Wikipedia

Talk:Harvard University/Archive 9

< Talk:Harvard University
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified

Request for comment on proposed new section or subsection

Latest comment: 7 years ago48 comments7 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does Harvard University's expansion plan warrant its own section, or subsection, in the article on the university? X4n6 (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Note: edited by X4n6 to add "or subsection" 05:57, 29 September 2016. FourViolas (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Note: edited by Four Violas to underline "or subsection." The change I made was to clarify some confusion, but the underlined overemphasis is excessive and alters the intent. X4n6 (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Note: If you change an RfC after there's been substantive comment then -- if it's appropriate to do that at all -- there must be something making clear that such a change has occurred. Underlining / striking out is the standard way of doing that, and certainly can't be misinterpreted given that we now have three of these stupid notes here. EEng 07:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Note: The RfC was never changed. It was clarified - per REDACT's option to "otherwise improve" and to address the obvious misdirection that you and your canvassers were transparently trying to steer it in to: the false choice that a section required some absurd threshold not called for in policies like BALASP. So before non-canvassed editors had weighed in, I closed your loophole. If you or another editor had a problem with when I did it, you could have asked that I format it differently> But you have no right to presume to undertake that task yourself. That's not the standard way of doing it. X4n6 (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not about emphasis. Your edit took other editors' responses out of context, which not okay; WP:REDACT says that if you must do something like that, you should underline added text and strike removed text. FourViolas (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Still wrong. Even if your claim that I "took other editors' responses out of context" were true - which it's not - where did it occur? Making false charges doesn't help your position. Moreover, what policy would it violate? It's noteworthy that you couldn't even manage to provide one. However, your altering someone else's edit is a clear violation of WP:TPO. You should not have done it; you were wrong to do it; and as someone who so obviously enjoys spouting policy - you knew better - or you should have known better. X4n6 (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
You started an RfC on whether the material should have "its own section" [1]. I and others responded that it shouldn't. You then changed the question to add the possibility of adding only a subsection, a rather different thing. Our responses were consequently out of context. FourViolas (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I started the RfC. You did not. So you had no right to edit it, per TPO - while I had every right to edit it, per REDACT. So why are you rehashing this? Besides, if you feel your vote is now misrepresented, or "consequently out of context" - there's nothing preventing you from changing your vote, correct? X4n6 (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No as things stand. Here's what's going on [2].Pinging those who participated in the prior discussion: FourViolas, Jehochman, Hertz1888, Neutrality. EEng 08:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Yes. Notwithstanding the blatant WP:CANVASSING vio above and noted; of course a major, 10 year, physical expansion plan by a major university, warrants its own section in the article about that university. How could it not? It also likely warrants its own separate article. X4n6 (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not canvassing to ping every editor (except you and me, of course) who participated in the prior discussion. The fact that not a single one of those prior participants agreed with you still doesn't make it canvassing. EEng 14:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Per CANVASS: "don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions." Per WP:APPNOTE: "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions." So your claim that: "their opinions just happen to agree with yours - but that sure ain't canvassing" is nonsense. You also did not ping every editor who participated in the prior discussion. You failed to ping Calidum, who has also been quite engaged here. But you did ping Four Violas, who did not participate, since the edit log shows you two routinely support each other here. All of that equals textbook canvassing. But the fact that you are so clearly threatened by the process of inviting input from other editors with whom you have no prior history, really says it all. X4n6 (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Calidum didn't participate in the prior discussion on this topic, but I'm happy you've pinged him. EEng 18:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Calidum has participated on this talk page, as have others who have not edited recently. But no question, Calidum should have been pinged from the beginning, if any pinging was done. X4n6 (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I did participate in the previous discussion [3], and it's quite legitimate to elicit responses from all of the editors who have previously expressed an opinion about the prominence due the Allston expansion. FourViolas (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Indeed you did. But you didn't participate in the informal vote, so I neglected to include you. But as with Hertz1888, the objections you noted were all addressed in the compromise that was offered; which, judging by your response, you probably have not read. Because it actually reflects all your previously stated concerns. As regards your new concerns below, you'll also see it is a subsection - not a major section - which is more than appropriate. This also makes it very difficult to see how WP:BALASP could possibly apply to 2 paragraphs in an article this size. But thanks for the correction. Now that we've heard from all editors canvassed by EEng, (except Neutrality), we can look forward to the input of uninvolved editors - which is the actual purpose of this, or any, RfC. X4n6 (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
The purpose of the RfC, according to what you stated both at the top of the RfC and in the edit you just linked, is to determine whether the expansion plan warrants its own section. And it wasn't canvassing; WP:APPNOTE says it's fine to notify concerned editors if there's no exclusion of opposing views (there just happen to have been no editors agreeing with you). FourViolas (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
First, I noted that a compromise was offered, which you clearly had not read. Your response? None. Then I pointed out that the compromise actually reflected all of your prior concerns. Your response? None. Then I discussed how the subsection easily defeats your claim of BALASP. Your response? None. Then I remarked that since we'd now heard from all of EEng's canvassers, except one, we could finally hear from uninvolved editors - which is the actual purpose of an RfC. Your response? An interpretation of APPNOTE that is not found in APPNOTE. But what is found there is a section on "Vote-stacking." I'll politely invite you to review it. X4n6 (talk) 09:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I had in fact read your compromise, which is still too long and detailed for BALASP. But, as you have been arguing, the question of what content to include about the expansion is different from the question of whether to give it a section heading, so I was staying on-topic. You changed the question after I'd responded, to add the subsection suggestion (which you should have noted, per WP:REDACT); it remains true that the expansion has not attracted as much RS coverage as many other subtopics, such as Widener Library, The Harvard Lampoon, or Harvard Medical School, with no subsections. The part of APPNOTE I'm referencing is An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at...the talk page of one or more articles...directly related to the topic under discussion....The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. EEng notified every editor who had participated, including every single editor who had agreed with you—which, as it happened, was zero editors. FourViolas (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
REDACT only broadly applies to talk pages in general, not specifically to RfCs. And the fact that you responded as a result of a votestack canvass pretty well insured that your opinion was not going to be changed or swayed by anything anyway. And sure enough, it wasn't. Also per REDACT, I made the change before any new and/or uninvolved editors had weighed in; so any minor changes or edits were perfectly acceptable. But it was not acceptable for you to directly edit the title of this RfC: as you did not submit it. I've also already addressed your misapplication of BALASP - while you've still failed to explain how you believe it does apply. And keep in mind, as I noted below, that any alleged BALASP aimed at adding Allston to the section on Campus, would also likely apply to the subsections already there. So tread carefully. As to APPNOTE: as I've also already pointed out to EEng, not every editor was pinged, so your claim otherwise is false. But as your own quote of APPNOTE states: The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions. So why were they pinged at all? Your rebuttal covered almost everything but failed to address the answer I already provided - and also found at APPNOTE - so you should have seen it:
  • Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement).[2] Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking. X4n6 (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
As explained over and over, every editor who had participated in the prior discussion was pinged, and the fact that no one in the prior discussion agreed with you has nothing to do with it. EEng 02:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No. I thought we already had a strong consensus for short and pithy, to not weigh this main article down way out of proportion. I have no objection to a separate article. I resent the forum shopping, coming after so verbose and exhausting a discussion. Hertz1888 (talk) 09:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. As you are here only because of EEngs' canvassing vio, you've also mimicked his false forum shopping attack. This RfC is about a new and separate section. The informal prior discussion was over content. You also seem unaware that a collaboration and compromise was offered, that you were not a party to, which was shorter and "pithier." Please review. It mirrors your original comment. X4n6 (talk) 10:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • An objection stated once is fine. Repeating it after each and every comment makes a mess of the discussion, and should be avoided. Jehochman Talk 15:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Noted. But when directly addressed, as above, there is the option to respond. X4n6 (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
WP:NOTTHEPRESIDENTIALDEBATES (thank goodness) :-) FourViolas (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Certainly not per WP:BALASPS. According to that policy, we emphasize or de-emphasize subtopics in accordance with the amount of attention paid to them in reliable sources, and the Allston expansion has only a tiny fraction of the amount of coverage the other sections have.
The current sections are "History" [4], "Campus" [5], "Organization and administration" [6] "Academics" [7], "Student life" [8], "Notable people" [9], and "Literature and popular culture" [10]. Those links I've provided are each to an entire book, mostly one of many, devoted to that specific topic or a strict subtopic. In contrast, Harvard's Allston expansion has been covered in Harvard press releases and local newspapers [11]. It's not even close. We should have a short paragraph on this in the "Campus" section, as we currently do. FourViolas (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Just Google: Harvard expansion. And sure, the Boston Globe is a "local newspaper" - in the same way the NewYork Times and the Washington Post are local newspapers. To quote you: "it's not even close." X4n6 (talk) 10:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
You're right -- those aren't local papers. Shame on you, Four Violas! Nonetheless, the Globe article is three sentences, the WSJ article is about something else and mentions the expansion in passing in one sentence, and the Post article is from nine years ago. EEng 14:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
True, my bad. But a dozen newspaper articles, in any newspaper, are not comparable to a dozen books. As for the change to the RfC to suggest the material gets only a subsection, the expansion still hasn't attracted as much RS coverage as many other subtopics, such as Widener Library, The Harvard Lampoon, or Harvard Medical School, with no subsections. FourViolas (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Nice try, folks. But since when is a book the threshold for a section? Especially of a work in progress? And all your links are to separate articles. So are you, like Hertz1888, now agreeing that the expansion warrants a separate article? Also, you're wrong on Widener: the Widener Library does have its own section: under Libraries and museums. Just as there is already a subsection under Campus, which lists Cambridge, Boston and "Other locations," which include such far-flung places as Washington, D.C.,; Florence, Italy; and Shanghai, China. And none of them, I might add, come anywhere near the amount of investment, land, construction, or complexity of Allston. So are you seriously trying to argue, in good faith, that a section there about Allston is unwarranted? Because if you are, I invite you to explain any logic which supports that argument.
But also, am I really the only one here who knows how to work the "Google machine?" Then behold! Major Washington Post articles on the expansion? 5: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; Major New York Times articles? 7: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. USA Today? 3: 1, 2, 3. The Wall Street Journal? 4: 1, 2, 3, 4. And that "local newspaper," the Boston Globe? A whopping 12! 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. These all exclude the articles in Time Magazine; the Chicago Tribune; UK's The Guardian; and Al Jazeera! Or those other 5 articles in Reuters: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I could cite many more. But heaven forbid we should include 2 short paragraphs in their own little (sub)section (under Campuses!), on such a widely-reported, reliably-sourced and important topic in the article about the university that's causing this reporting! Because the Earth would fall off its axis - just before we'd all be consumed by Zika virus and flesh-eating cooties. Right, kids? X4n6 (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
BALASP is clear that the standard of coverage necessary for a section depends on the amount other subtopics have received. On this page, that's "many books' worth". Displaying more and more newspaper clippings doesn't change that fact. The "Libraries and museums" subsection is about many dozens of entities, including Widener, many of which have received more coverage than the expansion.
However, since you insist that we should disregard the BALASP policy in favor of your impression that this is "important", consider that no classes, research, or administration is happening on this possible subcampus-to-be; it's irrelevant to the day-to-day experience of almost all university affiliates. You say that we should include it anyway because it's a "work in progress"; but any importance it may someday have is WP:CRYSTALBALL-gazing.
I have no objection to a standalone article if you think you could get one past AfD. There are hundreds of notable subtopics of Harvard University, and we can't have sections (or even subsections) for all of them. Strawman arguments are not productive. FourViolas (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
In what alternate universe is your interpretation of BALASP found? Because it's certainly not found in the policy itself. Rather than trying to distort the one paragraph policy - which, beyond the example, is really a one sentence policy - why don't we just end this by quoting it directly: An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. Where is there any support for your claim that the policy says anything related to: "standard of coverage necessary for a section depends on the amount other subtopics have received?" That's plainly wrong. The policy says the article: "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources" - it does not quantify the body of reliable sources, nor claim they must be approximately equal. Or used as some threshold for inclusion. All of which you claim from the policy - with zero support in the policy. So we can finally put all your claims about BALASP to rest. Your CRYSTAL argument is just as desperate - and just as specious. The fact is, there is nothing predictive about the Allston expansion. As all the RS proves, it exists. It has been designed, approved, funded and is under construction. So your CRYSTAL argument is only about 10 years too late. As to the stand-alone article, it appears the weight of RS evidence I've provided has already persuaded your buddy EEng to move in that direction. So the strawmen are all yours. And like any good strawmen, they all crumble under the weight of scrutiny. X4n6 (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
X4n6, I checked your first three links, and the entirety of their text related to this subject is, in each case...
  • "SEAS is the next frontier for Harvard,” Paulson said in a statement, “and its expanding campus in Allston promises to become the next major center of innovation."
  • "Harvard is on the verge of one of the most dramatic expansions in its history, developing a new campus in Boston across the Charles River that will more than double the school's physical size... Some faculty members attribute the financial strains to the proposed expansion... Some faculty members, such as Joseph S. Nye Jr., outgoing dean of the Kennedy School, say Summers's legacy will largely depend on how well he handles the expansion to Allston across the river."
  • "Since arriving in 2001, Summers has advanced a highly ambitious agenda that includes retooling the undergraduate curriculum, intensifying Harvard's focus on life sciences research and expanding the university across the Charles River into the Boston neighborhood of Allston... Summers was asked by Peter Burgard, a professor of German, at a faculty meeting in the fall of 2003 whether professors would be able to vote on Summers's plan for Harvard's expansion into Allston. The response came in a single word, Burgard said: 'No.'"
I stopped looking after that. This kind of WP:REFBOMBing doesn't help your case. There's no doubt this expansion is notable, and could be not just a section of an article on Harvard University campuses, but an entire article on its own. I've created one: Harvard University's expansion in Allston, Massachusetts.
What you're just not getting is that, even if all of your linked articles had substantive material on this subject and there were 10 times as many of them, that wouldn't be nearly the outside coverage of lots of stuff that get only a sentence or two each here, because everything about Harvard gets saturation coverage. For example, John Harvard himself gets only this:
Established originally by the Massachusetts legislature and soon thereafter named for John Harvard (its first benefactor)... In 1639, the college was renamed Harvard College after deceased clergyman John Harvard, who was an alumnus of the University of Cambridge. He had left the school £779 and his library of some 400 books.
Even as things are, he gets less text than the expansion already gets, and certainly not a section (or subsection) of his own. The President and Fellows of Harvard College‍—‌the oldest corporation in America‍—‌gets all of this:
Harvard is governed by a combination of its Board of Overseers and the President and Fellows of Harvard College (also known as the Harvard Corporation), which in turn appoints the President of Harvard University
There's just too much to say about Harvard to give more than a sentence or two to almost anything (which is why this article is so dense with links to subsidiary articles). Please, direct your energies to Harvard University's expansion in Allston, Massachusetts. EEng 02:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

EEng, I'm gratified that you now recognize the notability of the Allston expansion. And while you may be dismissive of the REFBOMB, I embrace it. It made my point - which had been challenged up to then - and was likely instrumental in your own conversion. In any event, I also appreciate your concerns regarding space in this article. But I'm just looking for parity within that section. That is more than reasonable. If you review the section on Campus, as I've already discussed, there are 3 sections: Cambridge, Boston and "Other locations." Allston clearly belongs there. Probably after the Boston section and before the "Other locations" section. And as a specific location, it should be approximately the same size as the Cambridge and Boston sections. So if we break it down, here's how it should look:

  • Cambridge section: 4 paragraphs. 254 words;
  • Boston section: 2 paragraphs. 212 words;
  • Allston section: 2 paragraphs. 188 words; (the edited version)
  • Other locations: 1 paragraph. 50 words.

EEng, since we now agree that Allston is notable, this is more than reasonable - and entirely consistent with that section. As for your stand-alone article, I'll treat that as a separate issue, as it is. I'll address it after this is resolved here. Hopefully, now we can move a large step in that direction. X4n6 (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

There was never disagreement on whether the material was notable, just about the amount of space it is due on this page. The relevant policy is BALASP, which makes it clear that a subsection is inappropriate unless you can find books' worth of RS covering the expansion, regardless of your intuitions about how it would be "reasonable" to arrange the material. FourViolas (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
"There was never disagreement on whether the material was notable?" Really? Have you forgotten this, or https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harvard_University&diff=741631699&oldid=741626055 missed] this, this or this or this. So no, the question of notability has always been at issue. As for BALASP, I've already addressed it ad nauseum, for the last time here. At this point, this is just a case of WP:IDHT. X4n6 (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
None of what you link has anything to do with notability. I'm beginning to think you don't know what notability means in the context of Wikipedia. Now, as elsewhere, I invite you to have the last word, after which I look forward to the input of others. EEng 21:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Just like the U.S. presidential contender you mock on your userpage, I'm beginning to think you also have impulse control issues. You said you were going to take your toys (and your boys) and go home, so you could start "saving the planet, the animals, and the coeds." So what happened? You should have stuck with that plan. Maybe you'd be more successful with that than with your weak attempt to try to ass-ume the role of the arbiter of my knowledge of Wikipedia. But perhaps you also lack the capacity for critical thinking? Or reading comprehension? In either case, my arguments were sound - and given your history - I feel no further need, nor inclination, to once again try to explain them to you. X4n6 (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Why would a U.S. presidential contender think I have impulse-control issues? And it's FV who's in charge of planets, animals, and coeds. I'm in charge of world copper prices. EEng 01:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to disappoint you, X4n6, but you haven't converted me to anything.
  • I never questioned that the expansion is notable.
  • "Notability" has nothing to do with article content -- see WP:NNC.
  • Allston is part of Boston, so a separate section for it makes no sense.
Please have the last word now. I intend to await further input from others (and encourage my esteemed fellow editors to do the same -- FourViolas, back to saving the planet, the animals, and the coeds!). EEng 07:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Eh, I never bought it anyway, EEng. Especially, given your recent history of bailing at the first sign of collaboration. But now you're taking your posse with you back to Dodge City?! Well, at least other unattached editors can now weigh in. Meanwhile, I'll collaborate with you in absentia. See here. According to you, Allston deserves its own subsection. Well, guess what? I agree with you! So I've substantially restored your own edit. Now, you even get the last word. X4n6 (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No - Put this in perspective of the institution's history of several hundred years. This would violate WP:UNDUE in the form of recentism. An expansion warrants a sentence or two. Jehochman Talk 12:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Please see above. This expansion was originally proposed over a decade ago and three Harvard university presidents ago. Hardly recent - or undue - by any definition. X4n6 (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - presuming this is speaking of the 10-year Institutional Master Plan, it seems something that needs to be included and the amount seems enough to warrant a subsection. I'll suggest that it be specific by including the name "Institutional Master Plan" and naming the locations as part of any content. I'll also offer the alternatives that it might reasonably be put instead under existing subsections -- specifically 1.4 History/21st century (the planning and status so far is "History") and/or 2 Campus (the previously debated location 2.3 Campus/Other locations does seem reasonable, or create a new subsection 2.4 Future locations). Want to say it's more relevant and better than bottom article parts (unexplained photos "Alumni", unexplained and badly formatted "Faculty", citation needed, etcetera) but that's not really what was asked. Markbassett (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No. (I became aware of this discussion from a discussion at EEng's talk page.) I don't see anything wrong with adding maybe a sentence or two, but the proposed additions are too much. The nature of the expansions is appropriate content to include, but a blow-by-blow of the regulatory approval process is not. I agree with other editors that due weight and recentism (even if the process has been taking place over some time) apply here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment. Thanks for your input. I believe the current version adequately resolves this. It reflects most of the consensus and all of the reliable sources. X4n6 (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IMP and Allston

Latest comment: 7 years ago25 comments6 people in discussion

Let's not confuse the reader with argle-bargle. Jehochman Talk 11:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Scalia is very dead. And so is this edit war. So you ignore a mountain of RS - that you are well aware of as a participant in the RfC - just to edit disruptively and tagteam?? If you're smart, you'll self revert. But the choice - and its consequences - are yours. X4n6 (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Personally I think having a section heading "Allston" makes more sense than having a section heading "Boston" covering all parts of the Harvard campus that happen to be within the city of Boston—the Allston campus is a contiguous unit, adjacent to the main Cambridge campus, and has nothing in particular to do with the Longwood medical area except for being within the same city limits. AJD (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, I think we have to consider WP:WEIGHT. I agree that Allston (HBS+the athletic complex), Longwood (HMS, Dental, and T.S. Chan), and to some extent the Arboretum are distinct entities, but looking back through history none of them individually has been written about in as much detail as the Cambridge campus. It makes some sense to group them distinct from the Harvard Forest and more distant holdings, because there's plenty of direct commerce between them and the Cambridge campus; the lab I work in has members who work at the Arb, multiple friends (undergrad) works in a lab at Longwood, etc. Maybe we could agree on an RS to follow for this? FourViolas (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
(I mean really on a somewhat deeper level I think it doesn't really make that much sense to treat the Allston campus as separate from the Cambridge campus; it's a single contiguous campus which happens to span the city boundary.) AJD (talk) 16:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
...with a river in between them. Except for undergraduate athletes, there is precious little intercourse between the two areas, and those studying or working in Cambrudge give the Allston campus little thought.
There are really only a coupla ways to do this:
  1. ===Cambridge=== ===Boston=== ===Other===
  2. ===Cambridge-Allston=== ===Longwood=== ===Other===
  3. ===Cambridge=== ===Other===
  4. ===Cambridge=== ===Allston=== ===Longwood=== ===Other===
  5. No subheads at all
2 is awkward, uses geographical terms not helpful to the reader scanning the TOC, and yields one giant section and two tiny ones. 4 has the same disadvantages as two, plus gives even more fragmented little sections. 3 lumps Boston with Italy. 1 gives the most balanced text sizes and the most balance in terms of centrality to Harvard institutionally and in public perception. I'd even take 5 over 2, 3, or 4. EEng 17:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
6. ===Main campus=== ===Satellite locations=== AJD (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right that's another possibility. By Main Campus you must mean Cambridge-Allston. I have some sympathy with the impulse to gather Cambridge and Allston into a "main campus", but the reality is that Allston is very much a black-sheep-stepchild-poor relation -- more like the Medical School in being "near Cambridge but not in Cambridge" -- and I still don't like lumping the Medical School with Italy. EEng 17:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) 6 actually sounds pretty good, at least geographically. But different sectionings will always make more sense for some things than others, and I think we should just try to see what RS do. This book on "pop culture places" suggests 5, except with Longwood before Allston. FourViolas (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, you're right that the "outline" organization of your source is 5 but if we do want a finer division, then following the internal organization of your source's single ==Campus== heading, we'd have
===Cambridge=== ===Longwood=== ===Allston=== ===Other===
...which as you say is 4 with the order juggled (and I hope we can ignore permutation for now). As you also say, this puts Longwood before Allston, which is not natural geographically, and this underscores the extent to which Allston is the black-sheep-stepchild-poor relation I mentioned earlier -- not thought of as part and parcel of a "main" campus embracing Cambridge and Allston as a unit.
I'm almost ready to say I like 4 after all, with the understanding that sections will grow a bit someday and be less fragmented-looking, but I still don't like using section headers (Allston, Longwood) unrecognizable to anyone but Bostonians. I'm still for 1, but could maybe be talked into 4. 6 seems like cutting the baby in two with an axe. EEng 19:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
And again, why are we reinventing the wheel? Virtually every reliable source: locally, nationally and internationally calls it Allston. Harvard calls it Allston. The Boston Redevelopment Authority calls it Allston. It's universally known as Allston. Why, you may ask? Because it's located where, you may wonder? Wait for it --- Allston. But let's just call this subterfuge what it really is. Not about the obviously correct name: but everything about the same group of users working in concert to continue the RfC - and impose their will on every other editor. What's so interesting is that the leader of this group is now so vehemently opposed to himself. X4n6 (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Stop editing with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset and accusing others of "subterfuge". It's disruptive and counterproductive. This is not debate club, and WP:Wikipedia is not about winning. We know perfectly well the Allston campus is called the Allston campus; right now we're trying to figure out the best way to divide up the entire ==Campus== section into subsections, and if we can find RS which (like the one I provided) treat it as distinct and as worthy of mention as other subcampuses, we may indeed end up with an ===Allston=== subsection. Do you have any collaborative input on this question, ideally supported by policies, guidelines, or sources? FourViolas (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, are there no mirrors in your world? Edit warring is disruptive; tagteaming is disruptive; canvassing is disruptive; and ownership behavior is disruptive. Sound familiar? There's plenty to show that for you and a handful of users, it's all just about the winning. Which is why you had zero answer for why EEng was "for it before he was against it." So your faux objection rings hollow. The truth is its own defense - while the only advantage in not expressing it - is to you. As for reliable, published sources which reference Allston? As you know, I've already provided tons. X4n6 (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Your battleground behavior continues, and continues to prevent you from understanding the question we're trying to resolve. We don't need sources referencing Allston or the expansion by name. We need authoritative sources surveying the entire campus, like the one I provided, so that we can see how much relative attention they give Allston, and in particular whether they choose to lump it in as part of the main campus or as a group of Boston satellites.FourViolas (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Once again you intentionally obfuscate. What you "need" is direction for what the subsection should be called. The authoritative sources all provide that; just as they all agree that Allston is a distinctly separate entity, not "lumped in as part of the main campus or as a group of Boston satellites." Allston is distinctly Allston. Just as Cambridge is distinctly Cambridge. The End. So it's wholly unnecessary to "survey the entire campus to see how much "relative attention they give Allston." How exactly would you quantify that anyway? By percentages? Hectares? Once determined, how would that be reflected in the subtitle? "70% Allston-30% Boston?" All this hand-wringing and wasted type in an effort to avoid what is plainly obvious - is plainly transparent. X4n6 (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
WP:AGF; I'm doing my best to explain this as clearly as I can. We're not trying to figure out what "the subsection" should be called; we have a big ==section== about the whole campus, which we might divide up into different ===subsections=== to cover different parts of the campus, and ===Allston=== may or may not end up being one of the subsections. To decide whether that's a good idea, we need sources which, like Wikipedia, are trying to provide information about the entire campus, organized logically and usefully, so we can imitate their organization. It's beside the point to provide sources focused on one or another subcampus. FourViolas (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Then why not provide an example of what you think the end result would look like? And the criteria and methodology you would utilize to get there? X4n6 (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Really, X4, you need to stop tweeting at 3 AM. Immediately after my edit you link, I made another edit [12] correcting "Allston" to "Boston". EEng 19:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Ah, but remember, EEng, it was your 3AM tweet, not mine. Maybe you were typing one-handed at that hour, got distracted and made a mistake? Or perhaps you just felt empowered to edit war with everybody. X4n6 (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh dear oh dear. EEng 19:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Good answer, good answer - (while clapping Family Feud-style). X4n6 (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I have an idea, everyone. I really do like 1 more than 4, but not that much more. And is it worth the trouble? FourViolas has studying to do. I have research to attend to and another talk coming up. Tryptofish's gotta swim. Jehochman has his hands full just being a Yale man.[FBDB] X4V6 has to do whatever he does when he's not obsessing about Allston. And so on. So why don't we just give X4 that separate Allston section he wants after all? Then he can feel he's won. The rest of us can get back to our respective productive and creative lives, and X4 can bask in the warm glow of section-heading victory. It's really a win-win! (Also pinging Ajd.) EEng 19:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Therefore, I propose #4 -- actually #4 slightly modified: ===Cambridge=== ===Allston=== ===Longwood Medical Area=== ===Other===

  • Support as proposer. EEng 19:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Although "Longwood Medical and Academic Area" (as that book has it) is slightly more accurate, because the Arb is technically part of it, it's a clumsy unCOMMONNAME. The book also has "Main campus" for "Cambridge campus", reinforcing what you call the black-sheep-stepchild-poor relation status, but "Cambridge" is clearer to the uninitiated who might need to know about the different subcampuses before reading the first sentence of the lede. FourViolas (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't get the drama here. This proposal reflects the geographic reality and the terms in general use.--agr (talk) 04:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

No frats?

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I thought the student fraternities were meant to be a big part of Harvard life. Valetude (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Something like 6% of undergraduates belong to a Final club or (almost nonexistent) fraternity/sorority. Harvard does not recognize these organizations or allow them to use school facilities, and new regulations forbid members of single-sex organizations to hold leadership offices such as team captaincies or to receive school recommendations for fellowships and so on. So no. EEng 01:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Citations in lead section

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

@EEng: Okay I get what you mean about making small edits now. I just wanted to request that my big removing the citations from the lead edit stay in place just to save the effort I put in, instead of doing it again piecemeal.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't see what exactly you're doing, much less why. You seem to be simply removing all citations from the lead. Why? EEng 03:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Prisencolin, don't repeat your disputed edit again without first generating a consensus. Jehochman Talk 10:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. <Insert H-Y swipe here.> EEng 02:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Harvard University. 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:

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

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 16:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Former name "New College"?

Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

We're having a bit of a disagreement over the question of whether a "former name" for HU was "New College" [13]. As much as I respect the Boston Globe, its general news articles aren't appropriate sources for historical events of 400 years ago. All such early formal Harvard history is definitively documented in scholarly works, and if something like this can't be cited to a source of that quality, then it doesn't belong.

For example, I've just done a google search (sorry, library closes early on Fridays) of Morison's Three Centuries of Harvard, and the one and only reference to a "new college" I find in it is, "he had been chosen master of the new College" (capitalization as shown). Meanwhile, in Morison's The Founding of Harvard College we find: "Though not a direct copy of any particular European institution, the new college was comparable to ..." ; "this was a serious handicap for a new college in the New World" ; and "work was pushed on the new college building as fast as money could be procured" (all capitalization as shown). Morison gives, however, numerous references to New College, Oxford and I believe this is somehow the source of the confusion. (The only entry in Morison's indices resembling anything like New College is New College, Oxford.)

I feel I must ask, of those who want the idea of "New College" as a former name to remain in the article, that they offer an appropriate source of the kind discussed in WP:Identifying_reliable_sources_(history). Thoughts? EEng 04:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC) P.S. There's also the related question of whether Harvard College is a "former name" of Harvard University, but let's take one thing at a time.

Followup: OK, I took an hour to look into this definitively. None of the following list New College in their indices (other than New College, Oxford – see above) nor mention anything about New College as any kind of name for what was later Harvard College.

  • Quincy, Josiah, 1772-1864. The history of Harvard University / by Josiah Quincy. Boston : Crosby, Nichols, Lee & Co., 1860.
  • Pier, Arthur Stanwood, 1874-1966. The story of Harvard, by Arthur Stanwood Pier; with illustrations by Vernon Howe Bailey. Boston, Little, Brown, and Company, 1913.
  • Thayer, William Roscoe, 1859-1923. An historical sketch of Harvard university, from its foundation to May, 1890. Cambridge, 1890.
  • Peirce, Benjamin, 1778-1831. A history of Harvard University : from its foundation, in the year 1636, to the period of the American revolution / by the late Benjamin Peirce. Cambridge : Brown, Shattuck, and Company, 1833.
  • Wagner, Charles Abraham, 1899- Harvard ; four centuries and freedoms. New York, Dutton [c1950]
  • Gardiner, J. H. (John Hays), 1863-1913. Harvard, by John Hays Gardiner. New York, Oxford university press, American branch; [etc., etc.] 1914.
  • Foster, Margery Somers. "Out of smalle beginings..." an economic history of Harvard College in the Puritan period (1636 to 1712) Cambridge, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1962.
  • Glimpses of the Harvard past / Bernard Bailyn ... [et al.]. Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press, 1986.
  • Bentinck-Smith, William, 1914- ed. The Harvard book : selections from three centuries / edited by William Bentinck-Smith. Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press, 1960.
  • Batchelder, Samuel Francis, 1870-1927. Bits of Harvard history / by Samuel F. Batchelder. Cambridge [Mass.] : Harvard university press, 1924.
  • Morison, Samuel Eliot, 1887-1976. The founding of Harvard College / by Samuel Eliot Morison ; [with a new foreword by Hugh Hawkins]. Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press, c1995.
  • Schlesinger, Andrew. Veritas : Harvard College and the American experience / Andrew Schlesinger. Chicago : I.R. Dee, 2005.
  • Morison, Samuel Eliot, 1887-1976. Three centuries of Harvard, 1636-1936. Cambridge, Mass., The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1965

(Morison's two works, BTW, are considered the definitive works on Harvard history.) EEng 02:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

"College of Newtowne" or "New College" is the general name that was used for the institution that what was eventually renamed Harvard in 1639. I think the point the other editors are making is that the college was referred to by this name for 3 years prior to being called Harvard. Unless you can prove the school was referred to as "Harvard" from 1636 until 1639 (which is not possible), the edit should stand as it is. I also agree with former name of "Harvard College" because the institution of Harvard University was called Harvard College until it was restyled as Harvard University. That does seem to be the convention with other universities on Wikipedia. RabidMelon 22:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RabidMelon (talk • contribs)
 
"College of Newtowne" or "New College" is the general name that was used... the college was referred to by this name for 3 years prior to being called Harvard. – None of the sources above indicate anything like that, and it's telling that the Act of the General Court adopting Harvard's name [14] reads: "It is ordered that the colledge formerly ordered to bee built at Cambridge shalbee called Harvard College" – no mention of any "College of Newtowne" or "New College". That's blatant OR of course, but it starkly illustrates what the authoritative secondary sources above already make clear by omission: that the school didn't have any particular name at first.
Against this, do you have any sources for the new college being named New College, or College of Newtowne? To be a "former name" it needs to be an actual name, not a reference akin to "The house at the bend in the river." EEng 23:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
In the sources you provided "the College" is referred to as a distinct institution and a proper noun. I would agree to changing "New College" to "College at Newtowne" as this is how it is referred to by the General Court in 1637. *I mistakingly referred to it as "College of Newtowne" in my previous post - this was not intentional. RabidMelon 01:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, where does the General Court refer to the "College at Newtowne"? But in any event, we need an appropriate secondary source saying, "The school was at first named X" or "The name of the school was changed from X to Harvard College". EEng 01:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
"For the College;* The Governour Mr. Winthrop, the Deputy Mr. Dudley, the Treasurer Mr. Bel∣lingham, Mr. Humphry, Mr. Herlackendon, Mr. Stoughton, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Damport, Mr. Wells, Mr. Shepherd, Mr. Peters; these or the greater Part of them, whereof Mr. Winthrop, Mr. Dudley or Mr. Bellingham, to be always one; to TAKE ORDER for a College at Newtown." I'm not sure a source is needed explicitly stating the school was "named X first". The fact that Harvard made a contribution and the school was from then on was known as "Harvard College" is self-explanatory. The question is here - what was the school called prior to Harvard's donation and what was it called prior to being called Harvard University. At least that's how I see it. RabidMelon 02:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Let me clarify - a primary source stating - the school was "named X first" is not needed. There are several secondary sources as we have discussed already with reference to the renaming of Harvard College. RabidMelon 02:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RabidMelon (talk • contribs)

Specifying that certain gentlemen are to "TAKE ORDER for a College at Newtown" doesn't mean that the school was named "the College at Newtown" – as I keep repeating, that's just a way of referring to a thing that had no name. (As you'll notice, most nouns, proper or common, were capitalized, so the capital C means nothing.) And yes, we need a source (secondary -- don't know why you say primary) explicitly saying that the school had some early name you want to list as a "former name". Where is it? EEng 02:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

"Where is it?" It's already in place and from the Boston Globe. Your central argument is that the literature you have provided doesn't make reference to New College. Further, you are depending on your own interpretation of the Act of General Council when a selection of credible sources have come to a different conclusion regarding the naming. In effect, you are making an argument from authority without the authority to appeal to. Whether or not you decide on New College or College at Newtowne is totally secondary to me. I'm still not sure why you deny Harvard College is previous name for what would become the institution of Harvard University. This is the standard for all colleges that became restyled as universities. Once again - see Yale and Columbia. PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Suppose we repeat the source above using modern capitalization: "to take order for a college at Newtown" instead of "to TAKE ORDER for a College at Newtown". Do you see the problem? The article "a" clearly means that "college" here is used in its sense as a normal English noun, not as part of a name. It's like you might still today refer to the same place as "a college in Cambridge". A source is needed that makes clear that this was the actual name of the entity, not just a phrase that people called it because it didn't yet have a name. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Precisely (though I regret introducing primary sources into the discussion). EEng 04:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Princeton, Please read my original post:
  • For the moment I suggest we keep the discussion to only the "New College"/"College at Newtown", question, since it's proving difficult enough on its own.
  • Again from my OP: source reliability is judged in context, for the claim being made. The Globe is an outstanding paper, but its offhand comment in passing cannot be taken as reliable for an historic event from 400 years ago, especially when comprehensive and authoritative works on the subject contradict it. See WP:SOURCE.
  • I'm not in any way relying on the Acts of the General Court. I simply used its text to illustrate what Morison and all other authoritative sources show by omission, that there's nothing anywhere referring to "New College" as the name of the school at any time.
  • Yale and Columbia have zero to do with this.
Now once again I ask: what competent, secondary source says that Harvard was ever named "New College" or "the College at Newtown". EEng 04:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Surprise development

Well, I was about to post a last call for sources for "former names", per above, when‍—‌surprise!‍—‌it obtains that PrincetonN and RabidM are sockpuppets! Shocking! (I would expect such behavior from a Yalie, but Princeton? What is this world coming to?) I'm going to go ahead and remove the "New College" nonsense‍—‌subject to further discussion, of course, with my esteemed fellow editors (esteemed = not sockpuppets, POINTellists).

The development of Harvard College into the modern Harvard College/Harvard University structure is a bit more fraught, however. I'm leaving "Harvard College" in as a "former name" for now (but without any date or even era, because it's just not that simple), but really, what needs to happen is that the lead of this article (HU) needs to explain the relationship to HC; right now it's not even mentioned in the lead. EEng 16:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring over including honorary degrees in the Notable People/Alumni section?

Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Why? What are the arguments for inclusion? X4n6 (talk) 07:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I think there are two unrelated questions being conflated here: (1) Should someone be listed here as an alum if they received an honorary degree from H but were never actually a student there? I think not. (2) If we are listing someone as an alum for other reasons (see: Bill Gates), should we list all of their H degrees or should we hide the honorary ones? I think we should list all of them, since that's how such a person would most likely be included in any actual official alumni listing from H (for example this one). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
(1) Agree.
(2) Agree (and you're correct about the alumni listings).
Kind of like I said here [15]. EEng 23:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
1) sounds right to me: an alumn* is a former student or graduate [16]. For 2), I agree that honorary degrees should be listed for completeness, but wouldn't it make sense to label them with "(Hon)"? Leaving it off, despite being standard in Harvard external and internal listings, seems misleading. FourViolas (talk) 23:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, or we could link to Legum_Doctor#United_States, or both. EEng 01:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC) "Hey, have you seen my Harvard degree, hon?" "In your cufflink drawer, Bill!"
  • My concern is based primarily upon consistency. While I agree that an honorary degree does not make one an alum and said so here, I also think:
1) If we're going to include honorary degrees, then we should either include them for all the folks in that section who are recipients - or not at all. For example, why isn't JFK's LLD '56 listed? Or Sirleaf's LLD '11? Or John Quincy Adams' LLD in 1822? Or FDR's LLD in 1929? Or even Teddy Roosevelt's honorary A.M. in 1919? They're all listed, they're all alums and they all received honorary H degrees. So why is only Gates' listed? Again, it should be all or none. And if it's all, does that muddy the waters and confuse the reader with so many honorary degrees?
2) Also, regarding both Gates and Zuckerberg, obviously, neither are graduates. As such, we already have the article: List of Harvard University non-graduate alumni. They're both listed there, joining the ranks of people like Ben Franklin, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Matt Damon, Robert Frost, Buckminster Fuller, Benjamin Netanyahu, Cole Porter, Eugene O'Neill and many others. So why are Gates and Zuckerberg even listed here? And if they remain, why are they the only 2 non-grad alums listed? Especially since some of those folks have honorary H degrees too: like RBG, Ben Franklin, Frost and many others. But yet that article makes no effort to list their honorary degrees there either.
Of course, I realize this section in the article is not comprehensive. I also realize consistency from article to article is a virtually impossible ask on this project. But certainly, we're all kind of sticklers for demanding consistency within a single article. So, it appears the options are as follows: we either remove the honorary degree from Gates, or add it to every other listed subject who is a recipient. Or we even remove Gates and Zuckerberg altogether, since they're already noted in the non-degree alum article. Or just expand the section here to include more prominent non-degree alums. With or without their H honoraries. But whatever we ultimately decide to do, I just ask that we be consistent. And the problem with the current edit is that it clearly isn't. X4n6 (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Honoraries other than Gates' aren't listed probably because no one thought about it. Seems like you'd be a good person to add them. EEng 12:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Noting the comment from FourViolas, please do not 'label them with "(Hon)"' as it is inconsistent with standard practice and potentially confusing with Honours degrees. Such degrees should be listed as "Hon LLD, 2007" or "LLD (h.c.), 2007" (with or without wikilinks), in line with the information at honorary degree. EdChem (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. As there are several different types of honorary degrees, the degree should be specified. But also, there are several possible options for fixing this. I'm just looking for consensus. Should non-grad alums even be listed here? Should the section be expanded to include more? Should everyone's honorary be included or should no one's? Should there even be a separate new article on honorary H degrees? Dozens of other schools like Florida, Binghamton, Hofstra, NYU, Canterbury all have their honorary degree recipients as the subject of separate articles. I think it's another glaring omission that H, of all places, doesn't. But again, I'm looking for consensus. So I'd prefer to wait for others to weigh in; so we can determine the approach that most people will be comfortable with. X4n6 (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Can we add John Cochran to the "Notable People" section?

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

John M Cochran attended Harvard law and went on to win reality tv show Survivor and become a screenwriter/comedian. He is notable and did attend Harvard.

Exploding-moose (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The list here in this article has to be for the most notable of the notable, for obvious reasons. There's a Harvard people page for the hoi polloi. EEng 06:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you can argue that John Cochran is a notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exploding-moose (talk • contribs) 06:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Also John Cochran isn't even on that but other page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exploding-moose (talk • contribs) 07:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead and add him to the Harvard people page, but not here. EEng 14:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Academics are important, aren't they?

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Recently, I introduced the word "academics" to the first sentence of the lead: [17], so that it read:

Harvard University is a private Ivy League research university in Cambridge, Massachusetts, established in 1636, whose academics, history, influence, and wealth have made it one of the world's most prestigious universities.

My reasoning for this is simple, Harvard is prestigious mostly because it has high academic standards and its faculty, staff, students, and alumni have contributed significantly to many academic pursuits. To me, this seems clear, and it deserves placement in the lead sentence along with the other factors of "history, influence, and wealth". EEng reverted inclusion of "academics" twice, asserting that it sounds "off" [18] and that it is unclear whether or not "academics" means "academic pursuits" or "academicians" [19]. I would say it means both in this case. Anyway, simply removing the mention of "academics" hardly seems like an improvement. Perhaps more optimal wording can be found, but I suggest that the notion of "academics" (be it with this word or another) belongs in this sentence. Thank you. Nechemia Iron (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you provided (many) reliable sources that support your preferred wording. In any case, I doubt that it's true or widely supported since I suspect that most people who think highly of Harvard can name even one academic accomplishment the institution or its faculty and alumni have developed. For many people I think it's famous just because it's already famous with perhaps a small nod in the direction of its selectivity (which, of course, is a largely a function of its fame since it attracts many applicants but cannot admit but a fraction of them). ElKevbo (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Part of the problem with this wording is that academics is largely meaningless when talking about a school or college, since the word pretty much just means "stuff related to a school or college". Is the research what makes it prestigious? The teaching? The product that comes out? The raw material that goes in? Anyway, those things alone can't explain Harvard's unique status, which is why the lead focuses on the other factors which, as ElK points out, are probably more enduringly (if that's a word) at the core of Harvard's prestige. The academics are a given. EEng 22:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Down on the farm

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

I'm sorry... Harvard ranks #13 worldwide in... Agricultural Sciences??? WTF? EEng 03:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey, it probably should be higher...for all the cow manure it peddles. (That one was just for you!) Cheers! X4n6 (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
You Delaware Tech men are so very witty. EEng 21:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Moi?! Mon Dieu, non. However... since we're a-tradin' clipsies, there is something undeniable about this little gem. X4n6 (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Mine's way better. EEng 21:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Predictable - and typical - response. No way to have seen that coming! X4n6 (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Ditto. EEng 22:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Plagiarist. X4n6 (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Sources for translation: Christo et Ecclesiae as ("For Christ and his Church")

Latest comment: 6 years ago18 comments5 people in discussion

Four unrelated and reliable sources were given for this edit. More were available: here, here, here and here, etc. But the ones listed should have been sufficient. In addition to the one challenged by a user here, they included:

  • Dictionary of Latin Quotations, Maxims and Phrases: A Compendium of Latin Thought and Rhetorical Instruments for the Speaker, Author and Legal;
  • Muhlenberg College: A Quarter-centennial Memorial Volume;
  • The National Catholic Reporter;

But since when do we remove multiple, published SOURCES because of one user with a hyperactive and unattended OWN gland? X4n6 (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  • These sources notwithstanding, the translation "his church" is clearly a looser one, since there is no "his" in the original. A web search for "Christo et Ecclesiae" reveals most sources giving the more literal translations "Christ and the Church" or "Christ and Church". groupuscule (talk) 04:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Indeed, X, let's see... you've got:
  • a missionary newspaper from 1895;
  • The Racine Journal-Times Sunday Bulletin from 1963;
  • a priest's personal blog which misquotes the original Latin in the first place;
  • a print-on-demand book of Latinisms held by (and I am not kidding about this) a total of two (that's TWO) libraries worldwide (those being the Laramie County Community College Library and the College of Southern Nevada) [20].
The idea that any of these competes with the scholarly work of Samuel Eliot Morison (two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and for fifty years Harvard's official historian) and Mason Hammond (one of the real-life Monuments Men you may have heard of, who succeeded Morison as Harvard's historian after retiring as – ahem – Pope Professor of Latin) is laughable. All of the following translate Christo et Ecclesiae as "For Christ and Church", not "For Christ and His Church":
  • Hammond, Mason (July 1981). "A Harvard Armory: Part I". Harvard Library Bulletin. XXIX (3): 261–297.
  • Hammond, Mason (October 1981). "A Harvard Armory: Part II". Harvard Library Bulletin. XXIX (4): 361–402.
  • Hammond, Mason (Summer 1986). "A Harvard Armory: Part III". Harvard Library Bulletin. XXXIV (3): 251–293.
  • Hammond, Mason (Summer 1987). "Official Terms in Latin and English for Harvard College or University". Harvard Library Bulletin. XXXV (3): 294–310.
  • Harvard University. Corporation. Seals, 1650-[1926]. UAI 15.1310, Harvard University Archives.
  • Morison, Samuel Eliot (September 1933). "Harvard Seals and Arms". Harvard Graduates' Magazine. 42.
  • Morison, Samuel Eliot (1936). "Harvard College in the Seventeenth Century". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  • Morison, Samuel Eliot (1935). "The Founding of Harvard College". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  • Rosenmeier, Jesper (January 1968). "Veritas: The Sealing of the Promise". Harvard Library Bulletin. XVI (1): 26–37.
Do you honestly not see the difference? EEng 05:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes best not to used self published books or blogs
Julie A. Reuben (1996). The Making of the Modern University: Intellectual Transformation and the Marginalization of Morality. University of Chicago Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-226-71020-4.
--Moxy (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
The academic works from the first three pages of Google Books results for "'Christo et Ecclesiae' 'Christ and'":
  • to Christ and his Church but then Christ and the Church in the next column
    1. Thayer, W.R.; Castle, W.R.; De Wolfe Howe, M.A.; Pier, A.S.; De Voto, B.A.; Morrison, T. (1906). The Harvard Graduates' Magazine. Harvard Graduates' Magazine Association. p. 200.
I conclude that, although SOMA is one of the better sources a Latin-specialist source (albeit self-published), WP:WEIGHT is decisively on the side of the definite article. FourViolas (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC), edited 13:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
How do you get that SOMA is one of the better sources? And what are you doing on WP on a Saturday night? Don't they have a vegan dance tonight or something? I gave your # to that freshman. EEng 05:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Bishop Hare's Address. In the Harvard Crimson. January 18, 1895

Bishop Hare's Address.

No writer attributed. January 18, 1895

Bishop William Hare of South Dakota spoke last night at the invitation of the St. Paul's Society, in Sever 11, taking as his subject "Christo et Ecclesiae." He said, the most striking thing about these words is that they are in the dative case. It is not merely two words, "Christ and the Church," but the dative case is used, grammarians tell us, to name one for whom something is done or to whom something is given. So we are to work for Christ and His Church.

[1] Interesting. I'll continue researching, but will ultimately accept consensus. Now that we have a quorum. X4n6 (talk) 05:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

 
Don Quixote, his horse Rocinante and his squire Sancho Panza after an unsuccessful attack on a windmill.
–EEng

References

  1. ^ http://aws-new-dev-web.thecrimson.com/article/1895/1/18/bishop-hares-address-bishop-william-hare/
It would be so much better if you could learn to draw these distinctions on your own, without four other editors having to explain it to you. This isn't the first time we've gone through this sort of thing. EEng 06:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The Crypt-Keeper as rendered by Al Feldstein for Crime Patrol #15

(Sigh) Just what "distinctions," I don't know. But I do know what would indeed "be so much better" would be if you finally followed OWN and realized that no one has to genuflect to you before working on this article. You are not its Crypt Keeper and it is so very tiresome and tedious that "this sort of thing" routinely happens here with you. Certainly, not just with me - but the edit log is littered with the record of you routinely harrasing contributors here. That record, unfortunately, is equally clear that you've cultivated an impressive list of enablers, as you've been allowed to play the system like a fiddle. X4n6 (talk) 07:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
The distinction is that between careful scholarship and a blog. I meant to say "This isn't the first time we've gone through this sort of thing with you"; Talk:Harvard_University/Archive_8 and Talk:Harvard_University/Archive_9 tell the story. You can think of them as enablers or whatever you like, but the fact is no one ever agrees with you yet you keep coming back, over and over, to waste others' time by offering nonsense such as Latin translations found in The Racine Journal-Times Sunday Bulletin. EEng 08:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
It speaks volumes that you don't even know the difference between books and blogs. Or that you are clueless about the actual concept of "careful scholarship." Otherwise, you would recognize an official volume published by a respected Evangelical Lutheran-affiliated university and written by the Evangelical Lutheran pastor and scholar, who also edited the Lutheran Church Almanac and Documentary History of the General Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in North America; and a Catholic publication that "has won the Catholic Press Association’s Award for General Excellence 15 out of the last 16 years, with a staff that boasts Pulitzer Prize nominees and former writers for TIME Magazine and Religion News Service" with an article written by a published scholar/author who is also a Visiting Fellow at Catholic University's Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies, as "careful scholarship." Further, in "careful scholarship," multiple articles from two sources are still just two sources; and Morison was a historian, not a Latin scholar; and while Hammond was a Latin scholar, so too, was an also prolific Bishop William Hobart Hare.
As for what tells the story about you? Your lengthy block log does that pretty well. As does your ridiculous "you keep coming back, over and over?" - because no one needs your permission. That's the point. Sadly, you don't get it. So to make it abundantly clear, I'll be editing here much more frequently now. Because despite your best efforts, you are not a deterrent. You're just a minor, and inconsequential, irritant. X4n6 (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I get the block-log thing now and then so I have a canned response for it: You must have missed the box at the top of my userpage --
  This user has been blocked several times, and isn't embarrassed about it - (see my block log here!).
-- not to mention such threads as "Hands-down the worst block I've seen in my time on Wikipedia, and I've seen some whoppers" and Review_of_EEng's_indefinite_block and Unblocked and Astoundingly_atrociously_poor_block and so on. Then there's the arb who wrote "EEng (despite his block log, which is not as bad as it looks at first glance if you understand it) and [other editor] are respected editors and know a lot. You need to listen and learn from them." [21] Gotta love that.
  • You can puff up your sources all you want (Where do you get that Hare is a Latinist?) but the bottom line is that in this discussion, as in those before, everyone but you agrees that you indiscriminately grab at low-quality sources offering misinformation.
  • I'll be editing here much more frequently now ... you are not a deterrent. – WP:POINTY, much? My goal isn't to deter you from editing, but to deter you from editing in such a way that wastes people's time.

EEng 18:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The only person wasting time here is you. I check the quality of my sources. Don't know who they are? Then perform a little scholarship - instead of making asinine and unfounded accusations impugning them. You remain inconsequential. Own that - like you've owned your pathetic block log. X4n6 (talk) 04:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
The chain of edits beginning here [22] and your post here [23] constitute an amazingly timely emblem of your difficulty taking on board good advice, even when a completely black-and-white situation is explained to you carefully and repeatedly. EEng 05:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I take you even less seriously than you clearly take me. So I suggest you desist. I don't find dealing with you to be constructive. X4n6 (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Like I said, you have trouble taking on board good advice. Now you go ahead and have the last word. EEng 05:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Still raging against the machine [24]. It's unbelievable, really. EEng 06:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harvard University. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harvard_University/Archive_9&oldid=1137255438"