Jump to content

Talk:Harvard University/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Contradiction tag

As mentioned several months ago by an anonymous user above, the library size ranking and its number of volumes is different in the lead section than it is in the library section. Basar 05:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've done some basic web research, fixed the contradiction, and removed the tag. All references to the library are now given in-line citations.Citynoise 18:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Announcement of new president

Just to clarify any potential confusion, Harvard officially announced its next president, Drew Gilpin Faust, on Sunday, February 11, 2007. She will not actually be president until July 1, 2007. Derek Bok will serve as interim president until then. The media seems to get these things incorrect frequently. I hope the Wikipedia community can get it right. Jkbaum 20:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Crimson

This article talks way too much about the school color, which makes the intro not very concise and cumbersome to read. I experimented with splitting the three or four paragraphs on color into their own section, but there were some problems. I recommend somebody else take a look. – Lantoka (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Old Motto

Something is a bit off about the old motto...Veritas, Christo et Ecclesia should translate to "Truth, Christ and the Church". However, Veritas "PRO" Christo et Ecclesia would mean "Truth for Christ and the Church", as the translation says. I tried to search for it on Harvard's website, but I'm having firewall issues with it. I did find a Harvard Crimson article that had the "pro" part [1]. Also, is that something that should be in the info box? It looks a bit cluttered because of it...just a thought. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 21:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed/clarified. Doops | talk 03:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

A+ Grades

It says in the View of Harvard section that Harvard doesn't award A+ grades. The Harvard Undergraduate Student Handbook says that it does. —LestatdeLioncourt 14:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which handbook you're looking at, and I can't offer any more evidence than my own experience, but you can't get an A+ on your "report card." 67.85.183.103 05:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I've gone to four universities and none award A+ grades, neither did my high school. Its a novelty grade elementary schools give as far as I know.

Acceptance

Is it extremely hard to be accepted in to Harvard, because I wanted to go there--Kolegegraduaet 21:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

a) Yes, it's hard. b) You can't be accepted unless you apply, so apply. c) What are your reasons for going to Harvard? Maybe there are other schools that would be equally good choices for you that are not as hard to get into. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Unimportant/unsourced "popular culture" items

  • On the hit American TV show "Gilmore Girls" (episode 3.22: The Big One), one of the main characters, Rory Gilmore, is admitted to Harvard, Princeton as well as Yale University and chooses to attend the latter in lieu of the other two.
Well, then, Harvard isn't important in the episode, let alone the series as a whole. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Scores of fictional characters are given an Ivy League background as an indicator for membership in the WASP establishment. Would the M*A*S*H series be any different if Winchester said he was a Yale graduate? If not, this item isn't important. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Ebert's review suggests that this is just character background, that the incident has taken place before the story begins, that the story is set in London, and that Harvard does not play an important role.
No page reference given. Fact that "attended" is in the past tense suggests that it is just character background and that Harvard and HBS are not important elements in the book. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Minor

At Harvard is it compulsory to do a minor or is there a way of opting out. Also I don't quite understand what a liberal arts course. Help appreciated. Algebra man 21:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this in relation to the article, or is it just a general question about the school? If it is the former, could you please clarify what you mean. If it is the latter, you should be aware that this is not a general forum for discussion about the article's subject; it is, rather, for the discussion of the article itself (see WP:TALK). Most of us probably wouldn't be able to help you with those kinds of administrative minutiae anyway, so I would suggest contacting the University's admissions office instead. --Dynaflow 22:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Dynaflow is of course right; but I might as well add that there actually aren't any minors as such at Harvard. Doops | talk 01:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

missing a section header?

It appears that a "History" section header may have been deleted inadvertently. Under "Major campus expansion", the first three paragraphs relate to that topic. The next eight paragraphs don't relate to campus expansion at all; they appear to be a history. I'm just passing through, so rather than make the edit and possibly blunder into an editing dispute, I thought I'd ask. -- Sfmammamia 02:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1874 Harvard-McGill.jpg

Image:1874 Harvard-McGill.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

I am trying to revert vandalism on Harvard University article but the spam protection filter is preventing me from doing so. NHRHS2010 Talk 18:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverted by admin User:Jaranda. NHRHS2010 Talk 18:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Views of Harvard section

In my opinion, much of this section seems unnecessary and biased against Harvard, while other parts could easily be incorporated into the rest of the article. I am not connected to Harvard in any way whatsoever in case someone was going to accuse me of bias – I am a Duke grad. Many of the issues presented in this section are universal among all universities and colleges in the US; since they are not unique to Harvard, these topics belong in articles about legacy preferences, affirmative action, grade inflation, etc (many of these articles already exist). The information presented in this section specific to Harvard (which isn’t much) can be moved to those articles, if desired.

A section similar to this exists in hardly any other university article unless it is a specific controversial episode in that particular university’s history. I believe that people continue to target Harvard because they are just jealous of Harvard’s prestige and wealth. Harvard is a fantastic school – clearly one of the finest in the world – but obviously it still isn’t perfect and has its flaws. It is really necessary to point all of these flaws out? No, since they are not unique to Harvard. Put another way, do you honestly think that a 2000 (guesstimate) word summary of everything there is to know about Harvard should include a 75-word quote of Larry Summers about the problems with student-faculty interactions? I personally do not.

Let’s break down the section and where it can be moved or if it should be eliminated entirely:

  • 1.) “Oldest, Richest, and famous” – move to Institutions or History. Move rankings to Admissions; can rename section if want.
  • 2.) Grade inflation – move to grade inflation article
  • 3.) Too many teaching fellows – move to different article or delete. Way too many details. If something in this article needs to be expanded, it’s the History and People sections.
  • 4.) COFHE survey – pointless to mention. Every school has these same issues. Quote from Summers? Not significant at all.
  • 5.) Large class sizes and quote from Dr. Sendel – why? If you want to mention stats of classes over 50, that’s fine. Look it up in US News and put in a Profile-type section. It’s not necessary to provide small details and the article should be written in an unbiased manner that lets readers decide for themselves if that is too large of a percentage.
  • 6.) Alumni giving - move to People section and expand it to discuss alumni in general. How was this ever a “View of Harvard”? A view since alumni tend to give money to their alma mater? I guess….
  • 7.) Legacy and affirmative action – move to legacy preferences and affirmative action in the United States.
  • 8.) Fin aid info – move to admissions or a profile section
  • 9.) Self-promotion – ok….pointless….no basis for fact, completely biased, and something other Ivy League and elite schools are accused of.
  • 10.) Who Needs Harvard reference – pointless. Delete.

That’s just my opinion on the matter, obviously, but if you look at wikipedia’s guidelines for university articles (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities) I think you’d agree with most (if not all) of my points. I have experience getting a university article to FA status as well as providing feedback for others. Cheers! -Bluedog423Talk 01:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

History

The History section is just plain abysmal. Harvard's history begins in 1636, not 1800! There is hope though. It seems that as of February 14 (<3) of this year, the Harvard article did contain a more comprehensive History section. Take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harvard_University&oldid=108155179#History

Maybe we should reinstate the history section from that version (with modifications of course). This would save us the arduous task of writing a new section. Any thoughts? -Mdmace91 04:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

" In my family history records search through many Generations i have found that i was related as a direct decendant of EDWARD JACKSON Born 1602 Stepney Whitechapel , London England . He was the Son of Christofer Jackson He Moved from England to Newton Massachusetts in 1643 ,, He was Freeman 1645 ; Selectman ; Deputy to the Genral Court 18 sessions ; aid of the Apostle Elliot in Evangelism of the Indians . He purchased a 500 acre Farm from Gov. Bradstreet for 140 pounds , which had been sold to Gov. Bradstreet for 6 cows in 1638 . Edward Jackson was one of a committee of 4 to lay out highways in the Village of Newton. In 1657 Edward Jackson Donated 400 acres to Harvard college. He died June 17 , 1681 In his Will dated11 june 1681 he Beq. to wife , Children , inlaws , Friends, step-children , to the Use of the ministry , to the college .,,,,,, I have an almost complete Record of his 2 wives and Children if needed My name is James Louis Davis He would have been on My Great Grandmothers side of the Family in my reading of the website wiki i have found no references to these facts and Hope they fill in some lost information If you need to contact me i can be E-mailed at kansasjim@gmail.com --Thankyou --Jim-- "

I'm not entirely sure, but I get the feeling that the Harvard University logo is the one with the wreath of leaves and the "Harvard" banner surrounding the Veritas shield, while the version with the shield alone is used for FAS. [2] lists the former as the "Harvard seal" and that version is used all over the University website, while the latter version is used all over the FAS website. Does anyone have direct confirmation of which seal is which? Antony-22 23:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right to say that the central university tends to use the one version and the FAS tends to use the other. But it's still the same coat of arms, heraldically speaking. Other faculties have their own arms, and the various sub-schools of the FAS have their own arms; but the FAS itself, for some reason, doesn't have one. The different presentations of these arms by the two offices says nothing (other than that FAS has better taste). Doops | talk 23:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Alright. I'm just wondering whether the wreath version should be used for the University page and the bare shield should be moved to the FAS page, even if the distinction is informal. Antony-22 00:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The article and infobox already say "Harvard." Adding a scroll below with the same word would be redundant (besides bad heraldry). Doops | talk 01:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed project

Given the extraordinary importance of this university to American history, and the incredible number of notable graduates this institution has had, I thought it might make sense to create a separate group devoted to working on the articles related to this school and its graduates. It helps that, if I remember correctly, each of the students was (is?) supposed to write their own biography as well. Anyway, such a project is now proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Harvard University. Any parties interested in working on such a project is more than welcome to indicate as much there. Thank you. John Carter 14:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Eliot better known than many Presidents of the United States of the time?

This claim appears at the end of the second paragraph. It wouldn't surprise me if it were true, or at least if someone said it were true, but I think it really needs a citation.

Eliot's tenure spanned that of Presidents Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland, Harrison, McKinley, Roosevelt, and Taft. He was most famous near the end. Was he more famous than Grant or TR? I doubt it.

Parenthetically, it seems to me that the presidents of the major universities did carry more weight in the past than they do now. When was the last time a university president was a well-known national figure? (And I don't think Eisenhower counts, since his presidency at Columbia was sandwiched between, uh, other positions that gave him national importance.) Dpbsmith (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Harvard Lodge

Just to sort this out, Richard C. MacLaurin Lodge, which is affiliated with MIT, predates The Harvard Lodge by at least one year. It was instituted in 1920, and constituted in 1921 (so it depends on which date you pick). See here. The Harvard Lodge's own history page states it was instituted and constituted in 1922. It is also not restricted to just students, but is open to "any member of the Harvard community" who meets the eligibility requirements, including employees. Moreover, as with all groups of a fraternal nature in and around Harvard, it is not officially recognized by the University, and the lodge receives no funding from the school for activities. Therefore, I do not believe that it is factually correct to claim the lodge as a Harvard student organization. Thus, I have removed it from the article. MSJapan (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Library Size

Don't have time to sort this ount now, but this article notes that Harvard has one of the 5 largest libraries in the world, with the others being the Library of Congress, the British Library, the French Bibliothèque Nationale, and the New York Public Library. However, the Boston Public Library page notes that it is one of the top three collections in the US, with the other two being Harvard and LoC. Seems like both of these statements can't be true. (And, anecdotally, I've heard the cited BPL as one of the top three elsewhere.) I suspect that a look at statistics from ALA could solve this pretty quickly, but don't have time to get into it right now. --Dmdwiggi (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Preliminary Review of article for WP:UNI/COTF

This article's very well written, although there are a couple things that I found that were... interesting...

  • Historic Events section is blank.
  • No Academics/Demographics section
  • No Research/Endowment section
  • Student Life section, which is supposed to be comprised of athletics, student gov, fraternities/sororities, etc, is missing, but a Notable Student Organizations section is present.

On a different note, I see why the Harvard in pop culture and Views of Harvard sections are there, but it seems almost out of place, it might be one of the reasons why this article hasn't been upgraded to A class yet (amongst other things...like that blanked section mentioned above).

- Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 21:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Move part of Intro to History?

The second, third, and fourth paragraph of the intro look more like history to me....should they be moved to that section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NinSmartSpasms (talk • contribs) 22:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Harvard Crimson

Harvard Crimson I am sure there must be room on the article for this information. What can one say, the Harvard Crimson is filled with so much info on the life of the students.--Margrave1206 (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

John Harvard

Harvard did not attend St. Olave's Grammar school but infact attended St. Saviour's Grammar school which later merged with St. Olave's. Also at the time that Harvard attended the site of the school would have been somewhere under London Bridge Station as the Orpington site has only been used since 1969. worth editing the main text over? Lordlimpet (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversy??

Where is the controversy regarding the "No Men" exercising rule? This is notable, and on many a tv news program. Just wait till O'Reilly gets a sniff of it. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 15:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Harvard rejects all transfers for 2008-2009 after they already applied

This needs to be a story somewhere in the article. A lot of transfer applicants are really outraged, and if this is truly the encyclopedia anyone can edit they should be allowed to have their controversy given a voice.

John C. Pierce (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox or a forum for airing ones outrage. If you can find some reliable sources describing this announcement as controversial, please cite them. Otherwise it's only your point of view and thus unacceptable in this (or any other) article. I understand that there is disappointment and perhaps even outrage associated with this announcement but this is simply not the correct forum to air those emotions.
I've also asked other editors in the Universities Wikiproject to stop by and take a look at our disagreement and weigh in. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, and you are right. Ultimately, I do hope you and those who discuss this really assess the situation and come to the conclusion that this really is a "controversy." Myself and I am pretty sure almost all of the transfer students are pretty irate about this development. Here's some of them:

http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/harvard-university/476671-transfer-admissions-announcement.html

Thus this should absolutely be at least labeled a controversy. As for the sources, I wish I could convince you that I am a good source, I am not meaning to be arrogant but I probably know as much about this issue as anyone. I currently go to Georgetown and I put in a transfer application to Harvard and know a lot about the recent developments. I know a lot of what is going on here (of course not everything though). I was the one who was quoted in the Crimson article referenced, and I wish they had used "outrageous" instead of "very unfair." Anyway, thanks so much for taking interest and getting others to take a look at this controversy. I can't believe Harvard has done this: if there is a housing crunch than they should take (even more selectively) the best transfer applicants and the best freshmen applicants, but they should reject nobody for any reason other than that there applications were not good enough. I wish someone would sue Harvard...they have really done an injustice here. Please consider what is true about this story and let it be a part of your encyclopedia. I understand that this is not a site for debate or emotion but a site for facts and information, and that is what I am doing my best to provide, as part of "the encyclopedia anyone can edit." Thanks a lot! ps I edited the Harvard College site too--you might want to take a look at it. John C. Pierce (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

pps I think I can say for one that this final editing you have allowed is acceptable to me as well.

I agree - the current text is pretty good.
I'm sure that if you poke around you can find some other reliable sources describing this decision as controversial. It wouldn't take much for us to be able to accurately state that "so-and-so labeled the decision controversial" much like the current text quotes the Crimson article. You'd need some really good sources to convince me to label the decision as unequivocally "controversial" but writing that someone else has said that is a pretty low bar. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure man, none of the major media is covering this, this is so disappointing, just another injustice to go by with the wind...go to yahoo, click more, then news, then type in Harvard Transfer and you only get 4 articles that relate. Man, it's so hard because not all truths or injustices have been quoted in some random newspaper. But I'm pretty ok with the current wording I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John C. Pierce (talk • contribs) 21:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be right. I can't find anything in the Chronicle of Higher Education or InsideHigherEd. That's a bit surprising given the media coverage Harvard usually gets. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Still man, I know this continuation of my posting may be annoying, but just because some news thing claims to be true does not mean it is. Can I put something completely fallacious into a newspaper and then cite it as true? Currently the article states that housing would not be available. But housing could still be available if they were just more selective among both the freshmen and transfer applicants--get my drift? The point is we applied and should have been considered and had our applications reviewed. Yes, and like you, I can't believe this injustice is so unnoticed and I am so disappointed. I currently have much better things to be doing like my studies here at Georgetown University. But this issue is so important to me--I am sure I had better things to do then complete an "outrageous" transfer application for nothing. That's right I said outrageous...I also said "very unfair" in the Crimson article. My name is there and I can give you my phone number if you would like. Or I can call you. Then I could try to prove to you I am who I say I am, etc, I go to G-town, this issue is such and such...etc Man I gotta go study now though. Thanks for analyzing this issue, please see through any possible bias and make sure the facts are stated--and facts that tell the whole truth about the issue. Thanks again, John C. Pierce (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I added: "it determined." Please don't delete this, and don't delete my account! John C. Pierce (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources on this topic are easy to find. How about the Harvard Crimson, Harvard's own daily newspaper? http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=522698 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morphling89 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Already cited. Any other sources? --ElKevbo (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah but, how can they be rejected before they apply? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.196.222 (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"Gentleman Cs"?

The above phrase refers to a grade that was given, basically in the era before WW2, to low achieving students as a form of social promotion at Harvard and similar schools in an era when to some extent these institutions were finishing schools for the rich, powerful and socially connected. It would interesting to have some discussion of the social changes in these Ivy League schools away from rank class privilege to meritocracy. I think Galbraith has alluded to this in referring to Harvard's having changed from a "ridiculous aristocracy" in the Gilded Age to a genuine meritocracy in the contemporary era, partially as the result of the adoption of standardized testing.

To those who didn't actually have subtantially inherited wealth to fall back on, this system actually did a disservice to those who recieved this privilege as it created largely skilless gentleman "dudes" with little survival ability outside reliance on clubs and the good old boy network, characters aptly depicted by Jack London (and also recently on HBO's Deadwood). Thus, like a recent ancestor who attended Harvard in the late 40s, at the end of this era, partially on the basis of his family appearing in the society pages, they were potentially set-up for failure, not just in experiencing unepected and disorienting reverses and rejection in their professional lives on Wall St. and elsewhere, but more importantly in the inability to cope with and rebound from such circumstances that a modicum of grit and entreprenurial pluck would have given them and that such gross unearned privilege will not cultivate. An example of someone from this period who had such qualities, in contrast, being Col. Norman Vaughn, who left Harvard to go to the Antartic with Byrd in 1929, but was not too proud in 1968 to shovel snow for food money at the age of 62 in Anchorage in order to build up a stake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.196.222 (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Glee club the oldest?

Harvard Glee Club says it is the oldest men's chorus in the world. However, the Orphei Dränger (Swedish chorus in Uppsala) was founded in 1853, five years earlier then the Glee Club. I'm not completely sure if OD was a men's chorus in the beginning, but research should be done.86.50.9.167 (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC) I found new info about another choir which is founded in 1838, 20 years before the Glee Club. It is called Akademiska Sångföreningen (The Academic Male Voice Choir of Helsinki). http://www.akademen.com/hem/?p=historia&set_lang=en for more info. This makes me to conclude that the Glee Club is not the oldest but third oldest choir.86.50.9.167 (talk) 10:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Harvard University seal

Challenge

The version of the logo currently shown on the Harvard University wikipedia page is obsolete and is no longer in use in any official instances on Harvard's website. [3] The proper Harvard logo should be, as discussed in item 15 above, either the Veritas shield on its own, or the Veritas shield with the wreath. In addition, the user who uploaded the file (user talk:Frank.trampe) failed to attribute a proper source for the logo, but he seems to imply that he created the seal by himself. The file also lacks a logo tag and proper fair use tag.

I will be removing this seal and reverting it back to the original Veritas shield. Atheros07 (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Response

The University has placed its seal upon diplomas and other important documents for hundreds of years . The current version of the seal has been in continuous use since Charles Eliot's presidency , although it was closely based upon a more classical design from the middle of the nineteenth century . The outer motto , the books , and the shield go back much farther . Because of its age , the seal is not copyrighted like the wreath logo . Although different divisions and websites employ the shield in various other contexts , the Harvard Academic Seal continues to be the seal for Harvard University and for Harvard College . --Frank.trampe (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I see that the seal is still in place and assume that Atheros07 found the response suitable . I am happy to answer further questions , though . --Frank.trampe (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Response

I actually find Frank.trampe's response unsuitable. First of all, please clarify the actual source of the image. My understanding is that it is your own reproduction based on older but verifiable sources. If so, it is inappropriate for someone to unofficially create or reproduce a historical logo to represent modern-day Harvard. The proper logo should always come from the University itself.

Second, I note that Harvard itself claims that the "Harvard Seal" is the Veritas shield with the wreath. [4] I have seen no other uses of your seal in Harvard's official web communications, indicating that the University-- even if they did allow you to reproduce their seal-- would not recognize your version of the seal as representative of Harvard on the web.

Last of all, Harvard's seal/shield is still trademarked. [5] See their full list of trademarks here: [6]. Please note that the Veritas shield and the wreath version of the Veritas shield are listed there as trademarks. Your version of the seal is not listed there. I thus stand by my initial assertion that it is simply inaccurate to portray the seal as the modern-day Harvard logo. Furthermore, I believe that if your seal was reported to the University's trademark infringement office, they would agree that it is an unofficial and inaccurate reproduction that uses a trademarked logo.

In the interest of not starting a reverting war, I will not revert it back to the Veritas shield (for now). I would be in interested in hearing other people's comments. Atheros07 (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This is all quite silly. Harvard has a coat of arms. These arms appear on buildings. They appear on coffee mugs. They appear on the seal impressed upon diplomas. Sometimes they have a wreath around them. The shade of red varies. Just how the books are rendered varies. All of these are artistic considerations, not heraldic ones -- the arms themselves are a concept, not a particular illustration of that concept. Contrary to what one editor suggests above, the seal (with motto around the shield) is not dead -- it's still impressed on diplomas, e.g. Contrary to what another editor implies, there's no reason why the seal is the most appropriate logo to be displayed on this page. A simple shield is best, I think.
In my view, the old image -- which has now been deleted, so I can't link to it -- was best. The image we now have here in the Wikipedia is the hideously ugly rendering (with wreath, registered trademark symbol, and the word 'Harvard' in case we're idiots) so popular on sweatshirts and other tourist drek, as well as (lamentably) the university's own internet homepage. But parts of Harvard with taste use a rendering along the more elegant lines of what we used to have (for instance, the banners hung up in the Yard at commencement: [7]). Doops | talk 06:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I preferred the seal , but the University prefers the currently displayed logo . I believe that Atheros07's talk page has most of the story regarding this matter . For those who are interested , the seal is still available .--Frank.trampe (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

John Quincy Adams

There is no mention of John Quincy Adams at all in the article. Shouldn't it be there with the list of other presidents including John Adams (his father), Lincoln, etc? The John Quincy Adams' Wikipedia page also says he went to Harvard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.82.108.4 (talk) 04:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Need a photo of Richard Lewontin

Lewontin's biography needs a photo, so it looks like we're going to have to take one of him. Is he still teaching at Harvard? Can someone take a shot (or shots) of him? Richard001 (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "founding" :
    • op. cit.
    • An appropriation of £400 toward a "school or college" was voted on [[October 28]] [[1636]] (OS), at a meeting which initially convened on [[September 8]] and was adjourned to [[October 28]]. Some sources consider [[October 28]] [[1636]] (OS) ([[November 7]] [[1636]] NS) to be the date of founding. In 1936, Harvard's multi-day tercentenary celebration considered [[September 18]] to be the 300-year anniversary of the founding. (The bicentennial was celebrated on [[September 8]] [[1836]], apparently ignoring the calendar change; and the tercentenary celebration began by opening a package sealed by [[Josiah Quincy]] at the bicentennial). Sources: meeting dates, {{cite book|first=Josiah|last=Quincy|title=History of Harvard University|year=1860|publisher=Crosby, Nichols, Lee and Co.|location=117 Washington Street, Boston}}, [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC11636583&id=KynqxH_4lGUC&pg=RA1-PA586&lpg=RA1-PA586 p. 586], "At a Court holden September 8th, 1636 and continued by adjournment to the 28th of the 8th month (October, 1636)... the Court agreed to give £400 towards a School or College, whereof £200 to be paid next year...." Tercentenary dates: {{cite web|url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,756722,00.html|date=1936-09-28|accessdate=2006-09-08|publisher=Time Magazine|title=Cambridge Birthday}}: "Harvard claims birth on the day the Massachusetts Great and General Court convened to authorize its founding. This was Sept. 8, 1937 under the Julian calendar. Allowing for the ten-day advance of the Gregorian calendar, Tercentenary officials arrived at Sept. 18 as the date for the third and last big Day of the celebration;" "on Oct. 28, 1636 ... £400 for that 'school or college' [was voted by] the Great and General Court of the [[Massachusetts Bay Colony]]." Bicentennial date: {{cite web|url=http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/10.02/02-history.html|publisher=Harvard University|title=Harvard Gazette: This Month in Harvard History|date=2003-09-02|accessdate=2006-09-15|author=Marvin Hightower}}, "Sept. 8, 1836 - Some 1,100 to 1,300 alumni flock to Harvard's Bicentennial, at which a professional choir premieres "Fair Harvard." ... guest speaker Josiah Quincy Jr., Class of 1821, makes a motion, unanimously adopted, 'that this assembly of the Alumni be adjourned to meet at this place on the 8th of September, 1936.'" Tercentary opening of Quincy's sealed package: ''The New York Times,'' September 9, 1936, p. 24, "Package Sealed in 1836 Opened at Harvard. It Held Letters Written at Bicentenary": "September 8th, 1936: As the first formal function in the celebration of Harvard's tercentenary, the Harvard Alumni Association witnessed the opening by President Conant of the 'mysterious' package sealed by President Josiah Quincy at the Harvard bicentennial in 1836."

DumZiBoT (talk) 08:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Endowment figures

The endowment is $28.8, not $20.8, according to the most recent report.

Somebody edited this and put $28.0, and deleted the source. The actual figure is $28.8
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/12/04/the_toll_on_harvard_81b/?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morphling89 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Is the red arrow really necessary? I have never seen any other university with an arrow to indicate recent decline or increase in endowment figures. The other top five schools (in terms of endowment): Yale, Princeton, MIT, Stanford, do not have this. Furthermore, there was never a green arrow when endowment holdings increased. Use of a green or red arrow as an indicator of growth or decline has generally only been used for revenues and net profits of corporations, and well as personal wealth figures for billionaires. It does not seem appropriate here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morphling89 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ownership

I read the article with great interest, yet I have a curiosity: who owns the university? thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.44.43.59 (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

List of notable people

Theodore Kaczynski is missing from this list. 69.242.76.98 (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

He's in the Harvard University#Notable people section. --Dynaflow babble 06:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Library of Harvard University in top 5 in the world

This is certainly a huge exaggeration. Just for fun, I checked Russian libraries - the Russian State Library in Moscow has over 42 mln items in its collection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_State_Library), while Russian National Library in St.Petersburg has over 34 mln items in its collection (http://www.nlr.ru/eng/nlr/facts/). You'd better leave a reference to the 'largest academic library', but don't compare to national libraries.

  • I agree on this -- I just changed it to remove the "megalibrary" references. The original citation pointed to a 1998 interview with the head of the Harvard Library system in which he made the megalibrary claim. However, I am not aware of any independent third party source that has officially ranked "megalibraries," and as the commenter above pointed out, there are a number of national libraries that are considerably larger than Harvard. The ALA has deemed Harvard tne second largest library in the country, which seems like it should be glory enough. --Dmdwiggi (talk) 05:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Seemed odd that someone would pick the "Russian State Library" as a point of comparison - the Library of Congress by comparison has about 130 million "items" in its collection, about 29 million of which are books. Even the New York Public Library has over 52 million "items," while the British Library stands at about 62 million "items." Couldn't find stats on purely academic libraries, but Harvard may be the largest there. Jmdeur (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I remember reading that UCLA's Young Research Library was the largest academic library in the country, eclipsing the number of texts that Harvard had at Widener. ==

Math 55

This article is likely to be deleted. I preserve the content on this talk page if anyone thinks there is cause to integrate it here or in another Harvard article. THF (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Math 55 or officially known as Honors Advanced Calculus and Linear Algebra, is a freshmen undergraduate level math course at Harvard University. It is widely reputed to be the hardest undergraduate course of any college in the United States.[1]

Classes frequently consist of former members of the International Math Olympiad and homework problem sets can take up to sixty hours to complete per week.[2]

Prominent Math 55 students include Bill Gates,[3] Richard Stallman,[4] and Brad DeLong.[5] Gates said the experience of taking a class "where everybody had an 800 on their SAT and 5 on their AP" taught him that there were people smarter than him.[6] John Bates Clark Medal-winning economist Andrei Shleifer has said that the course made him realize he was not destined to be a mathematician.[5]

Gender disparity controversy

As of 2006, only seventeen women have graduated from the course.[1] That year, the class was "45 percent Jewish, 18 percent Asian, 100 percent male."[1][2] The class was also all-male in 1994, when none of the 21 women who took the entrance exam to the class passed.[7] Christina Hoff Sommers has used the anecdote of the high dropout rate for women in the Math 55 class to argue that gender equity programs in science would be counterproductive.[2] But Maud Levin, a 1976 Harvard graduate who was the first woman to graduate Math 55, and an associate professor at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, disagrees that there are innate gender differences in math.[8]

Notable alumni -- Calderon

I don't see why you include felipe calderon president of Mexico on your notable alumni. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alberto Boston (talk • contribs) 01:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The major reason he is included in the list of notable alumni is because he is a notable alumnus. --Dynaflow babble 01:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow Dynaflow, your sense of humor is amazing! ROFLMAO! And why is he a notable alumnus? I can't wait to hear your answer to this one. You should be a comedian! You're right up there with the greats. --173.52.11.184 (talk) 11:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
It may surprise you, but being the leader of a major North American state does, in fact, make one notable. Calderón also happens to have attended Harvard. Put those two bits of information together, and we can state that Calderón is indeed a notable alumnus of Harvard, as deserving of a place on the list as Ignatieff and Trudeau (both prominent political leaders of another country which doesn't happen to be the US). --Dynaflow babble 22:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Views of Harvard, round 2

Is this section really necessary? A quick scan shows that the articles on peer institutions like MIT, Yale, Princeton, and Caltech do not conclude with similar sections, and it seems to largely consist of potshots that could be taken at many major research universities. (E.g. Grade inflation, complaints about class sizes, and concerns about student welfare.) It's also rife with weasel words. (For example, the bit about large classes concludes with a bizarre unsourced comparison to Columbia.)

For full disclosure, I am a Harvard grad student. (But I did my undergrad elsewhere, so I'm not completely beholden to the university.) I would like to take a swing at the section, but I also want to avoid the appearance of bias, so I thought I'd open up the issue first. 66.31.17.30 (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

First and foremost, you should use Category:FA-Class Universities articles and Category:GA-Class Universities articles templates to develop the article as these best embody the prevailing consensus on style and content in these articles. The Yale page is frankly embarrassing given the stature of the institution and I would no sooner use it as an example than go to Bernie Madoff for investment advice. Otherwise, I generally agree that the "Views of Harvard" section is a compendium of all praise and criticism of the institution along a variety of dimensions that should have already or should already be addressed in previous sections (academics, student life, etc.) That section as well as several other passages within the article have a distinctly journalistic tone (attributions to sources, verb tense, quotation style) that likewise need to be remedied. I've gone ahead and marked up the sections and attempted to distribute the content elsewhere. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect History Quote

This is wrong and it's not even plausible that people spoke that way in 1646: "Let every student be plainly instructed and consider well that the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus, which is eternal life. And therefore to lay Christ at the bottom as the only foundation of all sound learning and knowledge."[citation needed]

The correct quote is here: http://books.google.com/books?id=PQMdzhnfaSwC&lpg=PA333&ots=GR2dETsHuj&dq=harvard%20rules%20precepts%201646&pg=PA333

Here's a paraphase (that at least is sourced): http://www.faithofourfathers.org/essays/ivyleague.html

Harvard's "Rules and Precepts" adopted in 1646 included the following essentials: "Every one shall consider the main end of his life and studies to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life. "Seeing the Lord giveth wisdom, every one shall seriously by prayer in secret seek wisdom of Him. "Every one shall so exercise himself in reading the Scriptures twice a day that they be ready to give an account of their proficiency therein, both in theoretical observations of languages and logic, and in practical and spiritual truths…"

Not knowing how to edit the original document properly I offer up this list of sources that use original language: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22consider+the+mayne+end+of+his+life+and+studyes%22 d.caswell 7/9/2009 70.214.202.78 (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Update Sustainability section?

Section 3.3 "Sustainability" includes an out-of-date link. The "Harvard Green Campus Initiative" has since been institutionalized as the Office for Sustainability. I would like to add a sentence making this clear, and updating citation 43 (the HGCI about page), which is a dead link. OFS' "About" page is at: [8]. I'm an employee of Harvard OFS, so I don't want to step on toes or lose NPOV. I'll try to review documentation before making the change, but wanted to propose it here first. LevRickards (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to worry about our toes, Lev! The provost has you listed in the database as an employee at the (superseded) HGCI — not at OFS... While you’re checking to see whether you’re still on payroll, I’ll update the description and the links.

J.K.Herms (talk) 07:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Two history sections

Is there a reason there are two history sections? Madcoverboy (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Not Second Largest

Harvard is not the second largest nonprofit endowment, it is third. Ikea's is first, then Gates, then Harvard. See: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/01/how-ikea-shelters.html 208.27.111.125 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Harvard propaganda

This article sounds a bit too much like propaganda. Harvard is a fine institution, however a number of claims are clearly ethnocentric and false:

  • 1) Harvard is not the oldest University in America: That title corresponds to the National University of San Marcos, in Peru, chartered as a University on May 12th 1551 by Decree of Emperor Charles V. It has been in continuous operation ever since.
  • 2) Harvard is not the oldest Corporation of the Western Hemisphere. Once again, the United States is not the Western Hemisphere. Most American countries other than the United States have Corporations older than Harvard.
  • 3) Harvard's was not originally founded as a University. Many Universities are first founded as schools or Colleges, and later grow to become Universities. In fact, Harvard merely was a school for preachers for over 100 years. Harvard didn't become a University until 1782. Read Harvard's own website [9]

Again, Harvard is a fine institution, but let's not mystify or present a false picture of its past. For example, the article should note a number of facts that have been omitted or removed:

  • Harvard's claim to supremacy has been challenged by the actual performance of their graduates. For example, the number of CEOs educated by lesser known Universities, such as University of Wisconsin, is greater among Fortune 500 companies [10]
  • During the 20th century, Harvard engaged in a number of racist, anti-semitic, and homophobic actions, promoting the exclusion of minorities (like the Secret Court of 1920) and vilification of newly arrived immigrants (such as those enacted by the Immigration Restriction League).(Veritas1782 (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC))
Point by point:
1. Peru is not America.
2. Please provide evidence that there are older corporations.
3. The article doesn't seem to say (at least not in the lead) that Harvard is the oldest university. The lead specifically says that it is "the oldest institution of higher learning in the United States."
I do agree that the history section is much too rosey. I'm not terribly familiar with the specific history of Harvard but I do know that like most other institutions, particularly those in the Ivy League, they engaged in and indeed pioneered many of the acts you describe as racist, anti-semitic, and homophobic. --ElKevbo (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi ElKevbo.

  • 1) Peru is definitely located in America, as any map of the Continent of America shows. To equate America to the United States is pretentious and possibly racistic (I think you are NOT a racist, but many people who identify America with the United States imply that the other inhabitants of this Continent are of lesser category or undeserving of calling themselves American). Bottom line: National University of San Marcos is the oldest University in America.
  • 2) More precisely, the article claims that Harvard is the oldest corporation in the North America, which of course includes Mexico. However, there are many corporations in Mexico that are older than Harvard. To cite just one example, the Royal and Pontifical University of Mexico was chartered by King Phillip II on September 21st 1551, and sanctioned by Pope Clement VIII. This corporation still exists today, under the denomination of National University of Mexico. You can find other examples of North American Universities older than Harvard in the article List_of_universities_in_North_America
  • 3) In fact, Harvard didn't become a University until 1782.

I suggest the article is reviewed to present a more objective, less propagandistic view of Harvard, for the sake of Veritas. I cannot find any marketing material in the articles dedicated to other non-American Universities (Oxford, Cambridge, Sorbonne, Complutense, Sapientia, etc.), which of course pre-date Harvard by many centuries. (Veritas1782 (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

You hold a minority view of "America" and that view should not be given undue weight in this or any other article. It's not pretentious or racistic; it's the common view held by most people. You may have some valid points but this is not the place for them.
With respect to corporations, I'm trying to figure out where our sources are for the claims and I'm not immediately finding any good ones. I suspect this may be one of those things that have been repeated so many times for so many (hundreds of) years that it's passed into common knowledge and is uncritically accepted. So I'd like to see some good sources for that statement. On the other hand, I'd also like to see good sources for your statements, too.
The definition of "university" is very ambiguous and subjective so we're not going to really go anywhere trying to focus on that. And I'm not at all sure to what you're objecting with this third claim. Can you please elaborate?
Finally, I gently caution you that single-purpose accounts are often viewed with suspicion and sometimes outright hostility. It's generally a sign of trouble when an editor focuses only on one single topic, often because he or she doesn't learn or respect our community norms. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

America is a continent, not a country. The minority view (held by some Americans) is that America is the United States of America. As the very name implies, there are other States in America that are not the United States. The name itself, America, was not invented by our Founding Fathers, or even applied by them for the first time. It refers to the entire Continent (North, Center and South), and that's the view held everywhere in the World.

The other American Universities I mentioned were founded by Royal Decree and Papal Bull. This is as good a documentation as it gets.

Harvard became a University in 1782, thus Universities founded earlier than 1782 are older.

Thanks for your gentle caution. I do not intend to change this article, thus no need to worry. I'm simply pointing out some false statements being made, so that anyone interested in this article may improve it.

Let's just try to clean the article a bit. As it stands, it reads like marketing material, which of course is a disservice to the great institution that Harvard is. (Veritas1782 (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)).

I see none of the claims being disputed being made with reference to "America", but rather to "North America" or the "United States", thus fail to see the need to remove them for the sake of disambiguation. Furthermore, the lead is not the appropriate place to delve into the each and every controversy a 300+ year old institution has been involved in. These should absolutely be included in the history so long as they are neutral and balanced with the rest of the article. I also don't want to get into a pissing match over when what institution transitioned from a college to a university and all the attending claims to primacy that follow. Harvard as an institution was founded in the 17th century well before most other educational institutions in the US and it remains "one of the first" despite whatever change in name has occurred over the past few centuries. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It's simply false to state that Harvard is the oldest corporation in North America. Canada and Mexico have much older corporations, as listed ut supra. Also, in honor of the truth, the article should mention that Harvard does not fare well under other academic excellence criteria, such as the number of CEOs in Fortune 500 companies. No one denies Harvard's achievements despite of being founded only 300+ years ago (200+ years as University). But to make false statements to assert some claims of exceptionality is unbecoming of such a great institution. (Veritas1782 (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

It is clear from your comments that you are not a native English speaker. You should know that in English, "America" and "American" overwhelmingly refer to the USA (even if you're from a different country). In Spanish, at least, this is not the case, but it is in English. So it is the oldest American university, but not the oldest university in the Americas. There is no ambiguity here for an English speaker. Oreo Priest talk 23:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I wonder, though, whether it would hurt to avoid any misunderstandings here. In many languages I think you will find a notion that "American" (of course the respective word in whatever language) can refer to either the Americas or the USA. Mostly it is clear from context, but if it isn't, distinctions are being made. So many readers may expect something similar from English - I wouldn't be surprised if more than half of the users of en.wikipedia are actually non native speakers. Judging from the linguistic quality of some articles in fringe topics, maybe even a lot more than that.
I am not promoting any "wrong" usage, but if it is possible to avoid confusion, and it is here, I think it should be done. E.g. in mathematics (which is my scientifical field) you can shorten quite a few of the articles here because you will still get it correct. Only that some "non native" mathematicians would be confused since we use words you know, just differently. And of course, as the literal translation of a german saying would be, this comparison is limping badly, but maybe you get my point.
That being said, I have no idea about the accuracy of the factual correctness of the statements made above. This should of course be checked first. --Ulkomaalainen (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems fair. Having said that, it seems it's already been changed to United States, so the ambiguity is gone. Oreo Priest talk 01:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I find rather pretentious to believe that people from Argentina or Brazil are not Americans. It's not only historically and geographically incorrect, I believe it has a Supremacist component consistent with the racist, segregationist and eugenicist history of Harvard University (I don't say you share those values, it may be that U.S.' society has accepted them). Being German, it reminds me back to those dark years when a minority believed that we were superiors and, in fact, the only truly Europeans. Incidentally, all over Europe people understand that an American is an inhabitant of America (how else?), not the United States of America. Your view would be considered Egocentric anywhere outside the United States, South America included.

Going back to the point, this article still reads like marketing material. Please visit any article on Universities older and more prestigious in Academic circles than Harvard, such as Oxford, Cambridge, Sorbonne, Moscow, Frankfurt, Complutense, ETH Zurich, etc. These are the Universities that educate those Professors that, after becoming famous, emigrate to the United States to make a buck. Do you want names? Einstein, Fermi, Maranon, von Braum, von Neumann, Morgenstern, Szilard, Tesla, etc. You won't find this kind of snake oil salesman speech in those articles. Sorry if I'm offending some people who paid lots of money in order to buy the Harvard brand and feel special, but the statistics just don't show you are Superior, as your article postulates. Veritas1782 (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


As regards the "American" debate, first note that America is not a continent. North America and South America are officially two separate continents, connected by the Isthmus of Panama. Furthermore, "American" when used as a proper adjective referring to a country (demonym), is universally regarded as referencing the United States (see United States). I believe this is largely due to the fact that no other nation in either of the American continents contains the term "America" in its official name (see List of Pan-American countries and territories). Granted, this has nothing that directly pertains to Harvard University, but it's worth clearing up. Koriyen (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Right. Einstein came to America to "make a buck". Had nothing to do with Hitler coming to power, eliminating academic freedom, and threatening to exterminate him. Well, I guess we know what German universities teach about history, now. - Nunh-huh 03:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC) "If my theory of relativity is proven correct, Germany will claim me as a German and France will declare that I am a citizen of the world. Should my theory prove untrue, France will say I am a German and Germany will say I am a Jew.” - Nunh-huh 03:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention Einstein's general disdain for any regime such as Hitler's, even if he were to be unaffected by it personally. @Koriyen, you're right, if it would be evident, that this (now removed) "America" was referring to a country, it would mean the US (probably in any language, for the reason named by you). Troble is just, that it isn't evident. --Ulkomaalainen (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself defines America as north and south America. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas

A recent study by activist Ron Unz conducted a study of the ethnic and religious composition of the student body at Harvard. He discovered the following about Harvard:

For admissions officers at our top private and public schools, diversity is "a code word" for particular prejudices.

For these schools are not interested in a diversity that would include "born-again Christians from the Bible belt, students from Appalachia and other rural and small-town areas, people who have served in the U.S. military, those who have grown up on farms or ranches, Mormons, Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, lower- and middle-class Catholics, working class 'white ethnics,' social and political conservatives, wheelchair users, married students, married students with children or older students just starting into college and raising children."

Link to article re: study - http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=181357 --CleanSafe (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

First, the study isn't really related to Harvard specifically so it doesn't belong in this article. Second, the study of interest is not the one conducted by "activist" Ron Unz but a more recent one conducted by a few academics. Third, even if we're interested in citing the study or second- and third-party discussion of the study, we can do much better than to rely on an op ed by a controversial non-expert (e.g. I think Inside Higher Ed just ran an article on this study). ElKevbo (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we all agree that America is not a continent? There are actually two continents with "America" in the name: North America and South America.

Outrageous boosterism

I was extremely disappointed to find this sentence in the lead: "Harvard is consistently ranked as a leading academic institution in the world by numerous media and academic rankings." Please review Wikipedia guidelines on synthesis of claims, verifiability, peacock words, weasel words, and boosterism if there are any questions as to why this phrasing is completely unacceptable, please contact Madcoverboy (talk). --208.120.72.134 (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to accurately summarize the article. I one reads the well-sourced "Academics" section, I see no way of disputing that the text you removed from the lead is an accurate summary statement. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
It appears the IP editor is copy-and-pasting my arguments to prove a point based on edits I made to New York University. Nevertheless, I share the same concerns about the terminology employed to make this claim represents an unverifiable synthesis of claims. An institution such as Harvard certainly does not need to resort to reporting the dubious methodologies of the various ranking organizations to substantiate popular perceptions of its quality. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
"Consistently" is a synthesized claim and weasel word, these rankings are only for a given year - what year? how high? by whom? "Leading" is a weasel and peacock word - what rank? when? Why not simply state the ranking by an organization? Based on this logic, all universities are consistently ranked leading academic institutions because there is no threshold for what is or is not leading, there is no way of establishing consistency, etc. I'll be removing this again until there is a consensus to include something more neutral, verifiable, and reliable. --208.120.72.134 (talk) 05:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Again, I suggest you actually read the article. "Consistently" is a fairly accurate descriptive of "every year since the rankings started"; "leading" is a fairly accurate descriptive of "first". Fat&Happy (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Let's continue this discussion in the subcategory below. --208.120.72.134 (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

New lead (continued)

See Oxon's article - it is a GA by the way. from the lead: "League tables consistently list Oxford as one of the UK's best universities,[9][10][11] and Oxford consistently ranks in the world's top 10.[12][13]" Why cant Harvard say something like that? or does Oxford's lead have to change as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.238.152.3 (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
and also Cambridge's lead: "Academically, Cambridge often ranks as one of the world's topmost universities,[6] the leading university in Europe,[7] and contends with Oxford for first place in UK league tables.[8][9][10]" ETH Zurich lead: "ETH is ranked among the top universities in the world.[1]" Tsingua University lead: "Today, many national and international rankings place Tsinghua as the best university in mainland China.[2][3][4][5][6]" The article on Duke Univ (which is FA): "In its 2011 edition, U.S. News & World Report ranked the university's undergraduate program 9th among national universities,[8] while ranking the medical, law, public affairs, nursing and business as high as 6th and as low as 15th, all among the top 15 in the United States.[9] Duke University was also ranked 14th in the 2009 THES - QS World University Rankings.[10]" The Tuck School of Business (also FA): "It is one of six Ivy League business schools, and it consistently ranks in the top ten of both US and international business school rankings.[9]" Stuyvesant High School (FA): "Stuyvesant is noted for its strong academic programs, having produced many notable alumni including four Nobel laureates.[5] U.S. News & World Report ranked it thirty-first in their 2009 list of America's best "Gold-Medal" public high schools.[6]" and on and on and on; if you go to the article for the best universities of almost ANY country, they are bound to say something about prestige in the lead. 207.238.152.3 (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Wharton School "The popular and financial press has consistently ranked Wharton as one of the world's top institutions for business education.[3]"207.238.152.3 (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Benet Academy (GA) Lead: "As of 2009 Benet's average ACT test score regularly exceeds statewide and national averages, and more than 99 percent of students went on to college after graduation. The school's academic program has been featured in reports by the Chicago Sun-Times and U.S. News & World Report." 207.238.152.3 (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
All of those examples are accepted under our WP:NPOV policy because those articles attribute biased claims to reliable sources. (See WP:SUBSTANTIATE.) Saying that Harvard University is the most prestigious would be acceptable only if you present it as the opinion of an expert source. Edge3 (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Similarly, these quotes not only attribute the claim to a source, but they are making claims about quality rather than prestige. If editors want to privilege one particular ranking's methodology as being worthy of mention in the lead, then we could make a statement about quality. As always, exceptional claims require exceptional proof. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
An example of why list-making is hazardous business.[11] MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I strongly suggest that we avoid any discussion of "prestige" in this article, especially in the introduction. I like our alma mater as much as the next graduate, but the article should simply state facts and let the reader decide the value thereof. Sawagner201 (talk) 00:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Precisely. I always knew you Harvard guys were smart. :-) MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. ~DC Let's Vent 01:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Redundancy

It is redundant to claim "...It is regarded as one of the most prestigious" because Prestige literally means "how favorably something is regarded," so it would be like saying it is regarded with high regard. End of story. ~DC Let's Vent 16:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if prestige is defined as such, it's not redundant. I'll attempt to illustrate this by starting with an analogy and then moving onto a more general explanation. If a box of candy were regarded as prestigious by an insane person, then that insane person regards the box of candy to be prestigious - this does not mean the box of candy is prestigious. If X is regarded as prestigious by Y, then Y regards X as prestigious - but this is not equivalent to the statement that X is prestigious. In other words, it is Y's opinion that X is regarded favorably enough to be considered prestigious - which is independent of how favorably X is actually regarded. Note that X may be prestigious in actuality, but this cannot be properly deduced merely from Y regarding X as prestigious. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
You're calling the Encyclopedia Brittanica insane? ~DC Let's Vent 01:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
No, the analogy was not comparing Encyclopedia Brittanica to an insane entity; it was illustrating the difference between (i) one's opinion of how favorable something is regarded and (ii) how favorable something is actually regarded. To reiterate what I suggested previously, how favorable something is actually regarded cannot be deduced merely from a single entity's opinion of how favorable something is regarded. The general explanation I made above should have made this clear. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Is "Prestigious" an acceptable term to use in the Lead

Is the claim in the lead that Harvard is one of the most prestigious schools in the U.S. a violation of WP:NPOV? ~DC Let's Vent 01:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the claim is referenced from the Encyclopedia Brittanica ~DC Let's Vent 01:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I have posited notices about this RfC at MoS: Words to Watch, MoS: Lead section, and WikiProject Universities to solicit other editors' contributions. If you feel there are other venues that should be appraised of the RfC, let us know below. User:ElKevbo and I both believe this is a good-faith and neutral attempt to notify editors of the discussion per the recommendations at WP:CANVASS. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I've posted at Wikiproject Massachusetts and Wikiproject Boston since the article falls under the purview and is listed as Top Importance for both. ~DC Let's Vent 20:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The fact that something is referenced from the Encyclopedia Britannica means little or nothing. If you review the record of that publication on wikipedia, you'll see that many times the Encyclopedia Britannica has been dead wrong. MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Oppose inclusion until (1) there is an actual discussion of prestige in the body of the article (see WP:LEAD#Relative emphasis) (2) this discussion references reliable sources discussing historical perceptions of Harvard's prestige, not merely quality or selectivity, and (3) this assertion is substantiated by attributing this opinion to a source. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources and until these are found and properly framed/attributed so that there are no peacock or weasel words to avoid employed, we should simply state the facts and let the reader decide. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's at all extraordinary to describe Harvard University as prestigious. In fact, it's common knowledge. While I understand the need to resist POV and weasel words this is an egregious omission. ElKevbo (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
How do you know it's common knowledge that Harvard University is prestigious? Have you done measurements? Have you conducted polls or surveys? I am speaking of your apparent belief that "Harvard University is prestigious is common knowledge", not simply the belief that "Harvard University is prestigious". --82.31.164.172 (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Either your question is disingenuous or you're not qualified to edit this article and discuss this topic. ElKevbo (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
All the RS are unanimous: Harvard is a prestigious university. The NPOV rule says that if there is a well-founded OPPOSING view, then the opposing view has to be mentioned; no one has pointed to a RS that says Harvard is run-of-the-mill. The NPOV rule does NOT say that the original statement has to be erased. Rjensen (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break I

This is just absurd. It is common knowledge that Harvard University is one of the most, if not the most prestigious university in the USA and the world. Questioning this is like questioning that George Clooney is handsome or the Grand Canyon is awe-inspiring. The demand for a reliable source for something that is so deeply embedded in common cultural knowledge is just ridiculous. I have never heard anyone refer to a college as the "Princeton of the West" or the "Berkeley of the East". It is always the "Harvard" of wherever. Why do you suppose that is? -PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"The demand for a reliable source for something that is so deeply embedded in common cultural knowledge is just ridiculous." You say it is "common cultural knowledge". Keep in mind that S knows X only if [among other conditions] S believes X and if X is true. Let's say S represents the majority (>50%) of the human population in the world, and X is the statement "Harvard is one of the most prestigious universities in the world." How can you ascertain that the majority of the world's human population actually believe that Harvard is one of the most prestigious universities in the world, or that such a statement is true? --82.31.164.172 (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
If editors want to make the case that Harvard's prestige is common knowledge, I would recommend that they read WP:ASF and WP:V. From the latter: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true... [WP:V] requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly supports the material in question." The fact that there's an RfC on the issues affirms the latter issue and the need to substantiate the issue, not relying on crutches of citations to tertiary (EB) or tangential (USNWR) sources. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
If the editors committed to including a mention of Harvard's prestige in the lead as a neutral characterization of the institution want to find authoritative/reliable secondary sources that could directly substantiate these claims, this would go a long way towards moving this conversation along. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Presumably scholarship such as histories of the American university ([http://www.amazon.com/American-College-University-History/dp/0820312843], [http://www.amazon.com/History-American-Higher-Education/dp/0801880041], [http://www.amazon.com/Higher-Education-Transition-Universities-Foundations/dp/1560009179], [http://www.amazon.com/Great-American-University-Preeminence-Indispensable/dp/product-description/1586484087]) could possibly have evidence. Certainly there are no shortage of books about the history of Harvard itself ([12], [13]) Perhaps social histories of Boston would also lend support ([http://www.amazon.com/Harvard-Boston-Upper-Class-Aristocracy/dp/0819561355/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1283920594&sr=1-3], [http://www.amazon.com/Forging-Aristocracy-Harvard-Boston-1800-1870/dp/0819550442/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1283920594&sr=1-5], [http://www.amazon.com/Enterprising-Elite-Associates-Harvard-Business/dp/0674257650/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1283920594&sr=1-1]). I'm reasonably certain the claim can be justified and a paragraph about this literature written, but these steps must precede any mention in the lede. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I glanced through a few of the standard texts (Rudolph, Thelin, Lucas, and Rosovsky) and - as one would expect - the authors assume this knowledge without outright stating it. That's one of the reasons why we don't commonly cite common knowledge.
There are a few passages that are helpful.
  • In The chosen: The hidden history of admission and exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, Karabel places Harvard among the most prestigious universities in the U.S.: "Like the most prestigious universities of other nations, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton..." (p. 1).
  • Thelin makes a statement very similar to the one above in his 2004 survey of American higher education history but I don't have the text at hand.
  • It's a house history but Smith's The Harvard Century: The Making of a University to a Nation outright states that "Harvard remains a symbol of excellence, a synonym for elitism, and an inviting target in a land whose twin ideals are achievement and egalitarianism" (p. 11).
And I don't know how you can blithely dismiss the numerous rankings that consistently place Harvard first or second among all universities whether they be in the U.S. or the whole world. ElKevbo (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
As I keep reiterating, the claim about quality is wholly distinct from the claim about prestige. If editors want to attribute a claim of quality to a particular ranking or set of rankings, that is certainly their prerogative, but it does not in any way substantiate prestige. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I also respectfully oppose inclusion of any "prestige" language in the article, especially in the lead. This type of language is inherently POV, and directly runs afoul of WP:BOOSTERISM. In fact, that very article addresses situations such as this; not only are we to avoid phrases like "…is a prestigious [institution]," we are also called to avoid redundancy: " For instance: in an opening summary paragraph, simply noting that a university is in the Ivy League or is the main or flagship campus for a larger university system succinctly establishes that the university is prestigious." See WP:BOOSTERISM, Problems and Solutions section; Avoid vague terms of praise subsection. See also, within the same article, the "Assert facts, not opinions" section.
Furthermore, we need to avoid giving undue weight to the matter. WP:BOOSTERISM explicitly states that we should not "give undue weight to rankings in the lead paragraph or elsewhere in the article." While this is not a ranking, it in fact is worse; it's a general opinion asserted as if it were fact. Specifically, "the lead is not a section to astonish readers by establishing the quality of the college or university, only to serve as a summary of the rest of the article."
DC, given your criticism of the boosterism article, you may wish to also review WP:NPOV, under the "Attributing and specifying biased statements" section. You may notice that "[a] biased statement violates this policy when it is presented as a fact or the truth." This is exactly what the "prestige" language is doing. Certainly I respect your contributions to the article, but ask for your consideration on this matter.
Finally, I believe any discussion of prestige is in poor taste. Let's not substitute our judgment, Encyclopedia Britannica's judgment, or a magazine's judgment as to whether Harvard (or any school) is prestigious. Rather, we can state facts, and the reader can decide whether those facts are prestigious to her/him. What do you think? Sawagner201 (talk) 06:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that it's a terrible indictment of this encyclopedia that readers who may not be familiar with higher education are not outright told of Harvard's reputation and are instead forced to decide for themselves when they clearly don't know enough to come to that conclusion by themselves.
This isn't about Wikipedia editors trumpeting and promoting this institution. It's merely about recognizing the state of affairs as they exist and have existed for quite some time. We can't hide facts merely because we don't like them or disagree with them. ElKevbo (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
You can't have it both ways: you're simultaneously arguing that everyone knows Harvard is great/prestigious so there's no need to attribute it the claim AND that readers can't infer such a conclusion on their own presented with a set of facts. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
"Common knowledge," like all knowledge, is firmly rooted in particular contexts and cultures. It's not reasonable to expect people with little or no knowledge of a domain - presumably some of the readers of this or any other encyclopedia article - to have the knowledge common to that field. More importantly, it's not reasonable to expect those from different cultures to possess what is common knowledge in our culture. And those are the people to whom we're doing the greatest disservice. Of course most readers are already going to know about Harvard's reputation but those who don't won't be able to easily figure it out. ElKevbo (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The claim that "Harvard is prestigious" isn't simply common knowledge such as "Earth is the 3rd planet from the Sun", but a socio-cultural claim about the role and relevance of an institution within a society and its history and values. Thus to follow your argument about a hypothetical foreigner lacking any knowledge of our culture, we would be doing a far better service to this person by explaining how Harvard came to occupy this position, what constitutes prestige, what values/accomplishments/contributions set Harvard apart as an exceptional institution in higher education, rather than issuing the bald and context-free statement "Harvard is prestigious" cited to a magazine's 2010 ranking. We can do better than this as editors and an institution such as this also deserves better. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
It's kind of funny that you think we need to expand it in the text, considering that the article's lead originally claimed Harvard is consistently ranked as a leading academic institution in the world by numerous media and academic rankings which is sourced and mentioned in the body of the article itself. But of course, you didn't like that either. ~DC Let's Vent 15:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm only asking that we abide by Wikipedia guidelines on undue weight, relative emphasis, neutrality, and verifiability before rushing headlong down a path that is going to raise headaches on a huge number of other articles which almost none of you will care to deal with when push comes to shove. I already outlined my objections to the way those rankings are characterized based on my experience dealing with exactly these kinds of statements on other university articles over the past >4 years. If you want to say that ARWU has ranked Harvard 1st in every ranking since 2004, go for it; that's a substantiable and incontrovertable fact. I think the greater indictment of Wikipedia is editors' laziness in making and substaniating important and heavy claims such as these with uncritical attributions to sources that don't even directly support the assertion in question. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break II

Uh oh, looks like someone needs to delete this line from the Ivy League article: "In addition, Ivy League schools are often viewed by the public as some of the most prestigious universities worldwide and are often ranked amongst the best universities in the United States and worldwide." Either that, or we need to keep the word "prestigious" in the Harvard article, if Wikipedia is to be logically consistent. Looks like we have a real existential crisis here. I think I had better spend the rest of my day searching for reliable sources that use "prestigious" and "Harvard" in the same sentence. This issue is way more important than the work I am supposed to be doing right now. ;^) -PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:WAX isn't a convincing argument. This one is: "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included." Madcoverboy (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree that this is an exceptional claim. Anyone who does not buy this is woefully ignorant of higher education (which shouldn't necessarily carry a negative connotation!). ElKevbo (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
It's exceptional with regard to the fact that Harvard should be exempted from the consensus (WP:PEACOCK, WP:BOOSTER, WP:UNIGUIDE) that this term "prestigious" should not be employed to describe universities. I don't, nor do I believe other editors, dispute that Harvard is prestigious. However, if a university is now "prestigious" by virtue of (and citation to) being ranked "highly" or "consistently" in at least one publication's annual ranking, then there are a whole bunch of universities that get to claim they are prestigious as well. It is certainly not the case that NYU is as prestigious as Harvard because it is also consistently ranked in the Top 50. Thus, I argue we need to have extraordinary sources (which do exist) to substantiate the exceptional claim being made. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the bar should be set pretty high for the lead of an article to proclaim any topic "prestigious," "historic," "legendary," or any other number of exceptional superlatives. But no matter where you set the bar this particular institution clears it. And I know that it will be painful to deal with the borderline cases, particularly in deciding where the border lies. But I think that ultimately we're doing a disservice to our readers by avoiding the debate altogether and declaring that no institution is prestigious when that clearly isn't true. ElKevbo (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
As I've repeatedly stated, I know Harvard clears the bar. I want to ensure that we make and verify the claim in a responsible manner than doesn't provide a precedent for the NYUs, Dukes, Vanderbilts, and Northwesterns of the world, which no offense or US bias intended, simply aren't on the same level and should not use this case as a precedent to make an analogous claim. If we're setting the bar for prestige with respect to either (1) ranking "consistently highly" with respect to one particular organization's ranking or (2) a citation to a non-expert tertiary source and without (3) any discussion of prestige in the body of the article, then I don't believe we have cleared any of the relevant Wikipedia guidelines on balance, weight, or verifiability. Let's find some outstanding sources that unambiguously and incontrovertibly establish the fact, include some discussion in the history about the construction of Harvard as the sine qua none institution of higher education in America, and only then include it in the lead. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Madcoverboy, WP:WAX is irrelevant to this discussion. That policy concerns inclusion or deletion of articles. -PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • RfC Comment from an editor not previously involved in this page. Sorry, but... sheesh! This RfC sounds more like a POV against the subject of this page. Of course there are secondary sources saying that it's prestigious. It would be POV not to say it. Find the sources when you have time. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Show me them so I can write about it in the article and then summarize this discussion in the lead. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
It's bad form for an involved editor to hector uninvolved editors who respond to an RfC. You are not helping your argument. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
You are the one claiming that editors must have a POV if they are against including the topic and implying that sources can be found after the fact to substantiate claims. If you want to participate in the discussion, participate. But don't be a drive-by contributor on what is clearly a complex issue. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • RfC Comment You don't have to love or even like Harvard to recognize that it's considered one of the most prestigious universities in the world, and certainly in the US. It's not boosterism, it's just the way the school is seen. I'm with Tryptofish on this - there are many sources that refer to it as such, so it wouldn't hurt to add some. But taking it out is ridiculous. Tvoz/talk 17:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Show me them so I can write about it in the article and then summarize this discussion in the lead. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I think you are hurting the article (and Wikipedia and its readers) by leaving out the fact that Harvard is prestigious...207.238.152.3 (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is being hurt by the inclusion or removal of the word "prestigious." Grow up. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • One thing to keep in mind is that many editors look to the Harvard article as an example when writing articles about other colleges. If subjective peacock words can be used in Harvard's article, why not everywhere else? It sets a dangerous precedent. I can claim my alma mater, a small college few people have heard of, is the most prestigious college in a given state or "one of the most prestigious" in the country (and I can cherry-pick some sources that agree with my assertion). But that doesn't mean it should be included in the lead section of a Wikipedia article. We should included that Harvard is an Ivy League school, the oldest in the country, and possibly that it consistently ranks first in the major college ranking systems. Those are facts and readers can draw their own conclusions about whether those facts makes the school prestigious. After all, if a school is truly "prestigious," people should know it without having to consult an encyclopedia. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that "if a school is truly "prestigious," people should know it without having to consult an encyclopedia" is a dangerously naive statement. If a college or university is truly prestigious, we should include that in its article if we believe that is an important fact necessary to understand the institution. You can't understand Harvard without knowing of its reputation and prominence. ElKevbo (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I find it revealing that the argument is being made that editors somehow look to this page for guidance. In truth, no page can create a precedent that would override policy. But if there is something special about this page, in terms of where editors look, what does that suggest? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm getting really sick and tired of having to argue against this strawman that somehow there are editors on this page who don't believe that Harvard is prestigious. That is simply not what this argument is about and anyone who thinks that it is has not bothered to read any of this discussion. Harvard is prestigious. How do we assert this in a neutral and verifiable way? Madcoverboy (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Well I'm getting tired of hearing slippery-slope arguments about how saying Harvard is Prestigious will lead to problems on every other school's page. While I know some people will say "if Harvard's page says it why can't school X, Y or Z," it's not a valid reason to oppose including it. (It's also interesting that we're having this discussion because 208.120.72.134 got mad when you removed a similar statement from NYU's article-sort of a slippery-slope of its own). ~DC Let's Vent 21:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
DC, your ability to misconstrue my arguments and repeated attempts to make a substantive debate about verifiability and neutrality into a personal grudge match never ceases to amaze me. Thank you. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
That wasn't really directed at you. Mabeenot started her comment with "One thing to keep in mind is that many editors look to the Harvard article as an example when writing articles about other colleges" tell me that's not a slippery-slope. Plus, other comments in sections above the RFC have similar sentiments. And the comment about the NYU article was meant as more of an aside, showing that slippery-slopes can work the other way (people see editors removing claims from one article and they'll start removing them from all articles). ~DC Let's Vent 21:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, DC, I can cite policy for you. Read the Manual of Style's puffery section. "Prestigious" is even listed as an example of words that are not appropriate for an encyclopedic entry on Wikipedia because they make "unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance" and "introduce bias" into the article. FYI, I came to this talk page to give my two cents after both Madcoverboy and ElKevbo sought wider attention from the folks at WikiProject Universities. I don't appreciate being attacked the moment I step into a discussion. You all seem very emotionally attached to this subject. Either cool down or ask a neutral party to address this issue. And for the record, I am not a "her." -Mabeenot (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't attacking you, I was merely asking you to back up your statement with a policy. And according to WP:W2W "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia" ~DC Let's Vent 03:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Again, if you read the discussion above, you'd know that I also identified 8 books and User:ElKevbo identified other authors who wrote authoritative material about this topic. Now that you see my point that I've repeated a half-dozen times that it's not hard to find reliable and authoritative material to establish the fact that Harvard is prestigious, can we have a substantive discussion about (1) how we write about this fact in the body of the article and (2) how to summarize this discussion in the lead? There are better sources that definitively establish that there are a handful of universities truly deserving of the "prestige" title and lazily citing ARWU or Encyclopedia Britannica simply does not cut it. Again, I've repeated that this should be the topic of the discussion about half a dozen times before to no avail. So let's start the conversation. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
This has got to be one of the most ridiculous RfCs I have ever seen, and I've seen some doozies. So you already know that there are sources other than Encyclopedia Britannica? And you agree that there are reliable and authoritative sources that are independent of Harvard and state that it is prestigious? There's really nothing more to it than that, for Wikipedia's purposes. Please remember, the standard here is verifiability, not truth. We do not determine truth; we determine what sources say is the truth. If I understand you correctly, you are concerned that there are also sources that criticize the application of "prestigious" to Harvard, and make the case that there are other colleges and universities that ought to be considered more prestigious. That's fine, and I doubt that there would be objections to having a section in the page about that. But it is not Wikipedia's role to arbitrate that issue. If you feel it is some sort of injustice that there are truly deserving institutions that are not adequately recognized, this is the wrong website at which to pursue it. And there is nothing wrong with saying "prestigious" on the pages for other universities, if that's what the sourcing supports. If the sourcing does not support it, then those other pages should not say it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Well there's obviously a lot more to it (which sources to use, what to write, how to summarize), but I'll let you get back to more important things. Thanks for all the fish. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I responded to an RfC. I have made it clear that my answer to the posed question is that I support the "prestigious" wording, and do not see it as a violation of NPOV. You have made it clear that you disagree with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
To review, you clearly fail to even read the preceding discussion to understand the issues at stake but not before deciding to slime the other side as POV pushers, then characterize my benign response to your comment as "hectoring", and conclude by calling the whole process "the most ridiculous RfC [ever]". It's been a real pleasure. Madcoverboy (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that tryptofish has covered most of what I wanted to say. A few addition: firstly, if there are numerous reliable sources stating that Harvard is prestigious and there is nothing to suggest that it is not then it would be POV if the fact that Harvard is prestigious is NOT mentioned in the article: it would support the apparently minority POV that Harvard is not prestigious. If the sources also say that Harvard is one of the most prestigious universities in the US, then this is clearly a big deal and should be mentioned in the lead. A section devoted to prestige might be useful to explain exactly why, but wouldn't be necessary for the purposes of this RFC. All you would need would be for it to be mentioned in the body of the article (with sources) that Harvard is prestigious and it would be accurately summarising important points in the article to mention this fact in the lead.
I would also add that ElKevbo's behaviour in this RFC is absolutely appalling and is not helping his cause at all. Calling people ignorant because they don't know something to be true is neither helpful nor is it relevant. Without multiple reliable sources suggesting this claim is true, it shouldn't go anywhere near the article or the lead whatever the truth might or might not be. But it appears there are multiple reliable sources, so of course it goes into the article, irrespective of ElK's unhelpful arguments.
Finally, in answer to the question "how do you add it to the article in a NPOV manner", that's simple: you say "Harvard is prestigious". If there were only the Enc Brit to rely on you might say "Harvard is prestigious according to the Enc Brit". If there were two or three sources confirming it, you might have to list all three for such a qualitative claim, but when you've got at least eight sources and no contrary opinion it is not remotely POV to simple assert it as a fact given the overwhelming weight of evidence. GDallimore (Talk) 23:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Where are these multiple reliable sources everyone is suddenly alluding to? I believe I only laid out some possible sources where the assertion might be substantiated. If someone wants to dump the links to the relevant citations, I'd be happy to review them and incorporate them into the article. Madcoverboy (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

  • RfC Comment Alright, I get the epistemological quandry of figuring out how to operationalize something squishy and subjective like "prestige", and I get the importance of keeping a lid on boosterism, but from my point of view as an overeducated middle-class American, there are only perhaps five universities on the planet which I would consider to have a level of prestige comparable to Harvard's, and my (ivy-league) Alma Mater isn't one of them. I take no joy in saying this, but the essay WP:BLUE applies here. In the world of higher education,it's simply axiomatic that Harvard is prestigious—barring, perhaps, any major scandals of the future. —Bill Price (nyb) 00:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's an extraordinary claim that Harvard is prestigious either. The spirt of the rules trumps the letter of the rules and following the rules is less important than using good judgment. (I think that's in the essay on rules or whatever)207.238.152.7 (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
This is a bit silly. Why would Oxford or Harvard or any other genuinely prestigious university want to say they were prestigious? Methinks the lady doth protest too much. The University of Calcutta might want to fiercely proclaim they are prestigious. That would be understandable. Also, is the article so bad that readers can't figure that out for themselves? At least one of the ideas behind pov words is that the readership is smart enough to make certain determinations for themselves. They don't need a "laugh track" for example, to tell them when to laugh. "Here. We're going to tell you about a university that is real good. We hope you (idiots) can appreciate that"?!! That is what they do at "News at 11." We are not television that we have to explain to the hoi polloi how they "should" react to something.
And another thing: Stephen Hawking the Nobel Prize winner, ensures that the following information is included in all his introductions: That he holds the Isaac Newton chair (okay, Lucasian. same thing) at Cambridge. Why would a Nobel Prize winner with his reputation need to have his audience hear that? Hmmmm? A bit of an inferiority complex?
Question: Does Harvard have an inferiority complex? None that I have noticed! :) Leave it out for goodness sake! Student7 (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
This has nothing whatsoever to do with what Harvard says and everything to do with what everyone else says. I think you're way off-target in your objections. ElKevbo (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
(And I'm not at all sure why you're taking a swipe at Dr. Hawking. It seems both mean-spirited and unrelated to the discussion at hand.) ElKevbo (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
@Student7: Contrary to your unstated premise, people who support the inclusion of the word "prestigious" do not represent Harvard or its alumni, so it's inappropriate and unsettling that you used "Harvard" synecdochically. You went further than that, though, implying that Stephen Hawking's wikipedia article is some kind of autobiographical fluff piece. I'm trying hard not to be uncivil, but I have no idea which essays or policies I could even point you to to help clear up your obvious confusion. The fact that you have a well-established account just makes my head spin. —Bill Price (nyb) 01:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Carnegie Mellon University is claiming in the lead that it is a "prestigious" private university. Who's actually committed to making some sort of guideline here? Madcoverboy (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
A) That's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. B) The relevant policy is WP:V. C) Carnegie Mellon isn't claiming it, an editor is. ~DC Let's Vent 04:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
The relevant policy is in fact WP:RS because there are no shortage of publications asserting CMU's prestigiousness [15] [16] [17] [18]. The argument articulated by DC and other editors to establish prestige has been (A) if it's "common knowledge" the university is prestigious, (B) if the university is highly ranked, and/or (C) a non-expert tertiary source has asserted it to be prestigious. I fail to see how CMU or really any of the top N universities doesn't meet this very low bar. Alternatively, one may wish to set the bar much higher and actually require that the assertion of prestige must come directly from an authoritative source such as a history of American universities, then it becomes incumbent upon editors wishing to make the claim to find extraordinary evidence to back up extraordinary claims. Unless of course someone wants to enforce two sets of rules and tell editors of other universities that their common knowledge, widely published assertions of their universities' prestige are not, in fact, legitimate. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain all of those aren't reliable. I don't think about.com is (and calls CMU "highly-selective" not prestigious), the second source is from the school, and the last two are from former students. ~DC Let's Vent 15:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
All of which prove the point I've been trying to articulate that we need to rely upon indisputably reliable sources, not merely assertions from common knowledge, non-expert tertiary sources, or synthesis from rankings. As it stands now, no one has come forward with such a source to back up the assertion being made in this article. The higher the bar is set (and I don't doubt that Harvard, Yale, and Princeton would be able to clear any of them), the fewer problems we will have to deal with on other articles. However if Harvard is to adopt a low bar for the reliability of sources to substantiate the point, then you can be sure other universities will as well. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe most people consider the Encyclopedia Brittanica to be an "indisputably reliable source" ~DC Let's Vent 16:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
And if anyone else is still following this RFC, "prestigious" was added to the CMU page on August 5, weeks before it was added here on September 1. ~DC Let's Vent 16:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm still following it. It's hard to tell which comments are from editors who are actually new to the page, brought here by the RfC, as opposed to editors who were already part of the discussion before the RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Fairly certain Madcoverboy and myself are the only two from the original discussion still here. ~DC Let's Vent 00:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
From WP:PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." From WP:IRS: "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." Encyclopedia Britannica is not an expert arbitrator of what universities are and are not prestigious; a historical account of American universities would be. To DC's second point, I wasn't implying that Harvard's use caused CMU to adopt the same terminology, but you can be sure that they will immediately point to this article's use of the term as a defense. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

(←) We're not setting any concrete binding guideline or precedent- not unless we specifically choose to, anyway. There's always WP:IAR and WP:OSE (there's a more relevant essay written in the same vein as OSE, but I can't remember it off the top of my head) to consider.—Bill Price (nyb) 19:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean guideline or policy in the formal sense, but I've been trying to steer this discussion of setting a precedent towards establishing a consensus on identifying specific reliable sources that would provide a more justifiable basis for a university article asserting prestige than "common knowledge" or synthesis from rankings because there's nothing stopping other universities (which may be similar in quality as ranked by your publication of choice) from employing the same rationales even if they lack the same historical importance, cultural salience, influence, wealth, etc. all of which "prestige" connotes. My contention has been and remains that claims of prestige must be cited to scholarly historical accounts of the American university system, not newspapers, rankings, websites, polls, or encyclopedia entries. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Secondly, any discussion of prestige in the lead must follow from a discussion in the body enumerating the ways in which Harvard or any other "prestigious" university is of historical import, culturally salient, influential, or wealthy. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC Break #4

  • RfC comment. Technically, the claim that Harvard is "prestigious" needs a reliable source. Also, I have no doubt that the article would be improved if we could point to a reliable source that actually measures how prestigious Harvard actually is. But it makes no sense to doubt this very well known fact in the first place, and superficially it appears we may be dealing with a very bad case of wikilawyering "for the FUNNZES LOL". Or maybe someone is really trying to do the right thing here? We are writing an encyclopedia, and it doesn't help this process at all if people (perhaps after running into problems earlier when their own original research, or maybe borderline original research, wasn't accepted into an article; or perhaps just because they would rather a particular fact wasn't true) concentrate on the most obvious and unproblematic claims and require citations for them. This can easily lead to a block or even ban. Unfortunately WP:COMMONSENSE is not a policy. But fortunately it doesn't have to be, because it's a corollary of WP:IAR, which is policy. Hans Adler 21:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
    Here is an example of how prestigious Harvard is, and how proverbial that fact is: A book about women who organised a union at Harvard is called "We Can't Eat Prestige". From page 3 of the book: "An institution of immense prestige, wealth and influence, Harvard University was ranked among the very finest private research universities in the world. It had played a major role in all great events in U.S. history by supplying research and leaders in every field of public affairs. Six presidents of the United States had graduated from Harvard, as well as thirty-three Nobel Laureates and innumerable diplomats, war heros and distinguished men (and, only recently, women) of letters." That wasn't hard to find at all.
    Neither was this, from "Old Money: The Mythology of Wealth in America": "Old Money [...] has its own (private) school system, which begins at innumerable 'prestigious' elementary schools. It culminates at Harvard, not necessarily the actual university of that name, but a rhetorical 'Harvard,' Yale, or Princeton, some other college in the Ivy League, Stanford; or whatever college the social imagination may plausibly promote to the prestige of Harvard." [19]
    Or this, from "MBA: the first century", describing the breakthrough for the MBA degree: "It was the creation of the Harvard Buisness School in 1908. A dozen other universities had taken the step first, but when an institution of Harvard's prestige did so it conferred a dignity and legitimacy that broke down the last barriers of resistance. After Harvard, university schools of business came in a deluge." (This is admittedly rather dated, but shows in conjunction with the other references that Harvards prestige is not a temporary thing.)
    The following seems best, but was a bit harder to find. "Harvard Number One University in Eyes of Public", Gallup poll, August 2003. Excerpts: "The final results in this category in this year's U.S. News rankings were as follows: Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, California Institute of Technology, Duke, Stanford, University of Pennsylvania, Dartmouth, and Washington University in St. Louis. [...] Clearly, the prestige of Harvard (and to a lesser degree Yale and Stanford) is fairly universal across regions of the country." Harvard was mentioned as "best university" by twice as many as the number two (24% vs. 11% for each of Stanford and Yale). [20] Hans Adler 22:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Good lord Yes, Harvard is one of the most prestigious universities in the US and literally 100s of reliable sources will support this. If one wanted to take it a step further and call it the most prestigious that would be accurate too, as much as I hate those crimson pukes. How did we end up with an RFC on this and why did anyone take it seriously? Major fail that this is even being discussed.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Because certain members of WP:UNI consider it Boosterism, and I got tired of arguing with them so I figured I'd open an RFC to see what other people think. ~DC Let's Vent 00:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Of course Harvard is one of the most prestigious universities in the US and I am shocked anyone would feel this needs to be sourced. If it must be, I agree with Bali ultimate that there are probably hundreds of sources that contain that exact phrase. My suggestion is use Google books to search it or a similar phrase, use it as a reference and be done with it. These kinds of debates are one of the most ridiculous aspects of Wikipedia. Rikster2 (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Just took a look at google books. No claims to have read any of this carefully, but
  • "Larry Summers had a job for life at the world's most prestigious university." from Harvard rules: the struggle for the soul of the world's most powerful university by Richard Bradley.
  • "With the nations (arguably) most prestigious institution of higher learning..." from How Harvard Rules: Reason in the service of empire by John Trumpbour.
  • "Then there is Harvard the "greatest" university in the United States -- indeed, the world. This is more arguable. But at least in popular belief (emphasis mine) Harvard has a secure claim to primacy in the pecking order of higher education." from Marking Harvard modern: The rise of America's University by Morton and Phyllis Keller.
  • "Harvard is said to be one of the best, most prestigious schools in the world" from Students guide to colleges by Jordan Goldman.
  • "Harvard University has the honor of being the oldest institution of higher education in the country as well as one of the most prestigious in the world." A Journey into the Transcendentalists' New England by R. Todd Felton.
  • "Harvard is one of the most prestigious American law schools" From Law and popular culture: a course book - Page 88 by Michael Asimow and Shannon Mader.
  • "Now Turner had been recommended for Harvard; his turn had come to attend the most prestigious university in the country" from Lorenzo Dow Turner: father of Gullah studies - Page 27 by Margaret Wade-Lewis.
  • "To get one deadbeat, fully unqualified slacker into the most prestigious school in America" from Hacking Harvard - Page 329 by Robin Wasserman.
  • "Harvard is perhaps the most prestigious hub of intellectual activity in America" from Visiting College Campuses - Page 167 by Janet Spencer and Sandra Maleson.
  • "The Harvard system alarmed many English professors at other colleges. Here was America's oldest, most prestigious university devoting the bulk of its English faculty's time to teaching..." from The origins of composition studies in the American college, ... - Page 236 by John C. Brereton.
  • "He's Got Harvard intangibles. Being connected with the nation's most prestigious law school and university can only help a President to leverage the nation's most talented lawyers and scholars" from Should Barack Obama Be President? Dreams from My Father, Audacity ... - Page 25 by W. Frederick Zimmerman.

All of the above is from the first three fucking pages of a fucking google book search that combines "Harvard" with the phrase "most prestigious." That completely leaves aside equivalents of "most prestigious." Google books returned 14,300 hits on the matter. Whoever raised an objection over this specific language for this specific article and persisted with their complaint to the point that it ended up at an RFC should be ashamed of themselves. They don't have much business doing research in the humanities for public consumption (either that or they are doing research on how idiotic wikipedia can be.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, convinced now that madcover, the persistent complainer, is running game, and the rest of us are supposed to be the lab-rats. this [21] is what convinced me.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad that editors finally went out of their way to actually find what appear to be some authoritative sources, even if it meant that we all got to have a grande olde time impugning my motives (am I POV pusher, a wikilawyerer, or an incompetent/disruptive researcher? so many attributions to make for the out-group member!) instead of abiding by some modicum of Wikiquette to reach consensus on how to verify an extraordinary claim. You can be sure that each and every one of you who thought this was such a cut-and-dry task will be notified in the future to weigh in when other colleges and universities make similar claims after pointing to the precedent set on Harvard. Madcoverboy (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
What tendentious nonsense. In this instance you wasted a lot of people's time. There is nothing "extraordinary" about the claim that Harvard is "among the most prestigious universities in the US." In the United States, it's synonomous with prestigious university (whether this prestige is appropriate or deserved is another matter -- prestige after all is a measure of public perception). This fact can be confirmed with five minutes effort at the keyboard. Yet here we are -- apparently because you have some other agenda/point to make about other universities. Let me be crystal clear for you: This RFC sets no "precedent" for some other university; there is no generalizable "rule" being established. The only thing addressed here, is this specific case. Other cases will be different, some will be justifiably controversial, some will be as obviously right or wrong as this one was. So what? This thing here has nothing to do with hypothetical things that may happen somewhere else in the future. How very tedious this all is.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Precisely. This entire exercise is like starting an RfC about whether politicians are automatically notable at Talk:Barack Obama. Hans Adler 12:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
My insidious "agenda" is that I have spent the better part of 5 years and >11,000 edits (thanks for clearing up what an RfC is, I've never been in one before!) combating pervasive COI and POV on college and university articles with a handful other other editors committed to WP:NPOV and WP:V. So it really makes me feel all warm 'n fuzzy inside to be defamed by lay editors who know nothing of my contribution history to effectively assert that I am a axe-grinding hypocrite. You're right that this RfC sets no precedent, but the use of the term breaks a long-standing precedent on these articles, and the boosters at every other college and university will now take this article's use of the term as a precedent/excuse to do the same despite your assurances otherwise. Which is exactly why User:ElKevbo and I agreed that this RfC was in fact going to set a precedent on other articles which is why college/university editors should weigh in. I will certainly be seeking out your apparent expertise on the matter in the future. Madcoverboy (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like a very valid concern. I think the problem was that the RfC was simply about the wrong question. I am watching WT:WikiProject Universities now, in the hope that I will notice any attempts to abuse this RfC as precedent for other articles. Hans Adler 13:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I say! This thread has seen quite sufficient vitriol. Mayhaps my canid charm will defuse some tempers.

(unindent) Can everyone please let off the gas and the personal attacks? I don't think that anyone here is acting in bad faith or intentionally being disruptive. I disagree with Madcoverboy and others who share his opinion but the concern about the potential fallout from this discussion is legitimate and understandable. I also think that those editors have been a bit too tenacious in sticking to their guns but not disruptively so.

Since it appears that the majority of editors agree on this particular issue, it might be productive to move the discussion over to WT:UNI to address the broader issue of how to handle this in other articles. ElKevbo (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

For being such a pernicious/tedious/tendentious influence on the article, it sure was nice of me to take other editor's research finding passages and citations and to update the lead with the relevant and balanced passages. I'm sure everyone will now apologize for their personal attacks and bad-faith characterizations of my motives... Madcoverboy (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I certainly do. I think we have all learned something from this RfC, though not necessarily that Harvard is "prestigious". Hans Adler 14:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Puppy added above per WP:CHILL; addressed to all participants, not any specific individual. —Bill Price (nyb) 17:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I've read the revisions that Madcoverboy made. The lead was fine with me before, and it's fine with me now. I agree with some of the editors in this talk that the wording does not in any mandatory way create a precedent for pages about other universities. Each article needs to be based upon its own sources, and a source describing one institution does not extend to others that the source does not mention. If we can be satisfied with this outcome, would it perhaps be helpful to remove the RfC tag, so that editors do not come here only to find the discussion resolved (assuming, of course that it is—I don't mean by that to cut anyone off)? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Why do you want to prevent other editors from seeing the cute puppy? Have you no shame? Hans Adler 18:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh not at all. But I think this puppy is more prestigious than cute. (sound of evil laughter) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a member of WP:UNI, nor do I have any connection with Harvard or this article, but I thought it was interesting that after all this discussion and sourcing that Harvard is "one of the most prestigious univerities in the US," that the ultimate outcome was to remove what was a valid passgae in the lead. In other words, madcoverboy, "I see what you did there." *chuckle* Rikster2 (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(Growl) It's still in the lead, just written differently, in the next paragraph. That's fine, no need to belabor it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c Ury, Logan R. (December 6, 2006). "Burden of Proof". Harvard Crimson. Retrieved 2009-03-12.
  2. ^ a b c Hoff Summers, Christina (March–April 2008). "Why Can't a Woman Be More Like a Man?". The American. Retrieved 2009-03-12.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)
  3. ^ Manes, Stephen (1993). Gates: how Microsoft's mogul reinvented an industry--and made himself the richest man in America. Doubleday. p. 58. ISBN 0385420757. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ Williams, Sam (2002). Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software. O'Reilly. p. 41. ISBN 0596002874.
  5. ^ a b Bhayani, Paras D. (June 4, 2007). "Andrei Shleifer and J. Bradford DeLong". Harvard Crimson. Retrieved 2009-03-12.
  6. ^ Grossman, Lev (February 29, 2004). "10 Questions For Bill Gates". Time. Retrieved 2009-03-12.
  7. ^ Chen, Susan A. (October 20, 1994). "In Math Department, It's Mostly Male". Harvard Crimson. Retrieved 2009-03-12.
  8. ^ Dillon, Sam (January 19, 2005). "No Break in the Storm Over Harvard President's Words". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-03-12. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harvard_University/Archive_3&oldid=1144202272"