Talk:John Harvard (clergyman)

Father's Vocation

It says in the same paragraph that Harvard's dad was a Tavern owner and Butcher and Governor of a grammar school... Well, which was he?... Or is it possible he was all of the above?...--Agrofe 14:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC) YES ALL OF THE ABOVE Robert Harvard was all three; although the 'Queen's Head Inn' may not have been a 'tavern' as 'Inn' did not mean exclusively a drinking place. 'Butcher' would be best rendered as 'wholesale meat supplier' rather than shop-keeper. 'Governor' of a school in England then, and now, means 'trustee' and is not a paid position. He was also 'Warden' of the church (now the Cathedral) which was also un-remunerated. (Tony S)

Source(s) for future article development

• [1] for interesting assertions (esp. the barrelmaker), though it can't be considered a reliable source
• H mag on dedication of window, or something

• H mag on H himself page 44?

• https://books.google.com/books?id=ty9YAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA195 John Harvard's Grammar School
• http://www.anb.org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/articles/01/01-00380.html?a=1&g=m&n=harvard%2C%20john&ia=-at&d=10&ss=0&q=1 Amer Nat Biog Online
• re books donated: H Alumni Bull v 42 pp 241-8, Henry J. Cadbury, "What Happened to John Harvard's Books?" (Wid EducU 4810.1135)
• [2] Re JH's books
• http://www.johnharvard.us/ Various factoids and some PD images
• https://books.google.com/books?id=ddHOAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA448 The Harvard Graduates' Magazine

"benefactor" vs "founder"

A benefactor is a person who helped something. A founder is someone who started something. They are not equivalent, and the phrasing "founder of", implies he was the one and only founder. Find another way to say this, please. A letter to the editor is not a reliable citation. - Denimadept (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

No, founder means someone who lays the foundation for something, whether alone or with others. In fact, one online dictionary defines found (v) very helpfully as "to set up or establish on a firm basis or for enduring existence", which is precisely what JH did, as explained very nicely in the letter quoted -- which, coming from the secretary of the Harvard Corporation, who at the time was also planning the school's tercentenary celebration, is absolutely a reliable source.

"Founder of Harvard College" doesn't imply he was the one and only founder any more than "Investigator of X" would mean he was the one and only investigator of X. Anyway, all you're talking about is the section heading: the text says "John Harvard is therefore consid­ered not the founder, but rather a founder, of the school, though the timeliness and generosity of his contribu­tion have made him the most honored of these", and I don't know what could be any further from "one and only founder". We're certainly not going to change the section heading to ==One of the several founders of Harvard College==.

EEng (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Why not? - Denimadept (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Because it would be awkward, stupid, and unnecessary. EEng (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

£400/£780

Is there a reliable source that can give a modern approximate value for these figures? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

There's no sensible way to convert to modern currency from that long ago -- it would be meaningless. I suspect that someone somewhere has said something like, "John Harvard's estate put him in the highest 10% of blah blah", or expressed it in terms of barrels of mead and heads of cattle, but nothing I can put my finger on. Probably the best way to see it is that since £400 built quite a handsome and large two-story building, JH essentially gave the equivalent of two more of those – and that's not counting the books, which I would guess would have been worth several hundred pounds as well. Anyway, I don't know of anything we could use. EEng 17:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

{{inflation}} may help, but it only calculates CPI or GDP per capita increases. You probably want something based on purchasing power. See http://www.measuringworth.com/ or measuring economic worth over time.

So, £400 in 1636 might be worth, in 2015:

• about £60,000 based on RPI prices (i.e. what a commodity is worth)
• about £900,000 based on the value of labour (compared to the income of an average worker using an earnings index)
• about £1.8m based on incomes (using an income index and GDP per capita)
• about £18m based on economic power (using share of GDP)

There are a few FACs that attempt this sort of calculation.

-- unsigned by an IP

The 300:1 range of values shows how meaningless this is. EEng 13:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Surely it is not completely meaningless to say that £400 in 1636 was a considerable sum by any measure, and to attempt to put it in context, while accepting that any attempt is only going to produce an indicative estimate. The RPI calculation of £58,000 is clearly too small. I would not be surprised to find that a "handsome and large two-story building" might be somewhere around £1m to £20m, which is admittedly still quite a wide range but nonetheless indicative of a significant sum. A citation to the relevant page on http://www.measuringworth.com/ should be fine. For example, this. That website is backed by a number of respected adcademics, and uses a clear methodology: they openly acknowledge that measuring the worth (as opposed to the price) of historical monetary transactions is difficult and a matter of interpretation. See their essay at http://www.measuringworth.com/worthmeasures.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.137 (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Surely it is not completely meaningless to say that £400 in 1636 was a considerable sum by any measure – Agreed, and I'm sure sooner or later we'll find an RS that says that. Everything else you're proposing would be classic WP:OR. (I've used {inflation} in articles once or twice, with great caution, for to inflate figures from 100 years ago, and for even that I'm somewhat uncomfortable.) I suspect that the best thing we can do is find something saying where the size of his estate fits in with those of other Puritans; I would strenuously object to any attempt to offer the reader a "modern equivalent" of any kind, no matter how elaborate the surrounding warnings. EEng 18:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I found a source stating (though without direct source that I can see) that the monetary part of JH's bequest was about equal to the Colony's annual tax receipts. [3] That provides a frame of reference, at least. EEng 15:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Cause of death

EEng, the simple fact that he died young and left his estate doesn't make the cause of his death significant to his notability - the situation would have been the same had he died of eg. cancer. It doesn't warrant inclusion in the infobox. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it would have been the same (and in that case I'd advocate calling out that cause of death as well) but it's not the same as had he, for example, been kicked in the head by a horse, because in that case he'd not have had time to make the thoughtful disposition of his estate that he did. Let me ask you a question. {{infobox person}} specifically calls out James Dean and John Lennon as examples of people whose infoboxes should include cause of death. In what way are those causes of death "significant to their notability"? EEng 17:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

If I asked Joe Schmo walking down the street who James Dean was, I'd probably get some variation on "he's that actor who died in a car crash". The car crash is something almost everyone who knows who James Dean is, already knows about - it's part of how they identify him. (Not to mention in both of those cases there's actually a standalone article on their deaths, meaning that by Wikipedia standards their deaths are considered notable). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

So your reasoning is that the infobox should include the cause of death only when the reader is extremely likely to already know that fact? In any event, "actor who died in a car crash" is certainly not what I'd say if asked about James Dean, and I think very few people would volunteer "musician who got shot" as their summary of John Lennon. So while some might argue that Dean's sudden and dramatic death froze him in time as an icon of youthful rebellion, and (and here I'd disagree) that's the basis for his notability, by no stretch does Lennon's notability rely on his murder; his premature end is merely an important fact about him which people are likely to want to find out, or confirm, at a glance. Same for JH; when someone dies young the reader's natural immediate question will be why? EEng 20:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

No, my reasoning is that the infobox should include the cause of death when it's a key part of the reader's understanding of the person. Here, the fact that he died young and with a settled estate is key; the specific cause of his death is not - if you substitute in cancer, diabetes, whatever, the narrative doesn't change. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, I agree that TB, cancer, diabetes, "whatever" doesn't change the narrative -- so long as the whatever is a somewhat slow but inevitably fatal condition. But (I repeat) if it's horsekick to the head or Indian attack or drowning then the narrative does change. So while the essential element isn't the specific somewhat-slow-but-inevitably-fatal condition, since we don't put |death_cause = unspecified somewhat slow but inevitably fatal condition the only thing left thing to do, to transmit the information, is just say the cause plain and simple. EEng 01:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC) P.S. Actually, diabetes probably does change the narrative -- too slow.

Or we leave it to the text where the implications can be explored properly, because not everything needs to be in the infobox. Given the time period this falls squarely into the "routine illness" exclusion clause. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Well what cause of death, at that time, would not have been routine? For that matter, why should the infobox give JH's alma mater? Shouldn't that be "explored properly" in the text (because a high proportion of puritans in American were Emmanuel men)? And why should the name of his wife be in the infobox? She's nonnotable and unlinked, so unless the reader has made a special study of early Stuart town clerks of London, the name will tell them nothing (other than, I guess, that JH was married -- but for that we could just say |spouse=yes) so shouldn't her name be only in the text, where it can be explored properly? (Gosh, this "explored properly" technique sure is versatile!)

Template documentation is useful guidance but it's not a straitjacket. What to include is a matter for editorial judgment. EEng 03:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC) P.S. You still haven't explained how John Lennon's cause of death is "significant to his notability".

I agree that what to include is a matter for editorial judgment, although you've not convinced me that the appropriate judgment in this case is to include. I have no objection to removing either alma mater or wife. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

On looking now, I see why spouse (and children=none) are included: because his bequest is far and away the most important thing about him, readers will naturally want to know whether he had immediate kin (though, of course, they will have to read the text to explore that properly). Despite my earlier joking, alma mater certainly belongs too. EEng 15:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Date of marriage

Please review this sentence: On 19 April 1636,[7] Harvard married Ann Sadler (1614–55) of Ringmer in Sussex in 1637, sister of his college contemporary John Sadler, at St Michael the Archangel Church, in the parish of South Malling, Lewes.[9] --which date is correct? For light (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear. Just another example of the sorry state of this article. Neither of the two conflicting sources is of the kind we like to depend on. Serious research on Harvard's life began to bear fruit around 1900-1910, and sources after that, such as Morison, will no doubt resolve this. in the meantime I've changed the text to acknowledge the uncertainty. EEng 15:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

"The Reverend John Harvard"

Re this: He is commonly referred to as "The Reverend John Harvard" in the literature. See https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22The+Reverend+John+Harvard%22. --Omnipaedista (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, I'm convinced. EEng 20:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)