Jump to content

Talk:History and traditions of Harvard commencements

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Expansion needed

[edit]

Perhaps to inspire others to jump in:

  • "Morning Exercises" is fairly decent though undoubtedly could include numerous additional small details
  • All the other sections are sketches at best.
  • There's no coherent sense of "history" -- mostly amusing traditions

EEng (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incantations for degree recipients of various schools

[edit]

We need to log whether or not the same designations are used each year, for example:

  • "generate and utilize knowledge to improve health throughout the world" - to Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health degree recipients
  • "to serve the learning needs of society" and "who will change the world through education" - to Harvard Graduate School of Education degree recipients
  • "leadership in the quest for enlightened public policy and leadership throughout the world" - to Harvard Kennedy School degree recipients
  • Welcoming bachelor's degree recipients to "the fellowship of educated persons" and individually shaking the hands of the Summa Cum Laude graduates*

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MaynardClark (talk • contribs)

"The fellowship of educated persons" (I thought it was "men and women" but in the age of Caitlyn Jenner too a long list of permutations would be needed, I suppose) is a constant, I'm pretty sure, but it's quite possible the others change from year to year. To be honest the Commencement Office was quite snooty about not cooperating when I approached them several years ago, but maybe I'll try again some day. EEng 18:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It (indeed) WAS "The fellowship of men and women" OR "The fellowship of women and men" last year and in (at least immediately) previous years. Anyone's dog or cat applying for Harvard admission? Some great apes were 'liberated' from their regional primate center; maybe we haven't yet learned what kinds of learning can be done, and if learning can be done 'in a more distributed way', maybe educational methods can be developed to optimize such learning possibilities. MaynardClark (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parade order needs checking

[edit]

Sources are now cited just before table enumerating President's Parade

Research needed

[edit]
  • Extension school, Radcliffe Inst., etc.
  • Technical/formal points re first honorary degree
  • Important commencement addresses, honorees e.g. Geo Marshall, refusals
  • Cancelled commencements
  • Incidents
  • Music (see Grace Notes source)
  • Are candidates still technically candidates after their degrees have been voted? So "candidates" entering the Theatre? If not, what manner of creature are they at this point?

Honorary degrees

[edit]
Almost certainly shorthand for D.Litt.. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's my tentative thinking, except I see "D.L." in lots of C.V.s -- formal C.V.s, which argues against it's just being a shorthand. So I don't think we're at Q.E.D. quite yet, O.K.? I think that will end up being the answer but it's the kind of detail that would be so very embarrassing to get wrong. I'd known about the Shaw reply for a long time but I'm surprised it seems to be written up only two places that I can find, other than Shaw's letters which I don't feel like trudging to Widener for just now. I'd still like you to check the order of the parade when you have time -- note an additional link, to some maps, above. One thing that's certainly NOT [NOT! -- I meant NOT!] written up correctly is the position of undergrad officers, summas, Extension graduates. EEng (talk) 03:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More sources on Shaw [3] Note 68 -- see the cite there; but Letters of Shaw is what's really needed.
Hoping to get on parade order soon. OkaynoQED4now. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It might have meant Doctor of Letters, or more likely down-low, as in, "To avoid embarrassment you can keep this Harvard degree on the down-low." Jehochman Talk 00:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sons of Harvard sometimes forget that for Elis, the Harvard-Yale "rivalry" is not just the amusing pastime it is for us. My apologies for awakening old feelings of inadequacy. See [4] EEng (talk) 01:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rivalry? Hardly! Jehochman Talk 01:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You still hung up on this? "My senior year at Yale I stopped going to class and devoted all my time towards pranking the historic Harvard-Yale football game." [5] That pretty much says it all.
Now, what we're supposed to be discussing here is the question of what Shaw meant by D.L. Your suggestion of D.Litt wasn't helpful since it was already under discussion. As mentioned likely our best hope is a scholarly edition of Shaw's letters directly commenting on the point, but in the meantime there's still room for you to contribute some useful insight (though if not everyone will understand). I'll be happy to let you get the last word in, if that can be the end of this tiresome merry-go-round. EEng (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is there is no article on Harvard honorary degree recipients? 19th century and prior it was uncommon for foreign heads of state to receive honorary degrees from any university. The first List of University of Calcutta honorary degree recipients was the Prince of Wales and his state visit to India then under British rule have been subject of academic discourse. I bet there are much more cases for Harvard which Wikipedia needs to cover. Also I am sure there is enough material to get Harvard Tercentenary celebration to FA status. The key appears to compare the celebrations to other anniversary celebrations from universities around the world. Btw FWIW I started the Wikisource transcription project for University of Saint Andrews five hundredth anniversary (see here) and EEng you can look at it if you (I hope) plan to work on it to FA status in near future. Solomon7968 21:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, lists and list-like articles don't do much for me. I prefer to do something more in-depth on a particular personage or event that has some fun stuff going on in the background e.g. Charles Apted. Plus the links I listed at the head of this thread are dead now, dammit. If a particular recipient got especially interesting attention that might be worth an effort if witty things were said and done, but the spirit has to move me. The tercentenary certainly has abundant material but, again, so far the spirit hasn't moved me. EEng 21:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng - Trying to put my proposals in the proper category. This article which I just found seems somewhat interesting in the long history of honorary degree controversies. Thoughts?
https://www.nytimes.com/1985/10/09/us/harvard-omits-honorary-degrees-ending-reagan-dispute.html Jjazz76 (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Controversies over honoraries should certainly be covered somehow, and that would certainly included. What we really need is a separate section on honoraries, maybe with controversies as a subsection -- though in general "controversy" sections per se should be avoided. Another problem is that there are too many honoraries, historically, to list them all, and yet many should be explicitly recognized. EEng 22:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng - Yep agree 100 percent that list of all honorary degrees recipients wouldn't be best.
It is worth noting that your quote from Shaw is from the 300th, and the Regan degree issue was from the 350th. I'm going to try and create a new section for honorary degrees and you revert/edit as you see fit. Jjazz76 (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK for now, but I'm beginning to sense that we'll need a separate article/list for whole topic of honorary degrees, and if so that's where such stuff should go. But time will tell. EEng 22:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng - that sounds reasonable. I don't have any other compelling items to add to that category, but yes, it might be worth spinning off at some point. I find that in general there is usually more interesting stuff around honorary degrees from before 1900, it is just that most present day universities sort of mostly forget about anything prior to 100 years ago, or if they do it is usually caked up full or urban legends when the actual history is far more interesting. Jjazz76 (talk) 02:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Statue_of_John_Harvard#Seals_and_inscriptions. EEng 03:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng "the idea of the three lies is at best a fourth, and by far the greater falsehood." No complaints there. Jjazz76 (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More sources on honoraries (probably some duplicates, sorry)

[edit]
  • Harvard Graduates' Magazine [6] sept 1903 v12 p.182 re Kirkland's classification of honorary degree recipients: Those who merit it; those who want it; those who need it.
  • Above also refs an earlier article in the June number.
  • [7] Honoris Causa
  • [8] Eliot
  • [9] Guides
  • [10] Degrees to Bradley, Marshall, Oppenheimer
  • [11] Crimson, "broadened idea"
  • [12]
  • [13]
  • [14] p.328ff which were the first true honoraries?

More sources

[edit]

General

[edit]
  • shands-tucci
  • [http://harvardmagazine.com/2011/07/center-of-attention[
  • [15]
  • Pubs of Colonial Soc Apparently year by year
  • Harvard’s quirky graduation rituals Globe, May 21, 1912
  • [16] possible images
  • Roberts, Russell B. (June 11, 1964). "Commencement: A Melange of Tradition". Harvard Crimson. Open access icon
  • Quincy history -- charters etc.
  • http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/05/test-your-commencement-knowledge/
  • [17] 2020 Crimson
  • [18] 2022
  • [19] Oxonian
  • "2022-2021 Commencement FAQs". Archived from the original on 2022-07-04.

Bells

[edit]

Regalia

[edit]

Holyoke Chair

[edit]
  • "THE AUTOCRAT OF THE BREAKFAST-TABLE." Full text of "PARSON TURELL’S LEGACY: OR THE PRESIDENT’S OLD ARM-CHAIR" available here. The "facts" given may be more a fanciful than factual account.
I was aware of this tale, and the bit about the decrementing payments, but I'm indebted to you for prompting me to read to the very end, as I never knew about the alleged keep-the-chair ceremony and it's conceivable it has some basis in truth, perhaps back when the Governor was a member of the Corporation. I don't suppose you'd like to make this a little research project of your own, would you (if you're feeling up to it)? Morison would be a good place to start. EEng (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Treacherous Chair?

[edit]

@EEng - Ok how is chair considered treacherous. Was anyone seriously injured while sitting in it? Jjazz76 (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GuardianH - If you could take a look at this article that would be great. I know you've done a great job of rooting out PUFFERY with college and university articles and this article seems like we have some editors camping out on it refusing to tone down the most obvious examples of PUFFERY. Seems to apply to a few Harvard pages. Jjazz76 (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mass revert of edits

[edit]

Taking the mass reverts of my edits to the talk page. @EEng. Again it isn't clear what you are trying to accomplish with your mass reverts other than make this article not good. This has gone on for months now with me, and YEARS, going back to 2013 with other editors.

I've made multiple changes to this page. You can't just mass revert dozens of edits because you don't like one. If you have a SPECIFIC issue with a SPECIFIC edit, yes let's discuss it here. Let's discuss sources and phrasings and whatever else you like. You simply can't just mass revert edits I spent 2+ hours on because you don't like one. I'll state this again - you simply don't seem to be here to be here to build an encyclopedia anymore, but instead gatekeep a handful of selected articles. Ultimately, I'm here to make this article better, and I'm going to do it, even if it takes months or years to do it.

Happy editing!

Jjazz76 (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're right, it's true: what I'm trying to accomplish is to make this article not good. Ha ha, just kidding. Maybe it's you! Maybe you're trying to make this article not good. OK, maybe not that either. Maybe it's just your edits are well-intentioned but wrongheaded.
As seen in the edit history [20] you did indeed make a bunch of changes. And as explained in my edit summary reverting those changes [21], here's what I found when I sampled a few of them:
  • In your edit summary here [22] you say you removed items from a list because they're not given by the source. But they are in the source. Why you can't see that I don't know.
  • In [23] you deleted a source. I'm not sure why you did that, but the source is referenced elsewhere in the article, so you left the other material unsourced.
  • Your edit summary here [24] shows you don't understand the sentence you changed ("veracity of the lyrics" – WTF???). And what you did turned it into unintelligible nonsense.
So it's not that I just mass revert dozens of edits because I don't like one; it's that I sampled three of them and 100% were flat-out wrong, and after that I wasn't going to pick through forty others studded with boners just to see whether there's one somewhere in there that's an actual improvement. This article needs a lot of work (particularly expansion – see threads above on this page) but what you've been doing isn't it.
This has gone on for months now with me, and YEARS, going back to 2013 with other editors. – That's just more reflexive BS from you. This article passed the (admittedly lightweight) DYK review process ten years ago, and since then (as seen both on this talk page and in the article history) there's been no dispute or controversy about it of any kind – until you showed up with your boundless self-confidence. You think you're some kind of cleanup superhero when really you're just an inexperienced editor who needs to slow his roll.
At [25] you showed you don't understand that words can be used figuratively, don't know what vandalism is, and don't know when you're making a fool of yourself. Now you're doing it again. You've wasted a lot of editor time with your bull-in-the-china-shop approach, not just here but several other articles as well.
You're not going to edit-war your changes in. It's up to you to get consensus for them. Start by making one or two clean, well-defined edits – not scattershots that remove material here, change wording there, and tinker with the wikicode all over the place in between – with appropriate edit summaries, so others can consider them and revert individually if appropriate. Or propose them here. Happy editing! EEng 07:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you didn't like three edits and reverted about ten times that many? Sounds productive! Jjazz76 (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting on List of Bells

[edit]

@EEng - I updated the list of bells being rung. Which was out of date. You reverted. Why?

First Parish Unitarian Universalist, First Baptist Church, St.{{nbsp}}Paul Roman Catholic Church, St. {{nbsp}}Peter's Roman Catholic Church, University Lutheran Church, Holy Trinity Armenian Apostolic Church, [[North Prospect United Church of Christ]], and St.{{nbsp}}Anthony's Church.}}<ref>{{Cite web |last=gazetteterrymurphy |date=2024-05-23 |title=Ringing of bells marks 373rd Commencement |url=https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2024/05/a-joyful-noise-2/ |access-date=2024-05-27 |website=Harvard Gazette |language=en-US}}</ref><!--<<end note-->

Jjazz76 (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well for starters:
    • I have no idea what the mess in the box above is supposed to be, but it's not the edit you made [26].
    • The list in the edit you made omits several bells/churches/whatever given by the source, includes one or two not in the source, and misidentifies one or two others. (What's in the box above, to the extent it can be comprehended, also doesn't match the source.)
    • Your edit deleted a ref used elsewhere in the article, creating a "named reference invoked but not defined" error.
EEng 09:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng - I stand corrected on the bells list. My bad! Jjazz76 (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting on 2024 commencement

[edit]

I added details about the 2024 commencement, well-cited and sourced. You mass revered @EEng. Why?

2024 commencement

More than 1,000 participants walked out of the 2024 commencement ceremony in "mass discontent over the decision to bar 13 pro-Palestine College student protesters from graduating."[1][2][3] An alternative "People's Commencement" was held in opposition at the Harvard-Epworth United Methodist Church in Cambridge, although later church pastors said the protest was unauthorized.[4]

References

  1. ^ "Outrage at Decision to Deny Diplomas to 13 Pro-Palestine Students Overshadows Harvard Commencement | News | The Harvard Crimson". www.thecrimson.com. Retrieved 2024-05-27.
  2. ^ Palumbo, Alysha; LeBlanc • •, Steve (2024-05-23). "Group of graduates, faculty walk out of Harvard commencement chanting 'Free, free Palestine'". NBC Boston. Retrieved 2024-05-27.
  3. ^ "Students walk out of Harvard commencement". www.wbur.org. 2024-05-23. Retrieved 2024-05-27.
  4. ^ "Church Says It Did Not Authorize 'People's Commencement' Protest After Harvard Graduation Walkout | News | The Harvard Crimson". www.thecrimson.com. Retrieved 2024-05-27.

Jjazz76 (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't mass revere anything or anyone; I'm very selected in my reverence.
But that aside, you don't seem to have read the sources closely enough to realize that they conflict on the number of walkers-out: is it "more than a thousand" (the Crimson article you cite) or "several hundred" (WBUR)? And however many there are, none of the sources refer to them as commencement "participants": about 32,000 people are typically present at Harvard's morning exercises, only about 10,000 of whom are participants -- degree candidates, faculty and other officials, etc. -- with the rest being spectators. And a Crimson article you didn't cite [27] says: "More than 1,000 people walked out ... hundreds of students rose from their seats and began to walk out", which is completely confusing. I'm uncertain how to resolve this, but this may be an example of the need to exercise caution in using student newspapers as sources. EEng 09:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the sources are not the Crimson. I'm going to add it and we can tinker with the numbers. Jjazz76 (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went with "at least several hundred" to be fair, as that is the minimum among the cited sources. Great to work on this article with you! Jjazz76 (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the sources are not the Crimson – Well, DUH -- I just quoted one of the not-Crimson sources to you. The question isn't whether there are other sources, but what to do when sources conflict, and one of them (the Crimson) is generally reliable but only with caution. EEng 09:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng - Thanks for your adds on this. Looks good! Jjazz76 (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Class Day Picture

[edit]

@EEng - You reverted my deletion of a picture from Class Day, which isn't the subject of this article. Why? Jjazz76 (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that the subject of this article isn't Class Day, but that doesn't explain why you removed the photo. After all, the subject of this article isn't Meryl Streep either, but to my knowledge you're not proposing removal of her photo. EEng 09:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes but this article is specifically about Commencements. If we want to include a picture of Class Day, we should have a paragraph about class day. Doesn't seem like a good case for keeping the picture. Jjazz76 (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to labor under the misapprehension that commencement is a single day. It's not; it's a week of events (and, nowadays, an additional day the following week as well). You could have learned that, before wasting my time and yours, by simply googling Harvard class day.
    If you can add some text to the article about Class Day, that would be an improvement to the article. EEng 09:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @EEng - Perfect! I'll do that. Do you have any preference on where it goes in the article? Jjazz76 (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @EEng - I just gave a first crack at it. But feel free to revise as needed. I think it gives the Class Day pictures a little (but maybe it needs more context) as otherwise the term looks unmentioned in the article. Jjazz76 (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been waiting a long time for someone other than me to take an interest in this article, but you need to understand that when you edit it, you're running with the big dogs and need to up your game. Your (very short) addition contained two completely false implications or assertions: that multi-day commencement celebrations were an innovation of "recent years", and that PBK holds an "induction ceremony" during commencement. This article is carefully written to conform to the sources, and I plan to keep it that way, so I really need to ask you to be more careful. EEng 08:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @EEng - sounds good! Thanks for your edits! Jjazz76 (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Score so far

[edit]

One of the three edits discussed above is the same as one of the three mentioned in my edit summary here [28], so taking 3 + 3 and then subtracting 1 to avoid double counting, the score so far is:

  • Edits reviewed or discussed that were erroneous, mixed-up, or inexplicable: 5;
  • Edits reviewed or discussed which would improve the article without introducing errors or turning parts of the article into gibberish: 0.

Let's try to do better from here out, shall we? EEng 09:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect. Jjazz76 (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, let me check ... um, 3 + 3 - 1 = 5. Yup, it's completely correct. EEng 09:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not here to keep score for your Wikipedia game. I'm here to build an encyclopedia.
Here's 1000 more points for you! Congratulations! You are the winner! Jjazz76 (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to keep score. I'm doing it for both of us. EEng 09:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of ­this

[edit]

­

@EEng - Can you explain a bit more about how this item helps with readability to readers. Articles that you edit heavily seem to be the only ones that I've found in 3 and a half or so years of editing Wikipedia that use this character. If it helps readability as you argue, why is it not more widely adopted? Jjazz76 (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would really help if you'd preview your posts before saving them, to see whether they make sense; there's no indication at all in what you say here of what "this" is, or what in the world you're talking about. Luckily, I have somehow discerned that you're talking about Template:Soft hyphen -- follow that link to understand how they work. If you don't see soft hyphens in other articles it's because their editors haven't decided that adding them to those articles is the way they want to use their editing time. EEng 09:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng Ok so why all the soft hyphens? Jjazz76 (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I had a few hours between flights one day with nothing better to do, so I added soft hyphens to every word in the article over a certain length, or something like that. EEng 08:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng - how about the real explanation? Why is it useful, and not extraneous? Jjazz76 (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For God's sake, click here and read the documentation. That's what they're for. It's not a big deal. EEng 02:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specificity of reasons for cancellations

[edit]

Harvard Library describers the reasons for the cancellations in pretty clear detail, but you took out the specificity for something more generic @EEng. Why?

https://guides.library.harvard.edu/c.php?g=1032720&p=7486389 Jjazz76 (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is a place where you can propose improvements to the article. But instead of doing that you keep asking me over and over and over and over why I reverted you edits, which I've explained repeatedly, including in this very thread. Propose an actual edit or I'm going to stop responding. EEng 09:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng - I'd like to propose we add the two main reasons that commencements have been cancelled, namely smallpox outbreaks and the American Revolution, as per the source here: https://guides.library.harvard.edu/c.php?g=1032720&p=7486389 Jjazz76 (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These unsigned research guides can be used as sources, but only with caution and definitely only where no better source is available. The one you linked is clearly a work in progress, and this [29] (already in the article) is undoubtedly a better source (for history through its date of publication, anyway). Also, eyeballing the list and concluding what the "two main reasons" for cancellation were is probably WP:OR (though maybe not the most serious kind of OR, I suppose). Even the Library's guide lists other interesting causes of cancellation, such as famine (!). All of this is the reason that the article current avoids stating the cancellation reasons in its own voice, but rather gives a little quote (apparently offhand) from the commencement director. I'm not sure we should do anything until we come across a source giving a careful summary statement by a reliable source (maybe the one I linked earlier in this post?). EEng 09:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng - I'm fine with that. As long as you are amenable to the addition with better sourcing, I'm fine with searching to see if we can get there. Jjazz76 (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Abstentia Degrees

[edit]

This practice, according to Harvard library was only adopted in 1900, but when I added it @EEng, you removed it. Why?

https://guides.library.harvard.edu/c.php?g=1032720&p=7486389 Jjazz76 (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is a place where you can propose improvements to the article. But instead of doing that you keep asking me over and over and over and over why I reverted you edits, which I've explained repeatedly, including in this very thread. Propose an actual edit or I'm going to stop responding. EEng 09:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes: Happy editing! EEng 09:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng - The text currently notes that honorary degrees "with few exceptions must be accepted in person" but the Harvard Library notes that tradition was only solidified in 1900. I'd like to see something reflect that.
https://guides.library.harvard.edu/c.php?g=1032720&p=7486389 Jjazz76 (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well again, these research guides are clearly, I'm sorry to say, of very uneven quality -- and a serious problem is that they don't cite their own sources. I think we can use it if we add [better source needed] to the citation. But this detail CERTAINLY doesn't belong in the lead, where you stuck it before. A simple statement could go at the head of the section in which past honoraries are listed. EEng 09:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, correction: I was misremembering the section listing commencement speakers as listing honorary degree recipients. EEng
@EEng - I'm still skeptical of the "with few exceptions must be accepted in person". Our sourcing on that seems to be a guide from the 1950s. Is that sufficiently sourced to make a contemporary claim about the traditions of Harvard commencement? Jjazz76 (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a guide, but rather an extremely detailed scholarly work. The relevant material is on p. 335, and BTW it's clear from that that the "research guide" is clearly wrong implication that 1900 was some sharp cutoff after which honoraries could be accepted only in person.

Other possibly useful links: [30] [31]. EEng 20:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng I'm just skeptical we have enough evidence for the "with few exceptions must be accepted in person." It seems we have a number of exceptions before 1900, and occasional examples since then. To me that is more than just "few exceptions." Feels more of a "some exceptions" sort of situation.
1945:
https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2001/05/honoris-causa-html
2022:
https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2022/06/jhj-honorary-degrees-2022 Jjazz76 (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The text as it stands is in the present tense, so what happened before 1900 isn't relevant, especially since there's a note explaining (by implication) that before the late 19C actual attendance at commencement by the recipient wasn't required. As for the present, Harvard gives about five to ten honoraries per year, and I'm pretty sure no more than a half dozen in the past 50 years have been in absentia. To me that's "few exceptions". EEng 22:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng - I like where we've landed on this. Jjazz76 (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_and_traditions_of_Harvard_commencements&oldid=1250388357"