Cambridge University Press page: a new Infobox, along with the changes below to the lead section. I propose to make these changes to the page within the next three days if no one objects. If you want to contact me, please leave a message on my talk page Cmdcam01. Many thanks.Cmdcam01 (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Cambridge University Press is the publishing business of the University of Cambridge. Granted Letters Patent by Henry VIII in 1534, it is the world's oldest continually operating book publisher.

The Press’s mission is to “To further through publication and printing the University’s objective of advancing learning, knowledge and research worldwide.” This mission is laid out in ‘Statute J’ in the University of Cambridge’s Statutes and Ordinances. The Press is both an academic and educational publisher, with a regional structure operating in Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA); the Americas; and Asia-Pacific.

Its publishing includes professional books; textbooks; monographs; reference works; around 240 academic journals; Bibles and prayer books; English Language Teaching publications; educational software and electronic publishing.

Disclosure
Per above also, I have been working with Cmdcam01 to ensure that all proposed contributions comply with the usual policies, i.e. WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. In particular, my role has been to ensure the guidance provided by both WP:NPOV and WP:COI is applied. If anyone wishes to discuss this arrangement with me then feel free to contact me. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Article contributions: a new section on Governance
Hello, I'm proposing to add a new section on Governance of the Press, please see below. I propose to make these changes to the page within the next seven days if no one objects. If you want to contact me, please leave a message on my talk page, Cmdcam01. Many thanks.

Governance
The Press has, since 1698, been governed by the Press ‘Syndics’ (originally known as the 'Curators'), made up of 18 senior academics from the University of Cambridge who represent a wide variety of subjects. The Syndicate has two main sub-committees: the Publishing Committee and the Finance Committee. The Publishing Committee provide quality assurance and formal approval for the titles to be published and meets 18 times a year to review editorial and publishing strategy matters. The Finance Committee is concerned with financial and governance strategy and meets four times a year. The Press Syndicate meets in the Pitt Building, which is the old headquarters of the Press located in Cambridge city centre. The operational responsibility of the Press is delegated by the Syndics to the Press’s Chief Executive and six Officers, including a Finance Director.

The Press is a department of the University of Cambridge; it has no shareholders and is entirely self-financing. It is a not-for-profit organisation; any surplus is used to develop the publishing programme and to support the University.

Cmdcam01 (talk) 10:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Cambridge brands and series
The Press’s professional and academic brands include Cambridge Histories Online, Cambridge Archive Editions, Cambridge Books Online and the Cambridge Library Collection. Cambridge Journals is the Press’s journals publishing business, which publishes well over 200 academic journals and hundreds of research articles every month.

English Language Teaching brands and series include the Cambridge Dictionaries for learners of English, the Cambridge International Corpus, a database of language samples, as well as grammar and vocabulary publications. Recent developments include launching English360, a web-based tool for teachers of business English. Education brands and series include the Cambridge Essentials Science and Mathematics courses, publishing for the International Baccalaureate Programme and the iLearn Writing and Speaking and Listening courses.

Cambridge–Hitachi is a collaboration between Cambridge University Press and Hitachi Software Engineering that produces educational content for use on whiteboards. Cambridge–Hitachi has produced Race to Learn, a collaboration with Williams F1 racing that helps to teach children team work. Other brands also include Global Grid for Learning, and Arab Grid for Learning, which are digital content networks for teachers worldwide.

Cmdcam01 (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Article contributions: two new sections proposed
Hello, I'm proposing to add two new sections on the publishing structure of the Press and also some of the Press's brands and series; please see below. I propose to make these changes to the page within the next four days if no one objects. If you want to contact me, please leave a message on my talk page, Cmdcam01/sandbox. Many thanks.
 * Without any independent sources that I can find in what you've provided, I think it would be a bad idea, especially given the WP:COI. --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I think we're well aware of the COI issue, hence the very open statements above, but fine.  Could you be generous enough to specify things that you either are or are not happy with?  Or is the whole thing a write-off?  Thanks for your time and interest, and open-minded approach to this particular editorial approach, it's a fine line we're treading so any external input is gratefully accepted.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that without independent sources, the information shouldn't be added. I skimmed the sources quickly, so perhaps there are some that I overlooked?  If not, could some be found? --Ronz (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, then we'll hold off adding the information until secondary sources can be found, or else we'll provide alternative phrasing and sourcing. Thanks again for your input. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Article contributions: Publishing structure references amended and Brands and series information
Hello, as per the comments above, the references in Publishing structure have been amended:

Publishing structure
Cambridge University Press is divided into three main publishing groups. These are:

Academic and Professional
The Press publishes textbooks and reference books in the science, technology and medicine, and humanities and social sciences topic areas. They also publish bibles and academic journals.

Cambridge Learning
Cambridge Learning publishes English language teaching courses and books for all ages. They also publish educational books and courses for primary, secondary and international schools.

The New Directions Group
With the advent of online delivery, the Press has stated that this represents an opportunity to reach a vast global market, and is a welcome development. In order to take advantage of these opportunities, a team called the New Directions Group at Cambridge University Press was put together in 2008 to explore and exploit new educational technologies, and to lead development of products and applications.

The Cambridge brands and series information will not be added until better references can be found. Many thanks for your time in looking at this. I propose to make these changes to the page within the next four days if no one objects. If you want to contact me, please leave a message on my talk page, Cmdcam01/sandbox Cmdcam01 (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Canto information
Hello, as per the messages above regarding article contributions, the Canto product information has been removed as it is unreferenced:

CUP has a division called 'Canto' that offers economical reprints of their more popular books in a (often smaller) paperback. The editions state, "Canto is a paperback imprint which offers a broad range of titles, both classic and more recent, representing some of the best and most enjoyable of Cambridge publishing."

If you want to contact me, please leave a message on my talk page, Cmdcam01/sandbox. Many thanks. Cmdcam01 (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Addition to controversies section
Hello, as part of these article contributions, I propose to add the following information to the controversies section:

Cambridge defended its actions, saying it had acted responsibly and that it is a global publisher with a duty to observe the laws of many different countries.

I propose to make these changes to the page within the next five days if no one objects. If you want to contact me, please leave a message on my talk page, Cmdcam01/sandbox. Cmdcam01 (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Adding a section on Community work
I also propose adding the following information about community work:

The Press has been recognised on several occasions for its commitment to community involvement and social responsibility, and it has stated that public engagement is an important part of the Press’s role, by undertaking educational projects and fundraising. In 2009 the Press’s Chief Executive Stephen Bourne was recognised for his "leadership and commitment to responsibility business practice" by being awarded The Prince’s Ambassador Award for the East of England.

I propose to make these changes to the page within the next five days if no one objects. If you want to contact me, please leave a message on my talk page, Cmdcam01/sandbox. Many thanks. Cmdcam01 (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of unreferenced information
The following information has been removed from the Controversies section, as it is unreferenced:

"Academics have widely condemned the actions of the plaintiffs in bringing the suit upon grounds of both fair use in education, as well as the underlying economic fact that virtually all the work in academic publishing is done by university employees, not academic publishing houses."

Many thanks. Cmdcam01 (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Adding a section on electronic and digital developments
I propose adding the following information. I propose to make these changes to the page within the next five days if no one objects. If you want to contact me, please leave a message on my talk page, Cmdcam01/sandbox. Thanks Cmdcam01 (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just shuffling things around so it's absolutely clear what's being proposed. I have looked at these changes and since they are backed by third-party sources, I see no issue with their inclusion.  Of course, we both welcome input from the wider community. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Electronic and digital developments
Due to the changes taking place in the way that books and content are bought and accessed, Cambridge has stated that sales from its digital products could account for two-thirds of its sales by 2020.

Since 2010, Cambridge has provided electronic book content through the website Cambridge Books Online, and all of Cambridge’s journals are published in both hard copy format and online.

Other recent ventures include Race to Learn, curriculum software that uses Formula One to encourage group working in primary school children. Global Grid for Learning is a digital resource that allows teachers and students to search, stream and download copyright-cleared learning resources. Other digital and online ventures include English 360, a web-based learning platform for teaching business English and English for special purposes, and Cambridge–Hitachi, a joint venture between Cambridge University Press and Hitachi Software Engineering that produces software for teaching on interactive whiteboards in schools.

And...?
In the section about the lawsuit by CUP against several Georgia State professors, it pretty much describes the existance of a lawsuit as of 2008. Ok, so what? It's now 2011 -- has anything happened with that? -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 04:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Namesakes
There's a similarly-named organization called "Cambridge Scholars Publishing"; one discussion I found says that "at least they're not a vanity press" because they don't charge for publication. On the other hand, the quality of their material is... well, let's say it's less consistent than that of CUP.

It's quite easy for the less-than-fastidious to confuse CSP and CUP (although I wouldn't presume to say that was their reason for choosing that name). As such, should the CUP article mention CSP (even if only in a phrase like "not to be confused with CSP")? DS (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Archives of Cambridge University Press
The archives of the CUP are available at A full 40 linear meters of materials covering dates 1791–1984! - DutchTreat (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cambridge University Press. 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 tag to http://www.cambridge.org/uk/bookshop/history.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607023628/http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/so/pdfs/cso_2_statutej_69.pdf to http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/so/pdfs/cso_2_statutej_69.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120125225919/http://www.cambridge.org/home/page/item6459996/?site_locale=en_US to http://www.cambridge.org/home/page/item6459996/?site_locale=en_US
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101102215204/http://cambridge.org/about/annualreport/downloads/annual_report_2009.pdf to http://www.cambridge.org/about/annualreport/downloads/annual_report_2009.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)