Talk:Cambridge University Press

Proposed edits

Hi everyone, my name is Hannah and I work at Cambridge University Press. I would like to propose some changes and improvements to the Cambridge University Press Wikipedia page to bring it up to date, but I would very much like to engage the Wikipedia community on these changes before I publish them. You can find the proposed changes in my sandbox, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cmdcam01/sandbox. I would like to publish the changes in mid-August so any and all comments very much welcomed. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmdcam01 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I've worked with Hannah several times in the past and I can testify (!) that her contributions, while connected to her professional life, are neutral in tone and factually sourced and this proposal appears no different to me, so I would see no problem with the proposed changes being incorporated. Hannah, happy to help if necessary, drop me a line if you need anything. Cheers, The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 15:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks, The Rambling Man, really appreciate it; I hope you're well. Cmdcam01 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmdcam01 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Cambridge University Press is now Cambridge University Press & Assessment

Can we please finally settle what has now descended into a frankly ridiculous edit war.

Cambridge University Press is no more. It has now amalgamated with Cambridge Assessment (one of the largest assessment bodies in the world) to create a new and distinct organisation - Cambridge University Press & Assessment.

Here are news articles reporting the merger:

https://www.cam.ac.uk/news/cambridge-university-press-to-join-with-cambridge-assessment

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/university-cambridge-cambridge-university-press-21236845

Here is the new website of the organisation. Note that it is quite clearly named "Cambridge University Press & Assessment".

https://www.cambridge.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabius Planciades Fulgentius (talk • contribs) 17:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Fabius Planciades Fulgentius. The issue is not whether the two organisations merged, I'm sure there's no doubt about that. It's that our coverage doesn't automatically follow the 'official' name or structure of an organisation. For example, Routledge was bought out by Taylor & Francis over twenty years ago, but we still have an article on it.

We have articles on notable entities under their common names in English. In this case, "Cambridge University Press" is clearly very notable and is usually called "Cambridge University Press". This book, for example, published this month, has it's publisher listed as "Cambridge University Press" on the "Cambridge University Press" website. It may be that the "Cambridge University Press & Assessment" brand eventually overtakes CUP as the most common name for the publisher – then we would move this article, but not before.

For now I think it would be a good idea to update the "organisational structure" section to reflect the merge and note its official name alongside the article title in the lead. But please don't make drastic and difficult-to-undo changes like moving, merging, or rewriting the article without getting consensus first. – Joe (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Joe, ‘Cambridge University Press’ is used as effectively an imprint. The comparison to Routledge is meaningless, as it still exists as distinct publisher with its own organisational structure and website:

https://www.routledge.com/corporate/about-us

CUP no longer has this. It is organisationally integrated completely with the constituent exam boards of what was formerly Cambridge Assessment.

There is no Cambridge Universiry Press website, but merely Cambridge Core (now an operation of Cambridge University Press & Assessment showing the *imprint* of Cambridge University Press. It doesn’t give any organisational details specific to CUP because **the organisation no longer exists**.

Fabius Planciades Fulgentius (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, we don't write our articles based on what the subject's website says. We write them based on what others say about them. – Joe (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Joe Roe That principle is not applicable here. It is intended to guard against bias. There is no 'bias' when it comes to questions of organisational structure. Fabius Planciades Fulgentius (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd also add, its patently untrue to characterise 'Cambridge University Press' as the "publishing house" of Cambridge University, as this article currently does. It is quite literally not a business; it doesn't exist as a sole organisation any more. Let us just sort this out once and for all.Fabius Planciades Fulgentius (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Given the long absence of any response from Joe Roe, what further steps are needed to achieve consensus and rectify the errors on this page?Fabius Planciades Fulgentius (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Joe Roe that the name Cambridge University Press is preferable. WP:COMMONNAME is the applicable policy, and Cambridge University Press is clearly the common name. It's also disruptive to move a page with over 20,000 incoming links without extraordinarily good reason. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

But this is again at the core of the issue. The "common name" is irrelevant as the organisation is no longer in existence. Cambridge University Press no longer exists as a distinct entity. It is merged with Cambridge Assessment (which rightly no longer has it's own page). Are we going to completely ignore one of the largest examination boards in the world (which examines over 8 million learners a year through its brands)? Would we call any merged business by its old name despite the fact the name has changed? Why is the rule any different here? As an aside point: Wikipedia is an important way by which new corporate identities reach the public consciousness. Could someone please actually take a look at the website and come up with a compelling explanation as to why the name should stay the same?Fabius Planciades Fulgentius (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

That's not how it works on Wikipedia. As the subject of an encyclopedic article, a publisher exists not on paper but in people's minds and references. What happens from time to time is a company gets subsumed by a holding company and ceases to exist as a legal entity. In such a case we usually leave the article where they are as long as it continues to exist as a branch or brand and people keep referring to it like a concrete thing. What establishes the existence of an organization isn't some registration document that no layperson looks at but collective external references to it, much like how the sovereignty of a country is established not by its own proclamation but through other countries' recognition. In any case, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial instead of engaging every single comment here, which will lead you not only nowhere but potentially to restrictions on your editing privileges. Nardog (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, I will submit a case on the Requested moves page when I get the time. In any case, I don't think it is appropriate for you to be threatening to restrict my editing privileges because I am discussing an issue (however forthrightly) on a talk page. That is surely the whole point of a talk page, considering how it literally not an edit war.Fabius Planciades Fulgentius (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Just pack all this in and submit a requested move motion. There we can gather thoughts, and then base our decision on community consensus rather than edit warring and parochial debate. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

We have lots of articles on entities that no longer exist, including Cambridge Assessment. – Joe (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

And those articles, unlike Cambridge Assessment and Cambridge University Press are referred to in the past tense. Unlike these two, which are still referred to as if they are organisations still in distinct operational existence (which they are not).Fabius Planciades Fulgentius (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

info us 2001:E68:542A:5889:4864:3B9D:58D3:8FE (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)