Talk:Emmanuel College, Cambridge

Emmanuel College Students' Union merged here
See Articles for deletion/Emmanuel College Students' Union. Johnleemk | Talk 11:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Architecture assessment
I've given the article a stub rating, because whilst the article itself is not a stub, the architectural content is absent. -Mcginnly | Natter 12:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll try and add to this when I have time, I'll make a start in the coming weeks...The Young Ones (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Excessive detail
Does anyone else feel that listing who currently holds positions on ECSU is excessive - I'm thinking of removing all this detail - does anyone object? The Young Ones (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Offensive Removal of Changes
I now see clearly why the majority of Wikipedia users have become fed up with the egotistical attitude of the Wikipedia editors. My change to the Emmanuel College article was reasonable and non-controversial and yet someone removed it simply for no other reason than to feed their own ego. If a college was not admitting women by 1979 then there was obviously a problem involving discrimination. Your chauvanistic attitude is offensive to at least one-half of Wikipedia readers and by the way you may have just bought yourself a multi-million dollar lawsuit. Okay, maybe not, but somehow this just doesn't enter into your mind while you're feeding your own small ego by censoring other contributors' valid ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.200.152 (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Both versions contain the same information – that Emmanuel first admitted women in 1979. It should be clear that this is late relatively late. However, the more neutral way should be the one included in the article. That is all. Please stick to the facts and not judgements. &#8212; Richie 22:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The point, which you have once again failed to grasp, is that you had no right to change it in the first place. Editor or no. Wikipedia, I once again caution you, is getting a widespread reputation for having egotistical editors who make changes SIMPLY because they have a difference of opinion with someone. That, whether you are able to understand it or not, is what your over-ruling of my minor edit boils down to. It's a widespread growing problem which many are seeing, and it makes Wikipedia less than it can be. There's been a kneejerk reaction to over-rule every little change in the panic which has been caused by the reputation Wikipedia was gaining for being inaccurate and unreliable. In an effort to cure that problem, another one has been created. Yes, you're technically correct. But you're wrong to think you have any *reason* to over-ride a well-meant contribution, for no other reason than - I again emphasize - the feeding of your own ego. There's *much* more important things to do in life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.200.152 (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This unsigned IP makes a valid point. Wikipedia editors should have an obligation to make people feel better about themselves by not reverting incorrect information. More important things in life, such as curing cancer or discovering the truth behind the moon landings, should *always* be prioritised over wasting time improving the credibility of insignificant articles. I hope everyone has learned a valuable lesson here. (192.88.212.32 (talk) 11:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC))

It may be worth mentioning that Wikipedia has an important guideline called Neutral Point of View which requires all contributors to set forth the facts in a neutral way without expressing their own opinions. Wikipedia is a place to present facts, not our own opinions, however reasonable. If an opinion is widely expressed by notable published authors then that is quite different. That would be a fact which could, even should, be reported, giving full references.Budhen (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Royal Peculiar
I believe the college has always been a Royal Peculiar, subject to the Queen but not to any bishop. This is why it can bless a civil partnership. Perhaps someone could look this up in the history of the college and present it in the article with references.Budhen (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Emmanuel College Front Court, Cambridge, UK - Diliff.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Emmanuel College Front Court, Cambridge, UK - Diliff.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 25, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-11-25. 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) 05:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Where is Cambridge?
Nowhere in this page mentions the location. There is a map, but the text assumes the reader know where Cambridge is located. GenacGenac (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)