Talk:Cambridge Apostles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject University of Cambridge, an attempt to standardise coverage of universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Secret Societies, a WikiProject which aims to improve all articles related to Secret Societies. |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| High | This article is on a subject of high-importance within Secret Societies articles. | |
|
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
Contents |
[edit] Wittgenstein?
According to the Ray Monk bio, Wittgenstein either quit after one or two meetings, or was never formally a member--just a trial member or whatever the equivalent is. I think it's a little misleading to list the guy without calling some kind of attention to it. I just put a reference to it in the article, but it looks kind of awkward--please somebody change it if they have access to the Monk book and think that it's worth flagging...67.71.48.108 17:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Feminist bias in this article
I do not understand why one of the most prominent comments on the Apostles should be that there have been few female members. Surely this is obvious, simply from the fact that the institution under discussion was all-male. It would seem obvious to add that the institution was located in England.
So where are the comments, lamenting that there were very few Africans among the Apostles? Indeed, very few Indians, Native Americans, Japanese, Chinese, and "ordinary Americans?"
Also, very few French, German, Italian and so on. The list could be endless.
Yet, somehow, some solemn person has decided that "the under-representation of females" should take precedence over some topics which might be much more interesting, such as (if this be true) the over-representation of gay men. JaafarAbuTarab 18:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know about bias, but the paragraph was somewhat repetitous, so I changed it. I still have a problem with
Critics say the society's secretive nature, combined with the small number of women members, and the significant percentage of angels who have acquired fellowships at Cambridge, and positions in the media, government and the church, places the Apostles at odds with the meritocratic ideals the university espouses.
- Where to start? 'Critics say' is a weasel worded phrase. I think it's also a non-sequitur. If the Apostle's membership have merit, why should they not be fellows in a meritocracy? The main problem, as I say, is the unattributed opinion. This paragraph deserves to go. I haven't yet deleted it. Perhaps somebody wants to do a re-write? - Crosbiesmith 20:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deacon
I have serious issues with this article. Much of the information is taken from Deacon's book on the Apostles -- the which is notoriously inaccurate and hopelessly antiquated.
I accept that personal knowledge does not constitute data for the Wikipedia -- but I cannot accept that third-rate research like Deacon's does so count. There is no principle of verifiability here since most of what Deacon writes is based on speculation and legend. At the very least, the article should be altered to the past tense since the current state of the Society cannot be determined by a forty-year old book.
131.111.8.98 11:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Deacon's book was published in 1986, not 40 years ago. What exactly do you dispute in the article? SlimVirgin (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Still going?
Does anyone know if the Apostles society still exist, and if not when did it end? there are mentions of members in the 1980s, so it has to be fairly recent. thanks for any answers. Bwithh 00:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Gandy
Hi Ed, do you have a source for Gandy having been a member? His WP bio shows him at Manchester and Oxford, not Cambridge. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- This book review identifies Gandy as an Apostle. I think there were a number of Oxonians who were Apostles? Bwithh 18:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- Strange. I'm not aware of any Oxonians who were Cambridge Apostles. Perhaps Gandy did go to Cambridge at some point. I'm concerned that the author of the review doesn't say what his source is. Is he taking the information from one of the books he's reviewing, and if so, which one; or is this something he added himself? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok, Gandy received his PhD from Cambridge in 1953 - this information was omitted from the WP page on him; reinstating him on the apostle page and adding that info to his bio page Bwithh 18:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Good work, Bwithh. I see his supervisor was Turing. I've always wondered why Turing wasn't a member. He was very smart, gay, and at King's, so he was a prime candidate. Maybe he turned them down. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Leslie Stephen
I found the name of Leslie Stephen in the former members´ list. Leslie Stephen, the father of Virginia Woolf, was never an Apostle. See Frederick William Maitland, The Live and Letters of Leslie Stephen, London 1906. On page 47 ist a quotation by Sir Leslie: "Let us hope, that I learnt a lesson of humility." It was his comment to the fact, that he was not elected to be an Apostle. In Noel Annans Biography "Leslie Stephen - The Godless Victorian", London 1984, we can read on page 29: "He [Leslie Stephen] was ambitious to be invited to join the Apostle; (...) yet no invitation came." In the Appendix of W C Lubenow´s Book "The Cambridge Apostles 1820 - 1914, Cambridge 1998, we find a biographical directory (p 413 - 432) with the names of all Apostles til 1914. Leslie Stephen is not mentioned.
Hans-Günter Semsek, Cologne/Germany
- Thanks, Hans-Günter, I've removed him. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Membership list
Though flattered to be included on the membership list of Apostles, I was not an Apostle and, indeed, as a University of Chicago, UCL, Harvard and Oxford man, was never up at Cambridge, and thus not eligible. However, the membership list given in the appendix to my book Moore: G.E. Moore and the Cambridge Apostles (1979) was taken from the Society's own records, and is totally accurate. It includes the entire membership up to Apostle no. 255 in Nov. 1914, with their dates of membership and so on. All the information about the Society in the book was taken from the Apostles' own records and is correct. Beware of imitations.Isishome 15:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Paul Levy
Gee, Paul ... I am glad you cleared this up. I have a feeling you could update your membership list by another 50 years or so. Robbiefields 17:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Does anyone know why Birdgirl reverted the edits made by Isishome? She did so without citing any reason or evidence. Dsp13 16:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fifth man
Elsewhere in Wikipeadia, the fifth man is stated to be John Cairncross. Why does this article provide speculation at odds with this widely held theory without even mentioning it?
--John Price 13:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Skull and Bones at Yale
Has anyone else noticed the similarities between these two groups?
[edit] Never members
Why am I not on this list? I was never a member! Sereously though, most people weren't members: unless there is some reason why it we should have thought they were, this section is silly. No reasopns were given, and I even linked to Paul Levy's article, but none there. Hense, obliveon.Larklight (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
