Talk:Harvard University/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Vandal

There is some apparent vandalism in the box on the top right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.21.223 (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not seeing it. Could you be more specific? FourViolas (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
See the heading "Administrative staff". The "Non-medical" and "Medical" seem to be vandalism for "clerical" etc. This is in the box on the top right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.68.30 (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
That makes no sense. Harvard hasn't been a clerical school for centuries. EEng (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
EEng, are you punning again? *tsk tsk*.
OK now. I hunted down the revision which seems to have added the info. It was referring to faculty, not staff at all. It's been copied and tweaked for years without anyone catching it, so major WikiFacepalm and big thanks for noticing it was fishy. I don't have time to find the real number, so I'll put "at least 1,000" per Harvard at a Glance mentioning 1000 library staffleave it blank, because I can't find numbers for administrative staff. Can someone find the right info soon? FourViolas (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC); edited 03:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Since the information was fishy a trout seems more appropriate. EEng (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, because a cod would be sacrilegious, and the clergy would disapprove. FourViolas (talk) 03:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2014

Add Harvard Alumni - Joseph McGrath - Bachelor of Arts in Government Class of 1969, into notable alumni. He is the current president of Grantham University, a nationally accredited 100% online university based in Lenexa,KS.

http://www.grantham.edu/about-grantham/university-administration/governance/ If you need any further information, please contact vmorrow@grantham.edu

ReliableEdits (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Given the number of notable alumni Harvard has had, you need to be really notable to make this short-list. We don't appear to have an article on that particular Joseph McGrath at all, so he is also ineligible for the long-list at List of Harvard University people, let alone this short-list. - Arjayay (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Name of the institution

In which year "Harvard College" became "Harvard University"? --RaphaelQS (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the details but I can give you the general outlines of the answer to this a somewhat slippery question. Perhaps the first prominent, official reference to Harvard as a "University" is in Massachusetts Constitution of 1779/1780, which refers to the "University at Cambridge" and later to "Harvard College in Cambridge, in New England, or to the President and Fellows of Harvard College, or to the said College by any other description." This was before any of the graduate schools were founded, but as they were (beginning with Medicine, 1782; Divinity, 1816; and Law, 1817) the term Harvard College came more and more to mean the original undergraduate core around which the larger Harvard University, with its graduate and professional schools, was developing. Today Harvard College admits Harvard's undergraduates; feeds, houses, advises, and (I guess you might say) entertains them; and generally attends to their personal well-being and discipline. Closely allied to the College is the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, which has primary responsibility for undergraduate instruction, as well as graduate instruction for students in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. There are complicated arrangements by which the various other graduate and professional schools contribute to undergraduate instruction as well.
So Harvard College didn't become Harvard University, rather Harvard University grew up around Harvard College, which retained, and retains, its original role as the school's undergraduate nucleus. I hope this makes sense. BTW, Harvard's fundamental governing body, The President and Fellows of Harvard College, retains the word College in its name for (I guess) reasons of tradition, even though it governs the entirety of Harvard University. Isn't all this fun to know? EEng (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Paging ElKevbo to check me on all this to the extent he can.

Mary 2015 discrimination complaint

[The following was transferred from User talk:EEng', and regards this [1] material]

Hi EEng,

This is Helen Yang and I am getting in touch with you regarding the controversies section on the Harvard University page. I don't agree with your statement due to the significance of this federal complaint in that it raises a major civil rights issue that impacts millions of people. Readers have the right to be informed and it is up to the readers to form an opinion either way or simply ignore it, but readers should not be deprived of the privilege of being informed.

Like many, I have tremendous respect for Harvard. I had the privilege of cross-registering at Harvard when I was at MIT and ended up taking classes at the Kennedy School and the law school.

This section will be put back. If you still disagree, we should raise it with Wikipedia to arbitration.

Thanks, Helen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jianhelenyang (talk • contribs)

Thanks for taking the trouble to contact me. I suggest that, as a new contributor, you review WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:UNDUE and (especially) WP:RECENTISM. It is not Wikipedia's mission to inform readers of breaking news, which they can easily get via a Google search. EEng (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
JHY Response - Thanks EEng for your response. As a long time user of wikipedia, I fully understand what wikipedia is and is not. The links your recommended were helpful and confirmed my understanding. To your specific points, the section was added due to its significance and high relevance. Google search would give you almost everything under the sun and if this criteria is used, I am not sure how much of Wikipedia would be left. While your many contributions to wikipedia is admirable, I hope the discussion focuses on the merit of the point itself. If it helps, I am happy to provide evidence to prove my credibility. Best regards, Helen Yang Jianhelenyang (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I certainly wasn't saying that anything available via Google shouldn't be in Wikipedia; that would be nonsense. My point is that "readers have a right to be informed" is not a good argument for inclusion of material, because there are other ways for readers to be informed. Time will tell whether this becomes anything more than just another lawsuit -- I note that Google News suggests that after the predictable burst of publicity one month ago, coverage has dwindled to practically zero in the last ten days. This event may very well merit its own article, but for the moment it has zero importance in the 400-year history of Harvard. Questions like this are worked out by discussion among interested editors, never by arbitration. EEng (talk) 06:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
JHY - Since we can't seem to agree, I suggest to take it to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. By the way, it is a federal complaint, not a lawsuit (although there is a closely related lawsuit). The purpose of wikipedia is to provide the most accurate and relevant information, and it is not right for a particular editor to filter out what he or she doesn't want the users to see - this is what I meant by "readers have a right to be informed". If the significance is the point of discussion, we can continue and I am happy to give you some pointers for further study, but Google News coverage at a given point of time is not the only gauge - do you see media coverage everyday about how many presidents come from Harvard? I am going to give you some time to think about it before I put it back. Also wanted to give you the opportunity to initiate the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard if you wish; otherwise I will be happy to initiate the process.Jianhelenyang (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
(OK, complaint, sorry.) To see that the unusually large number of US presidents who attended Harvard is significant enough for mention in the article doesn't require ongoing news coverage, because there's been literally centuries of that already, not to mention extensive secondary commentary and even entire books. In contrast, this matter seems to have left the headlines, and it's not clear when if ever it will return, or whether anyone will take notice of it again.
When a new editor arrives out of nowhere with the specific (and apparently only) purpose of inserting a certain thing into a certain article, it almost always leads to that person's frustration. The urgency you exhibit seems to stem from a desire to "spread the word", and that's not what Wikipedia is about. See (along with everything else I've point you to) WP:SOAPBOX.
Two different editors have indicated that they don't believe this material belongs in the article, especially as a standalone criticism section, which is almost always a bad idea (WP:CSECTION). Anyway, this isn't the place to be discussing this. I indicated in one of my edit summaries that you should open a discussion on the article's talk page, and you haven't done that, so in a moment I'll transfer this material there. EEng (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Continued discussion

South Africa divestment

Here are some sources:

I think we could put it either in #Endowment or #History. ZigZigVingts, this is the kind of in-depth, decade-spanning coverage I'm not seeing for the Oakland accusation. FourViolas (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm working on this. Access to this would be nice. FourViolas (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
If you're in the U.S., try an interlibrary loan (ILL). ILL is magic and can usually get materials from other libraries although sometimes the loan period is brief e.g., one week. It's not clear to me if this is a publication that a library would have or loan, however, as it may be considered historical archival material that you have to go to Harvard to view. If that's the case, try contacting the folks at Harvard who run the university's archives to see if they might be willing to scan a couple of pages for you or otherwise help you out. ElKevbo (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
In a few weeks FV will be trodding down grass in the Yard herself. Honestly, HU's own statement (see more at http://hollis.harvard.edu/primo_library/libweb/action/dlDisplay.do?vid=HVD&search_scope=default_scope&docId=HVD_ALEPH001707364&fn=permalink) is really a primary source, and though it may have some good quotes you could use (to illustrate with secondary sources say) you really should stick to broader histories of HU or its investments, or to specialized scholarly works on the specific topic of South Africa divestment in general (by corporations and institutions) or in the context of Harvard specifically. This won't be an easy topic -- go to hollisclassic.harvard.edu and search south africa divestment to see. EEng (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

2011 land grab controversy

The information added was WP:UNDUE in that it gave too much prominence to an incident tangential to the institution's history. This was an "advocacy think tank" accusing a hedge fund which Harvard, along with other universities, may have invested in to an unspecified extent, of unethical practices; even if the accusations had ever been substantiated (Harvard and others contested them, and I didn't find follow-up reporting), this event was not notable enough to merit inclusion in a two-page history of the university. I would change my position if presented with a source discussing the general history of Harvard and devoting 1/13 of its paragraphs to this "scandal". FourViolas (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. It would be as if United States took time to mention the Veterans Health Administration scandal of 2014. This assertion is reported only as "A new report published this week claims" and "according to a new study", and words like "exposed" have a distinctly inappropriate smell, as well. To call it a "controversy" is, to put it charitably, a grotesque exaggeration, since there's been no apparent followup by anybody at all. EEng (talk) 05:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

(refactored from User talk:EEng)

The Guardian and CNN are secondary sources?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Not when they simply repeat press releases, with absolutely no indication of independent reporting of their own. Please keep this to the article's talk page. EEng (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Please remember that Wikipedia is not censored. This isn't supposed to be an advertisement for the university.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

(End refactoring)

That's true, and I think the current history is a little too blandly celebratory. We might, for example, mention the divestment from South Africa debate, the reason for Larry Summers' resignation, or the Secret Court of 1920. But this manufactured "controversy" made very little impression even at the time, and the verdict of the interceding few years has clearly been that Harvard's role in these events was indirect, that the facts of the case are unclear or contested, and that in any case the situation is not important to an understanding the university.
Again, if you can find a reliable source which discusses the long-term history of Harvard and considers this accusation worthy of particular attention, you will change my mind. FourViolas (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I completely agree about the overall quality. All the Harvard articles are embarassments. EEng (talk) 05:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
If it seems undue in the history section, why would it not be relevant to the 'endowment' section? The endowment section could also have some info about the university's divestment from SA businesses.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
That would be a better place, and putting something about divestment there would be a good idea. But I still think that the Oakland Institute report is not remotely worth mentioning. Harvard has existed for almost 400 years, and this never-confirmed alleged misbehavior (barely related to Harvard) was discussed by a few outlets for a week at most. To test for WP:Recentism: if two newspapers had reported in 1811 that Harvard had invested some money in a broker whom others accused of shady dealings, would you want to include that, too? FourViolas (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
But again, this is not an advertisement. The divestment makes Harvard look good. The land grab does not. There should be balanced coverage.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
It does? They resisted for years, stated that they didn't factor ethics into their investments, and made essentially a token divestment after a huge campaign. They're definitely on the Scrooge side of history. But that shouldn't be the point: we need to neutrally reflect what sources say about Harvard's history, not cherry-pick events until we have an equal number of promotional and attack narratives. FourViolas (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The "land grab" story seems neutral to me. It appears to be fact-based. We have no reason to doubt CNN or The Guardian, both highly respected media outlets.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
There's no factual dispute: the outlets accurately reported the fact that a partisan think tank (read: non-RS) had accused a brokerage firm of wrongdoing, and that many universities, including Harvard, had invested to an undisclosed degree in that firm. This is about WP:UNDUE: that fact is irrelevant to the broader history of Harvard. Here are some Harvard stories which got much more coverage than the Oakland allegations:
This is a tiny representative sample, of course. There are thousands of events much more directly Harvard-related than the Oakland report which got much better coverage, and we can't fit all those events into the article. That's why it's undue and recentist to make a point of mentioning the land-grab non-controversy. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of sourced information. FourViolas (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Those stories would be irrelevant to the endowment. And they all seem to portray the university in a good light. No one doubts that the university has a PR/marketing department promoting those stories. Wikipedia is not supposed to do that, however. I don't think the "land grab" story is "recentist"; I think redacting it may contravene Wikipedia's no-censorship policy, which is troubling. We disagree.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Zigzig20s, I share your concern that this article may lack critical perspectives and we should be wary of editors who want to remove or suppress negative information. In this instance, however, I agree with those who believe this material should not be included in this article, at least not without some more sources that establish the lasting importance of these allegations. This charge is particularly important and difficult given the subject of this article since the media and the public have a grossly oversized fascination with this institution that requires that even minor events receive significant press coverage. But that doesn't relieve us of our obligation to keep this encyclopedia article focused on important information of lasting importance to all readers. ElKevbo (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Why do you not think the endowment is important? It is the most important aspect about this institution. That's how they buy prestige, media coverage, etc. This Wikipedia article is particularly elusive when it comes to Harvard's endowment. Here's a chance to flesh it out (together with the SA story and more, if more info can be found).Zigzig20s (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The endowment - the largest university endowment in the U.S. (and the world, I think) - is important. It may even merit its own article (note that Harvard Management Company already exists). This one report, however, doesn't appear to have lasting significance.
Please continue to work on this and let us know what additional information you find! ElKevbo (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand why you are dismissing research done by an independent think tank, and reported in at least two major national media outlets. I am not an investigative journalist--I have no intention to research this--on Wikipedia, we don't do original research.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
By "research" ElKevbo means see if you can find secondary sources discussing the significance of this incident in the overall history of Harvard (or even of just its investment practices). EEng (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this report merits mention here not because it's a poor report or because the topic isn't important but because it's simply not important enough to include in this article about the entire history, organization, and impact of this nearly 400-year old organization. We have to make tough choices about what to include in articles and in my estimation this particular fact doesn't make the cut because it's not essential for readers to know about if they're to get a broad understanding of this topic. It may be more important that I know it is and you can help demonstrate that by finding additional sources that discuss this report especially if you can demonstrate lasting impact or significant repercussions. ElKevbo (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Shall we create Harvard University's "land grab" controversy? I don't think adding two referenced lines about this in the 'endowment' section is undue at all. If it were a long paragraph, perhaps so (but this is a long article). Again, I feel like CNN and The Guardian are significant enough--both national and international news outlets. It sounds like we are not allowed to add referenced info about their endowment. I don't see why not. Two strong references are sufficient; we don't see five hundred!Zigzig20s (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I really don't think that would pass WP:GNG. One partisan source released a report, and two RS reported that the report had been released; that doesn't qualify as "significant coverage in reliable sources". However, I think Endowment of Harvard University would easily pass GNG, and would be a great location to discuss the management structure (HMC might merge there), all the divestment movements (there are books' worth of sources just on the current one), and, yes, allegations of unethical investments (although even on that page, this event would be a side note until other sources indicate its lasting impact.) That page would be liked with a {{main}} template from this page's Endowment section.
The thing about Harvard's bloated media coverage is that, as I was trying to say above, there are stories which do have dozens or hundreds of independent, in-depth references, which we nonetheless can't fit into the article. FourViolas (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
ZZ20s, you'd be doing us all a favor if you'd stop debating and go see if you can find further sources substantiating that there was a "controversy". As already noted, apparently no one at all paid any attention to this after the initial report -- if that's true, doesn't that tell you something? EEng (talk) 04:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
We have no reason, none, to question CNN or The Guardian. Did Harvard sue the think tank for libel? No. So we have zero reason to disbelieve this.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
That would be libel, actually, not slander, and do you think Harvard goes around suing everyone who says anything negative about it, even if false? But you miss the point entirely, because the truth of the report isn't at issue. What's at issue is whether anyone took note of it beyond the two "breaking news" pieces you have. They don't show a "controversy" because they don't show anyone controverting anything. This think tank shouted something from the rooftops, and the response seems to have been a resounding silence. If you won't bother to even try to find sources putting this claim in any kind of context then there's nothing more to discuss. EEng (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
We don't need more than this. Perhaps I could find more. But these two references are taken from major media outlets, so there is no need for me to waste more of my time on this.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

"generous" financial aid

I objects to the term "generous" when describing the financial aid. That's a term you'd see in an admissions pamphlet, not on an objective encyclopedia. Who defines generous? Is it generous for the people in other countries who make $1 a day and can't afford even a quarter of tuition? The university is still extremely expensive by any objective measure and to call it generous when many students pay many thousands of dollars makes it sound like a charity.

For reference, Harvard could easily pay for every student's tuition (which we could all agree would be generous) but does not do so. 173.2.236.247 (talk) 03:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Early college

The phrase:

Although never formally affiliated with any denomination, the early College primarily trained Congregationalist and Unitarian clergy

is curious, since there was no Unitarian denomination (the American Unitarian Association) until 1825.

The American Unitarian Association (AUA) was a religious denomination in the United States and Canada, formed by associated Unitarian congregations in 1825. In 1961, it consolidated with the Universalist Church of America to form the Unitarian Universalist Association.[1]

  1. ^ "Timeline of Significant Events in the Merger of the Unitarian and Universalist Churches During the 1900s". Andover-Harvard Theological Library. Harvard Divinity School. Retrieved 1 July 2014.

Is that an anachronism?

MaynardClark (talk) 02:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC) [reformatted by Dervorguilla (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)]

Seal

thumb|150px|A File:Harvard Wreath Logo 1.svg User:MrMaximMinkim has changed the initial image from B to A several times without explanation. People keep reverting to B, but I'm not sure B is more accurate. I haven't seen it around campus much, for one thing, and it would be odd to have "Harvard" in English, rather than "Universitas Harvardiana" or "Christo et Ecclesia" or something. A monograph on Harvard heraldry (the amount of navel-gazing at this place, I'm telling you) says that A is the "arms", but doesn't describe the seal. The rest of the Ivies (Brown University, Cornell, Princeton University, University of Pennsylvania, Yale, Dartmouth College, Columbia University) don't have this kind of decorative wreath in their initial "seal" image. Heraldry of Harvard University doesn't say.

There's some kind of dossier in the HU Archives called "General information about Harvard seals and arms," which includes, among other things, a watercolor of something described as the "Seal," without any disclaimer about its being the seal used until 1935 or anything. If this issue looks too contentious or confusing, I can go try to track that down. FourViolas (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like this has been contentious. I'll go look it up. :FourViolas (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
FourViolas, check out the sources listed in Heraldry of Harvard University. Then you can be Wikipedia's very own Harvard gazel-naver! ... I mean navel-gazer! EEng (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

'In literature' list

The edit summary for revision 692293608 of 18:40, 24 November 2015, by EEng, "there are zillions of stories/novels set at Harvard. Only notable ones should be listed here (and probably not even all of those)" doesn't appear to explain the edit itself, which can probably be reverted.

Compare WP:GNG. The Kester book has received significant coverage in reliable sources. In particular, the publication of a seven-section review in the Christian Science Monitor suggests that this eminent publisher believes the book is especially worthy of note.

Molly Driscoll, "Surviving Harvard: 7 Stories from Freshman Year", review of That Book about Harvard, by Eric Kester, Christian Science Monitor, July 19, 2012, section 1[2] to section 7[3].

--Dervorguilla (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC) 20:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I think my edit summary is quite clear. We can't possibly list every work involving Harvard, and even restricting to notable works would make a far, far too long list. Only the most significant works should be listed here. Actually, as far as I'm concerned, of those currently listed only the first three belong. EEng (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The information in EEng's edit summary and comment is accurate. Only the most significant notable works should be listed.
The Christian Science Monitor appears to believe that the Kester book is significant enough to be worth a 7-section review. Compare with the Tan romance-novel series, which has received no coverage in reliable sources and so can be noncontentiously omitted per WP:GNG. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not a review. It's seven fun excerpts. Here's the test I've proposed for similar situations in other articles:
A fictional or semifictional portrayal of a article's subject is worth noting or discussing in the article on that subject to the extent that reliable secondary sources discuss that the portrayal adds to an understanding of the subject itself, or of the subject's place in history or popular perception.
I'm skeptical that the Kester work meets that criterion. Lots of similar lightweight books have been written by Harvard grads. EEng (talk) 05:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The Monitor's Culture and Books staff writer says the Kester book helps unshroud the university. Her article counts as coverage for purposes of WP:GNG. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Please skip the talk of "eminent" publications and so on. Molly Driscoll is not "the Monitor's Culture and Books staff writer", but rather just a staff writer, whose other recent credits include "Adele: Has she broken a record with her new album, '25'?", "'Dancing With the Stars' finale: Who will be competing at the end of season 21?", and "'Game of Thrones': What a new poster might tell us about Jon Snow". Puffing up the source doesn't help your case.
  • Driscoll didn't say that "the Kester book helps unshroud the university." She said that Harvard "remains somewhat shrouded in mystery for many of us. One former undergrad, Eric Kester, has been through it all, with various disasters along the way, and shares his stories in his new book." Nothing about unshrouding. And as I've already pointed out, Driscoll's piece is nothing like a review, but rather seven short excerpts from the book, with no comment or discussion of any kind.
  • You're confusing the test for notability (WP:GNG) with the test for article content -- see WP:NNC.
  • Kester's book purports to be nonfiction, so it's not clear it belongs in the "in literature" section anyway. And that, actually, brings the problem into clearer focus: if we had to pick a half-dozen nonfiction books that would help the reader understand the subject of the article -- Harvard -- are you really suggesting that this would be one of them?

Per WP:BRD, I've removed this item pending comment from other editors. EEng (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It's original research for any Wikipedia editor to select fictional books and compile them as a list of books that represent this or any other institution in popular culture. That's going about this the wrong way. The right way would be to cite scholars who have explicitly written about Harvard's role in and impact on popular culture. If there aren't any such sources then the topic doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 07:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I think the criterion you're describing is pretty much the same as mine in italics above, except I think your scholars requirement is slightly too tight. So, for example, if The New York Review of Books said (in a context making it clear that the writer's in a position to speak intelligently on the matter) "For more than a decade, most Americans' image of Harvard was that presented in Love Story", then that would justify listing Love Story.
Under this criterion, BTW, I think most of the films should be tossed out, but I lack the energy just now. EEng (talk) 08:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC) P.S. Have you visited the museums lately?
I oppose EEng's recommendation, support ElKevbo's recommendation, and would accordingly support deletion of the whole "Literature and popular culture" section per WP:STICKTOSOURCE. The section amounts to a stand-alone list stub inappropriately embedded in an article. (Incidentally, WP:GNG could indeed apply to such a list, per WP:NOTESAL.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Huh? I'm pretty sure ElKevbo and I are making the same recommendation, with slightly different wording.
  • There's nothing wrong with a well-chosen list within an article. This is seen all the time e.g. selected notable residents of a city or town.
  • Of course, the lists as they stand now aren't well-chosen, but it would be WP:POINTY to suddenly delete them in toto, just because your favored item doesn't seem like it's going to be included. Some of the items listed clearly belong e.g. The Sound and the Fury.
EEng (talk) 09:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid that we're not making the same recommendation. I'm opposed to including a list of Wikipedia editor-selected books and movies (primary sources). Instead, such a section should focus on sources that have explicitly described the university's impact on and role in popular culture (secondary sources). Examples of specific books and movies that are discussed in those secondary sources would, of course, be helpful for readers.
It may be helpful to remember that this section isn't "List of movies and books that have mentioned or included Harvard" but "Harvard in popular culture." To me, those are two very, very different things. The first isn't very interesting and should at best be its own list or category but the second being very useful and interesting if done well. ElKevbo (talk) 16:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm. I think we're talking at slightly cross-purposes, but I've got a wicked case of sciatica just now that makes clear thinking impossible. I certainly wasn't suggesting anything like a vague "List of movies and books that have mentioned or included Harvard" but rather significant portrayals (where "significant" = my criterion in italics several posts back). Can you give an example of what you're calling "Harvard in popular culture", distinguished from that? EEng (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I apologize if it seemed like I was suggesting that you had in mind a list of movies and books; that is simply what is present in many articles and what I am opposed to.
I don't know of any specific sources that would fit into my imagined "In popular culture" section as this is outside of my realms of expertise. But if this is a topic that belongs in an encyclopedia then there should be sources that explicitly discuss this at length, ideally sources that have this as their main topic e.g., "How Harvard College Shaped American College Culture" or "Harvard University's Impact on Portrayals of 20th Century Upperclass Americans" (both of which are fictional examples). ElKevbo (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
And a second reading of your suggested criteria above shows that we're probably on the same page after all. Apologies for the confusion! ElKevbo (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
ElKevbo, you are a gentleman and a scholar. EEng (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
"Kester's book purports to be nonfiction, so it's not clear it belongs in the 'in literature' section anyway."
Hunter S. Thompson's books also purport to be nonfiction but are nonetheless literature.
literature. 3. Writings in prose or verse.
prose. 1. A literary medium distinguished from poetry by … its more detailed and factual definition of idea, object, or situation.
Webster's Third. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
"There's nothing wrong with a well-chosen list within an article. This is seen all the time e.g. selected notable residents of a city or town."
Not so much. See, for example, the article on Boston.
Boston
A featured article from Wikipedia
...
Notable people
Main article: List of people from Boston
--Dervorguilla (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, much. See these featured articles: Kent,_Ohio#Notable_people, Radcliffe,_Greater_Manchester#Notable_people, Hillsboro,_Oregon#Notable_people.
  • Re your dictionary definitions, see connotation versus denotation.
  • I've reverted your WP:POINTY mass removal. The books, with one exception, clearly belong, and I've added a few other appropriate items (Pulitzer Prize-winners describing Harvard life etc.). As to the films, you apparently left Love Story in simply because some source was attached, though that source offers nothing about the significance of that film to an understanding of Harvard itself, or its popular perception. Nonetheless, other sources undoubtedly do support it, so I've left it in for now. Same for Paper Chase.
EEng (talk) 06:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the hard work you did on this section, EEng. I think you can understand now that this was in fact the "POINT" of my project: to improve the article by getting you to dig up some secondary or tertiary sources and add them. --Dervorguilla (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC) 12:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
That's bullshit, since for three of the four items I added/restored there's still no source. And even granting the truth of that proposition, deleting content in order to goad another editor into doing something is inappropriate -- if I hadn't been watching it would have all been simply lost. Next time, do the hard work yourself, and if you don't have the competence for that, move on to an article where you do. EEng (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
You may be underestimating the extent of your contributions, EEng. You added six secondary or tertiary sources to three items, for two of which (The Second Happiest Day and The Paper Chase) there had been no source. Again, thank you for improving this article. --Dervorguilla (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC) 13:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I repeat: deleting content in order to goad another editor is inappropriate. Except in the case of BLPs, the criterion for removal of content is not that is unverified (no source given in the article) but rather that it is unverifiable (you genuinely believe, in good faith, that no sources exist). If you lack the knowledge and experience to make such a judgment, leave it alone. If you still want to ridiculously pretend you can't hear what I'm telling you, be my guest. EEng (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• You do appear to agree with me that your calculation was in error.
• The section had been tagged for primary sources some two years before (revision 541742808 by TheRedPenOfDoom).
• "If reliable sources cannot be found for challenged material, it is likely to be removed from the article." WP:WHYCITE.
--Dervorguilla (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Based on WP:IPC and WP:WAF - to me the test for a work to be listed in a "In popular culture" section of article X is: Does a third party talk about the appearance of X in the work of fiction in a manner that places X in the context of society?": Does the third party say "BOOK illuminates the secret societies of Harvard" or "FILM explores cut-throat nature of the academic class at Harvard" or "Lyrics of SONG show the deep connection alumni have with Harvard" would all be great. Source that says "TV SHOW is set at Harvard" illuminates nothing and is non encyclopedic mere clutter and not included.
And here i think we would be quite able to have an excellent Harvard in popular culture article. (after which we apply WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and replace the content here with the lead that summarizes the spinout article.)
And WP:BURDEN policy is clear. Once content has been challenged and removed, it CANNOT be restored without appropriate sourcing, no matter whether an editor thinks it was improperly removed or not. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2015

In the Notable Alumni section, there are errors regarding the status of Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg.


1) Bill Gates is listed as "AB, 1977", which is incorrect. Although he matriculated as a member of the 1977 Class at Harvard College, he never graduated.

The Harvard Alumni website lists his affiliation with Harvard College as:

Harvard College 1977 Currier House

Bill Gates does indeed hold an honorary degree from Harvard University, for which the citation is listed on the Alumni website as:

University LLD | 2007 Honorary Degree

Edit request #1: Please change the entry for Bill Gates in the Notable Alumni section

From: Gates (AB, 1977)

To: Gates (COL, 1977; LLD, 2007)

2) Mark Zuckerberg is listed as holding an "AM, 1993", which is incorrect. Although he matriculated as a member of the 2006 Class at Harvard College, he never graduated.

The Harvard Alumni website lists his affiliation with Harvard as:

Harvard College 2006 Kirkland House

Edit request #2: Please change the entry for Mark Zuckerberg in the Notable Alumni section

From: Zuckerberg (AB, 1993)

To: Zuckerberg (COL, 2006)

Please correct these listings

Note: The attached references are from https://community.alumni.harvard.edu.

104.153.201.78 (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done I also have access to the database, and the images are accurate. Fulfilled request, thank you very much for bringing it to our attention. FourViolas (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Followup note: You'd think someone with Zuckerberg's money could afford to live somewhere better than in a post office. EEng (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Isn't the more usual way of describing someone who entered college with (for example) the class of 1976 but did not graduate this?: ex-1976
I think that's fairly standard across institutions. Seeing "COL" mystified me until I hit the talk page and saw what you wanted it to mean, and I think it will similarly mystify others. - Nunh-huh 07:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, but this is Harvard. Unlike most institutions, Harvard puts no clock on graduation (assuming you don't set fire to your roommate or send chamberpots to the faculty). Thus there's no concept of "didn't graduate", only "hasn't graduated yet", and if Gates wants to take his last few courses and finish his degree, he still can do that; he's permanently considered a member of the class of 1977, so any kind of ex- notation is inappropriate.
That's not to say we shouldn't replace the opaque COLL notation with something more obvious e.g. "Class of 1977 (degree not completed)", or if that's too long, an asterisk tied to a footnote. EEng (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Good catch by our unregistered/logged out colleague. But you're correct that we need something more understandable to note that these (and possibly other) alumni are not graduates because the current notation is completely opaque. A footnote would probably work. (Is there anything done along these lines in the main alumni article(s)?) ElKevbo (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality of teaching is questionable

Do we have a controversy section to discuss the uneven quality of teaching at Harvard? I've only set foot on campus once, but I am told that most freshmen and sophomore classes aren't taught by full professors, unlike classes at better universities. My understanding is that most Harvard undergraduate students won't see a full professor at the front of the room until Junior year. Jehochman Talk 18:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Your source(s) for these claims? ElKevbo (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
These claims are rampant. Here are a few starting points:
You can Google plenty more. Jehochman Talk 20:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
How is this any different than the situation at most other U.S. research universities (except that any publication with "Harvard" any its title gets a lot more attention)? ElKevbo (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Jehochman, putting aside the question of what you, a Yale alumnus, would know about better universities, I note that your inquiry makes the debatable assumption that senior faculty are necessarily the best instructors. Anyway, I've spoken to the President and Fellows and they've agreed to lift, in your case, the usual one-visit-per-lifetime restriction on your kind. So feel free to roam at will and see how the other half lives; I've emailed you the special pass you should wear around your neck in case you're stopped by Yard cops and their Eli-sniffing dogs. In the meantime, since apparently this is an OR-friendly discussion, perhaps FourViolas will chime in (or bow in, I suppose) with his current experience. For myself, my first-term instructors included Albert Lord, Andrew Gleason, and Tom Bartee. EEng (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
There are two false assumptions here. 1= unlike classes at better universities. Better universities are just as likely to use graduate students. 2= that full professors are better teachers than graduate students. The full professors are selected at Harvard for their top-level research abilities in specialty topics, regardless of their teaching skills. They are certainly not selected for their ability to teach freshmen and sophomores. The graduate students are among the best in the United States. The pattern is the same for all major universities, except that I would say the Harvard graduate students are on average stand very high compared to graduate students of the other universities. Rjensen (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Well again, the OP is hampered in his knowledge of major universities, having attended Yale. Rjensen, I see you did as well, but you seem to have made a wonderful recovery. EEng (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes I attended Yale but nevertheless Harvard hired me as a consultant and as a visiting professor. :) Rjensen (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
My data point: in my first semester, I had a 20-person seminar with the estimable Christine Korsgaard, who was businesslike but friendly in office hours. My math professor, also tenured, was intimidating in class but friendlier yet in person. My other two teachers were highly qualified in their respective fields, and excellent teachers (one has a textbook in press), but both are contingent faculty, thanks to NLRB v. Yeshiva.
That said, I've heard this point come up many times, on and off campus, and if better sources can be found (for Heaven's sake; the latter tries to sound clever by calling salad greens "ruffage" and name-dropping "John Rawles") I think it would be great to settle this point, probably at Harvard College. By "better sources", I mean something more reliable than tabloid tell-alls of campus rumor: some careful journalist or Chronicle of Higher Education report which actually runs the numbers and contextualizes them appropriately. FourViolas (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I notice ruffage is discussed along with chickwiches, so maybe ruffage is for dogs and chickwiches for cats. Your forgot the obligatory dig at Yale. EEng (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
How could my forget? Boo, bah, pooh-pooh.
  • I think it would be interesting to state who is teaching undergraduate courses, or more broadly to explain the philosophy of teaching (pedagogy) at Harvard. This rumor has been floating around since I was in college (25+ years ago). Jehochman Talk 23:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussing the College's pedagogical philosophy is another cool idea, but it might be hard to find non-WP:Peacocky sources. It may or may not be possible to extract neutral, verifiable information from something like this article in Harvard Magazine, and I don't know who else would write about it. FourViolas (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Since this gives me an excuse to quote the old man... You often see Lowell's complaint about the difficulty of encouraging and rewarding student performance given the great variety of routes to a degree ("The men are not running side by side over the same road, but over different roads of different kinds, out of sight of one another, and hence the spirit of emulation is lacking") but I particularly love two other of his zingers (of which, of course, there were many):
  • "After all the most important thing is not what is taught but what is learned... we are apt to measure the amount in the mind by what has been poured into it, although we know it leaks and have no idea how much."
  • "There has been too much dragging of youth over the ground in perambulators and wondering why their running does not improve."
EEng (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
We know what Harvard is and how its quality of teaching would be, but do we need to add so many things?--Yuckyhulas7890 (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
What are you talking about? EEng (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Update

As of January 24, 2016, several sections of the article need updates. MaynardClark (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Is this your way of volunteering? EEng 07:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Harvard University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2016

Hello! I'm the official representative of The Round University Ranking. I would like to offer the information about Harvard's positions in it. More information you can find there http://roundranking.com/universities.html?univ=Harvard+University&back=/ranking.html&sort=O&year=2015&subject=SO. Thanks. Vittoriona (talk) 08:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It's tough to give serious consideration to a ranking system that takes its descriptions of institutions from their WP articles. Extra points for being named for a pioneering scifi play. ElKevbo, you might want be interested in this editor's other contribs. EEng 10:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I rolled back all the spam and left the editor a note about this activity being disallowed. Hopefully that will suffice. Jehochman Talk 14:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

serial killer Ted Kaczynski

Is that quite right? His entry describes him as a domestic terrorist.

Nikihokey (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Serial killer and domestic terrorist aren't mutually exclusive categories. As a serial killer, he wasn't too successful, killing only three people (as he wrote, "frustrating, but I can't seem to make a lethal bomb"). So "terrorist" may predominate because his murders didn't make much impact. For article purposes, we don't want Wikipedia making up descriptions; we want Wikipedia to use the descriptions used by more reliable sources. And reliable sources refer to Kaczynski both as serial killer and domestic terrorist. Either or both would be fine for our purposes here. It might be worth considering the fact that, though he also pled guilty to bomb-related charges, it was the murders that are the reason he's in jail for life. - Nunh-huh 00:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Endowment main article

There is only a paragraph in this article. I'm thinking of starting a main. We have plenty of PDFs. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely notably. Search the word endowment in Talk:Harvard_University/Archive_7 (and earlier archives as well, I'm sure) for random discussions on the subject. EEng 01:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Splendid. Please see User:Anna Frodesiak/Silver sandbox. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Note that Harvard Management Company exists. And note that, until just now, Harvard University article had no link to Harvard Management Company, but instead just a mention of it with no link. Odd. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I've boldly renamed Harvard Management Company to Harvard University endowment to accommodate the kind of material I think you would be adding. EEng 04:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi EEng. The trouble is the article is still about the company. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Not anymore [4] (still needs much work, but a start). EEng 12:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Nobel Prize count

Discussion transferred from User talk:EEng:

Dear EEng, I would like to open a new folder in the discussion-page about that topic, but my experience tells me that this would be pointless, there are countless opinions criticising the wikipedia standards about nobel prize and ranking related topics for a while now and it stays this way, especially because they are merely a discussion. Any serious review is in vain, simply by ignoring it.

You should not interpret my edit as an attack, I refer to valid source material which has the only authority. You say that the harvard page does not count all people as the wikipedia page does, due to different counting methods. But why shall we use an easy solution if we can make it more difficult, if we replace a fact by an offical source by disputable wikipedia tables, (which are pictured as "correct" althoug highly controversial and not solved until universal satifaction and than showed as supporting material ) we would damage the foundation of research-based argumentation.

You imply that the 150 names by the wikipedia community is the valid table, if harvard or any other official source not arrange itself on that it is only subset, a highly disputable logic, it should be the other way. interestingly does wikipedia count the fields medal winners for harvard by the official source of the International Mathematical Union but you delete supporting evidence concerning the amount of nobel laureates, which support the claims in other articles for e.g University of Chicago, Heidelberg University or University of California, Los Angeles.

What type of argumentation is desired?

Mulhollant (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Despite your reservations I've moved the discussion here, because this is where it has to take place to be of any value. I don't interpret your edit as any kind of attack, but there is a misunderstanding here. The Harvard official page is apparently (though it's not entirely clear) counting persons who won Nobels while on faculty, plus persons who won Nobels after graduating. The "List of Nobels by institution" article additionally counts those who won Nobels and later came to Harvard, faculty who left Harvard then won Nobels later, etc. It's as simple as that. Footnotes at the "List of" page (e.g. List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation#cite_note-affiliations-3) explain why the broader way of counting is used -- not just for Harvard but for all institutions. EEng 20:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2016

Change first sentence by changing "a" to "an", adding in "American" before "an", and adding "Ivy League" after "Private" and before "Research". First sentence should now read: "Harvard University is an American private Ivy League research university in Cambridge, Massachusetts, established 1636, whose history, influence and wealth have made it one of the world's most prestigious universities."


Urs99 (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Removal of "one of the most prestigious"

Information icon I am all in favor of outlining the strengths of the university but I think the line "whose history, influence and wealth have made it one of the world's most prestigious universities" is too much. If you look at Stanford University, (a comparable institution), it reads "is a private research university in Stanford, California." That sounds objective and more importantly encyclopedic. This is nothing against Harvard, I would just like this article to be a bit more formalized and objective. I would like it changed from

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

To:

"Harvard University is a private research university in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The college was founded in 1636..."

WP:UNIGUIDE clearly issues the following: "Claims that an institution "ranks highly" or "highly exclusive" are just as vague as claims that it is "prestigious" and "excellent." As mentioned in the last attempt we should not use rankings to synthesize an image of the institution in the lede... Elizabeth I of England (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Yes, I made the hyperlinked edit but it was reverted some time ago. I agree with the move. ♔First Lord of Downing Street♔ 17:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • See [5]. EEng 18:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
There is a reason this has been battered to death so many times. No university not matter how well received is immune from WP:WEASEL, and most importantly the Holy Grail of my argument. Elizabeth I of England (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
No, the reason it's been battered to death so many times is that uninformed editors go off half-cocked without understanding the fact background, sources, and applicable WP guidelines, and without reviewing prior discussions, a link to all of which you will find within the small thread I linked above—and which, for example, directly speak to your WEASEL reasoning. As one participant said [6] in one of those discussions, "If you honestly believe that Harvard is not one of the world's most prestigious universities then you are incompetent to edit or contribute to this article outside of very narrow confines e.g. grammar, MediaWiki markup."
Do not fuck with others' posts again, as you did here [7] (now corrected by me), ever. EEng 20:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Slightly more politely: there's no question of "WP:SYNTHesizing from rankings" here, because as the quotes in the refs show, this language is directly supported without OR from multiple high-quality sources. Reviewing past discussions is advisable, to avoid having to rehash old discussions when policy-based consensus was reached (or to see which policies, if any, have been seriously overlooked). And we have a guideline instructing editors not to change others' talk page comments except in a few specific cases. FourViolas (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Some editors need to calm down. I made the first revert on the article with the same reasoning as presented above. I agree that Harvard is prestigious and I am more thank okay with including the sentence in the "ranking and reputation" section; its inclusion as the first sentence just seems ridiculous. There is a reason this article has been failed as a Good Article twice. I think we all know why. (Hint: take a look at Dartmouth College, and Columbia University.) ♔First Lord of Downing Street♔ 21:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
This discussion would actually appear to be the one where the issue was settled. And while we're on the subject, WP:UNIGUIDE, which is being held here as some sort of Magna Carta, is only an essay and not any sort of policy or guideline. All the information in the lead the user(s) object to is properly sourced. Calidum ¤ 22:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict -- I was about to say the same thing, except they're obviously sockpuppets, not meatpuppets.) Since the not-too-cunningly-named First Lord of Downing Street and Elizabeth I of England have blundered into revealing themselves to be a pair of sockpuppets‍—‌(a) Elizabeth fucks with other editors' posts; (b) First Lord's defense of what Elizabeth did begins "I was only trying..."; (c) quickly First Lord reverts himself, realizing he was logged in to the wrong account‍—‌there's no need for further discussion here. Come back when you can remember who you are at any given moment. EEng 22:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Good catch. Thanks for filing the report. They've both been blocked now. Calidum ¤ 01:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, this isn't like the Yale article where you can just pull the wool over everyone's eyes with those Elis none the wiser. Here's we have standards. EEng 04:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harvard_University/Archive_7&oldid=1136787895"