Talk:Statue of John Harvard/Archive 1

Archive 1

Orientation confusion

I am convinced that some understandable confusion has arisen as to the handedness of the seal locations on the plinth, and some complex rewriting is needed in the "Seals and inscriptions" text and its Note I. Ellis made no mistake in referring to the seals' placements on the left and right sides of the pedestal (p. 16 of "Ceremonies" book); he was simply using these terms from the statue's vantage. To say that on "its" right side is the seal of Emmanuel College is incorrect because the "little horizontal 'panorama' of details from left to right [is] from the viewer's vantage" [emphasis added]. The book (p. 19) and Crimson article correctly put the Harvard seal on the northern side, where it can be seen in the book's cover photo. The statue's northern side on the Delta remains its northern side at today's location. We might do well to follow suit and refer, unambiguously, to the seals being on the plinth's northern and southern sides. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I've rewritten somewhat re left-right, and removed the note about apparent conflict of sources. When I wrote that bit I didn't know (ignorant me) about proper right and so on, which I guess might be what Ellis meant, though his wording ("the seal of his English college is on the left of his pedestal") doesn't fit all that well with the notion that "proper" left/right is used only for figures, and does sound like it's from the viewer's point of view. Anyway, what do you think of the changes? EEng (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't find it the least bit awkward, though I could live with that if it were; a 180-degree flip is another matter. All taken care of. I used the -ern adjectival forms as found in the sources. I agree you were wise not to confuse the reader with the figure's pov. On the other hand... No, never mind. Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 05:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for fixing N vs. S. EEng (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Inanimate guards

Re [1]: Yes, an inanimate figure can guard something. [2] [3] [4] [5] Please, when you see careful writing employing idiom or diction with which you're umfamiliar, consider whether your unfamiliarity -- rather than the writing -- is the problem.

The tone of the caption may or may not be quite right for WP but the best way to decide that, I think, is to include it for now and see how it feels after a while. The caption as I've reinserted it just now is

The John Harvard statue guards the University Hall offices of the Dean of Harvard College. Note Harvard College seal on plinth.

EEng (talk) 08:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

This statue is not mystical like a sphinx, it is not a barrier like a wall, it is not cursed like an amulet, therefor it has no "guarding" qualities. It simply "is" outside the building. It isn't keeping anyone out like the abover objects were intended to do and like a "guard" is supposed to do. Hertz1888 appeared to agree with my thought on the caption when he(?) removed even more of the way the sentence was structured.

I also must add that you have reverted virtually all of the substantive or stylistic edits I have added to this article since I created it a few days ago. I cant help but feel you either do not agree with the article style I use, or that you do not feel I am qualified to edit this article. I want to assure you that I have been on wikipedia since 2007, I have brought many articles through DYK (as I am trying to do now with this one), and I have lead two other articles on statues in Massachusetts through to GA status. I do know what I am talking about with this article and I ask that in the future please respect me and my contributions to the page more. Wiki is collaborative so we should work together on strengthening the article, not work against each other.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

With "guards" removed from the caption it seemed capricious to have it say "John Harvard" stands there, when it is his statue that does, but I have no objection to the original wording. "Guarding" is fanciful, but I do not think it is over the top. What I do object to is edit warring over any of these changes. Instead of having text go back and forth, I hope we can discuss the major changes here in that collaborative spirit.

I have reworded the third section of the lead in what I believe is a non-controversial manner, sequed into from the second section (the quote), so that the entire text doesn't disappear on account of one disputed word. No one should be misled by the reframed statement. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid your rewrite doesn't fix the problem. Omitting the explicit tie between the sculpture's books and the JH bequest doesn't actually remove the tie; the juxtaposition of the explanation of the bequest with the quote mentioning the books clearly is meant to make the tie -- in fact unless the reader understands that as the purpose of the bequest text, then that text is a non sequitur. On the other hand it's needed to make sense of the three-lies material later. So we may as well go back to making the tie explcitly, and getting a source. Ellis made a speech re the "proposed statue of JH" which perhaps discusses this and more. It's one of several refs I've accumulated and will add when I get a second. EEng (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

That works, and is preferable, as long as it won't result in the entire paragraph being hidden again along the way. Let's get all ducks in a row before making the change. Hertz1888 (talk) 08:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the text making the explicit tie. I hope to get around today to listing the additional sources I've located, including the Ellis speeches which I'm guessing may discuss the composition. (He made two -- one at the unveiling, but another re the proposed statue about a year before.) EEng (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I forgot about what you said about getting our ducks in a row (by which I think you mean we should find a souce before restoring) and thoughtlessly went ahead and made the change right off. Because (though regrettably -- and I mean that) Found5dollar has withdrawn, I don't think there will any more trouble about the hiding, which seems to have been motivated by his desire to make it "look clean" for DYK. EEng (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

(1) I used examples of e.g. "statue guards the door" from old archaeological works to show that this was well-established usage. Just because those examples involved god-figures and the like doesn't mean that's an essential element. This is beginning to get silly -- you could easily have found the following examples yourself. Most are from WP so please no more about inappropriate tone (and as seen above, contrary to what you say Hertz does not agree with you):

• Binnenhof: One of the few Dutch equestrian statues (of King William II) guards the main Stadtholder's Gate.
• Independence_Park_(Jamaica): A statue of Olympic gold medallist Don Quarrie guards the entrance to the stadium.
• [6]: The half-ton Hillsdale Eagle, which guards the front gate of campus.
• [7]: George Washington statue: Boston's first equestrian statue guears the most dramatic entrance to the city's lovliest park.
• [8]: An equestrian statue of General Joseph Hooker (1814-1879) from 1903 guards this entrance.

(2) I don't care what other articles you've worked on and I don't judge your qualifications. I do care about the edits you make and how you make them, including whether or not you, in reverting a change of mine, engage the argument for the change presented in its edit summary (and in some cases amplified on Talk). Most of your edits, since creating the article, have been to repeatedly revert my changes without addressing my reasoning for making the changes. This is extremenly annoying.

(3) Your desire to rush the article to DYK is no argument at all for how article development should proceed.

• Apparently because DYK dislikes cn tags, you converted a paragraph carrying that tag into a hidden html note, commenting (move what books represent to a note, as it is unsourced)
• I unhid the material, commenting (restore re symbolism of books -- unsourced but more-than-plausible and (to say the least) not BLP-related info can certainly remain, tagged cn to attract attention of others who may know of source or be interested in locating one)
• You then hid it again, commenting hiding again as tagged. Please leave hidden, or just find a ref, until at least the article gets through DYK. The crazy editing alone has been holding it back.

Sorry, but cn tags are to assist in developing the article, which is more important than getting some Potemkin version ready for DYK quickly. (In addition, without the the sequence of events around JH's bequest the three-lies material at then end is completely perplexing to the reader.) If it's not ready for DYK, it's not ready. The tireless Hertz has restored the info again, with changes, though there are problems with that new text also which I'll explain later.

EEng (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry. I wont be "annoying" you anymore.--Found5dollar (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way [9]. I get the impression you had envisioned an article that would get to DYK in a hurry with certain content (urination, "three lies" in bold in lead) you thought would look cool, and you're frustrated it didn't work out that way. There's more to this subject than one might think, and there's a lot of work still to be done. Please reconsider. EEng (talk) 07:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Please don't abandon ship on account of anything that may have been said here. Hertz1888 (talk) 09:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)