Talk:Memorial Hall (Harvard University)

Confederate Memorial

Memorial Hall is explicitly not a memorial to the alumni of Harvard who fought for the Confederacy. There has been discussion of a Confederate Memorial at Harvard many times, most recently after Ken Burns' Civil War series in 1994, but no memorial has ever been constructed or will probably ever be constructed. Mem Hall is strictly Union only. 71.61.0.52 (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you think? How many of the Yankees who went to Harvard would have fought for the Confeds? think about it? very few. Harvard went through this in the 1950s around the couple German alumns who fought for Nazi Germany in WW2; no their names were not placed on any memorial. Sure, Harvard may have had a few Southern gentlemen who fought for CSA, but not very many, and that's not where the sympathies of most folks at Harvard and in Boston at the time lay or what they sought to commemorate in what was a bastion of Radical Republican and Abolitionist sentiment at the time. The film "Glory" depicts the marble plaques to Harvard's union dead in Memorial Hall in its opening scene, a sacrifice Harvard can be rightfully proud of. A similar monument, prominently placed, exists at MIT dedicated to its World War 2 dead.

Honestly... what makes people think that uninformed speculation is helpful to discussions such as this? As I recall (don't ask how I know this -- I have a head for such minutiae) 57 Harvard men died in gray. Compared to the 136 blue Crimson deaths this is hardly just a "few" (sorry to say). EEng (talk) 06:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I realize this is an old discussion, but I'll just add this--individuals' names are in Memorial Hall. If anyone wants to claim Confederate dead are listed, they can cite an entry in the hall, or else leave it be. Claudia (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I can additionally confirm no presence of conferederate names inside memorial hall MemHallUsher (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Merge from Sanders Theater

I think it's more than natural that Mem Hall and Sanders be treated in a single article. I can't imagine this could be controversial, so I'm just going to go ahead. (If someone points out some reason this is actually a numbskull idea, I'll be happy to undo the damage myself.)

Despite the adminsitrative joinder with Lowell Lecture Hall, I don't think it's appropriate to merge that topic in as well. (Doesn't seem to be an article on it yet anyway.)

Angels-dancing-on-head-of-a-pin question

Should the merged article be simply Memorial Hall (Harvard University) or Memorial Hall and Sanders Theater (Harvard University) i.e. is Sanders a part of Mem Hall, or its co-equal, so to speak. Whatever the formal, historical answer may be, combining WP:NAMINGCRITERIA with [1] points to simply Memorial Hall (Harvard University) as the right choice. (Historical formalities can be clarified in the article.) Naturally there will be redirects from:

• Annenberg Hall (Harvard University)
• Sanders Theater This is the title of the current Sanders article
• Sanders Theater (Harvard University)
• Loker Commons (Harvard University)
• Memorial Transept (Harvard University)
• Alumni Hall (Harvard University)
• Delta (dabpage)
• Registration Hurry-Up-and-Wait Hall (Harvard University) Just kidding!
• anything else...??

EEng (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe there should be two separate pages as historically and currently it is rare for anyone other than Harvard students and Harvard alumni to access Annenberg Hall. Sanders Theater is the only space where public ticketed access can be available. Memorial Transept is the space that physically connects the two spaces. Public access to Memorial Transept varies, but ticketed access to Sanders Theater de facto provides access to Memorial Transept. The history of Sanders Theater as a performance venue (in film media, live acts of varied nature) is noteworthy and may call for its own sub section if not page. Separately but similarly, I would like to contribute and add references regarding the names inscribed on the tablets throughout Memorial Transept and provide links to / from the respective individuals Wikipedia pages. I welcome feedback. Thank you. MemHallUsher (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I violently disagree with a split. Who has what access is a very minor (trivial, really) issue. The entire building is architecturally one, and a page split would necessitate much tiresome duplication.

The article is highly incomplete, and material on Sanders' history as a performance venue, historic speeches given there, and so on would be great. The names on the tablets would make a terrific list article (for which an interesting question is the order of presentation). Other (harder) lists would be the windows, and the portraits, statuary, and so on. EEng 18:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Additional sources

•  Done H Magazine Discusses the chronology of Mem Hall horology. EEng (talk) 06:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
• H Gazette "Making of Memorial Hall" 2012, includes photo showing JH statue in its original location
• H Archives
•  Done Education, Bricks, and Mortar 1949
• Bunting
• Morison, Three Centuries
• [*[2] Oxonian, search "Great hall", p. 92
• [3] Landmark nomination, full of detail
• H Mag, "The College Pump", re rebuilding tower and "Railroad Gothic"
• H Alumni Bull v 11 1903 p.457 "Two Interesting Matters" (unsigned, but apparently excerpted from Pres Eliot's annual report) p355-7 at 357 "The presentprice of board in Memorial Hall (abouit $4.10 per week) is higher than the highest rate of board in private houses in Cambridge fifty years ago."

Potential image sources (subject to copyright check)

• [4] Fantastic images -- most are likely out of copyright. (Note they cribbed their text from WP!)
• [5] Commons category, Harvard bldgs
• interior, unqualified -- abundant potential image sources via Google
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Harvard_Square_aerial_1921.jpg Aerial view of Cambridge showing clearly the Delta and poor Jhn Harvard alone on his windswept wedge of grass

The articles already too image-heavy (for the current amount of text) but here's one for the future:

Class day abour 1900 (see img descr pg)

• [6] Film footage of tower on fire, 1956
• [7] Fire
• [8] More fire pics

Jarvis Field sources

• http://www.historicmapworks.com/Map/US/10282/Plate+B/Cambridge+1873/Massachusetts/ (map)
• http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/File:Harvard_University_map_(older,_date_unknown).jpg (another map, likely a WP/Commons mirror)
• File:JarvisField HarvardUniversity.jpg

Imposing is WP:WEASEL

Before restoring this, please see the article on WP:WEASEL. This term should not be used on Wikipedia, and that it exists elsewhere is only a reason to remove it from there per WP:OTHERSTUFF. That it is sourced is a non-sequitur, it is still far too subjective and WP:WEASEL still applies. The proper way would be to state "described as imposing", and this type of language is inappropriate for the lede, hence it goes. Carl Fredrik ^talk 12:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

WEASEL obviously has nothing to do with this, but let's assume you're confusing WEASEL with WP:PEACOCK. It is no more inappropriate to refer to an indisputably imposing (305 ft x 113 ft, tower 190 ft) High Victorian Gothic building, so described in multiple sources, as an imposing High Victorian Gothic building than it is to describe Abraham Lincoln (1920 statue) as colossal or St Paul's Cathedral as "dominating the skyline". Imposing is a common term in the vocabulary of architectural criticism and need not be quoted or attributed when there's no indication of dissent or disagreement. To say Memorial Hall is "described as imposing" would be as ridiculous as saying the Statue of Liberty is "described as big". EEng 06:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Most university halls are large, even imposing, particularly those at large universities, particularly those that merit their own Wikipedia articles. The infobox image pretty much screams "imposing", and |alt= could be added for benefit of the vision-impaired. I don't see much value in or need for any adjective there. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Mass Hall. Imposing does not come to mind.

Cruft Hall. I wouldn't dream of imposing.

I love these discussions. Is it your suggestion, Mandruss, that since the image screams imposing, the alt= should include that word so that the visually impaired will not be at disadvantaged, relative to their sighted brethren, in their comprehension of this edifice's imposing-ness (or imposition, or whatever it is imposing buildings impose on those encountering them)?

So it seems we have two diametrically opposed lines of reasoning leading, oddly, to the same conclusion. On the one hand, the OP asserts that because that it's insufficiently an incontrovertible assertion that Memorial Hall is imposing, it must not be so described. Joined to that, we now have the assertion that since it's patently obvious that it's imposing, it need not be so described. Fabulous. In any event, with the idea that "most university halls are large" I'm afraid I must differ. For example, Massachusetts_Hall_(Harvard_University) (left) has its own article, and while impressive for its history it can hardly be described as imposing. I think the same might safely be said of Cruft Hall (right). EEng 19:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

EEng 19:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it your suggestion, Mandruss... No. It is my suggestion that |alt= could be added to describe the image in objective terms, as all |alt= parameters are supposed to do. The vision-impaired reader could then apply their own subjective adjectives, in the same manner as the sighted could do using the image itself.
Fabulous. I really don't see your point. Editors with different viewpoints or opinions is a problem, somehow?
I'm afraid I must differ. imposing: "impressive in size, bearing, dignity, or grandeur". I'm impressed by the size of Mass Hall. It's a whole lot bigger than I am. Maybe you're harder to impress. Regardless, surely you know what "most" means and don't propose to refute the claim with two cherry-picked examples? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• You said that the image made it obvious (to a sighted reader) that the building is imposing. So, assuming the word isn't used in the caption, why wouldn't we give sight-impaired readers the benefit of that insight?
• It's indeed fabulous, as in something from a fable, when two editors present completely logically inconsistent reasoning in support of each other's positions. (NB: I would never, of course, use a POV, PEACOCKy term like fabulous in an article unless supported by appropriate sources.)
• No cherry picking (though I do love cherries). You asserted that "most university halls are large, even imposing, particularly those at large universities", with the implication (I guess) that readers will assume that a university "hall" is imposing by default. I just wanted to show that it's easy to find exceptions, which weakens that notion. And even if we do assume that readers make that assumption, doesn't that imply we, in the case of halls not described by sources as imposing, point out in their articles that they are "not imposing", so that readers won't be misled?

EEng 17:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• I guess I haven't been clear. Maybe I haven't even been consistent. At this point I'm saying the reader can form their own opinion as to imposing or not from looking at the image, and from their knowledge about university halls in general, depending on that experience. That covers everybody but vision-impaired readers, who comprise, what, about 1 in 500 readers? For them, we can do our best to give them a mental image using |alt=. When there is strong disagreement about the choice of a word, the first question I ask is whether any word is really needed. If I haven't been clear enough, see my proposed first sentence below (no adjective).
• when two editors present completely logically inconsistent reasoning in support of each other's positions. I'm not supporting anybody's position. I stated mine, and AFAICT it's the only one advocating no adjective at all. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

These example are all subjective, which is why we should avoid presenting such adjectives in Wikipedia's voice. Carl Fredrik ^talk 21:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

When it's in quotation marks, followed immediately by quoted citations, it's not in Wikipedia's voice. WP:WEASEL refers to unsupported attributions. This one, clearly, is well supported. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

For the record, Hertz1888, I took out the quotes, because imposing is a standard term in architectural criticism. Since it's repeatedly used in multiple sources in describing the subject, and there's no source in any way dissenting from that, it becomes simply an straightforward fact that the article can assert flatly. EEng 17:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

As already pointed out that what really applies is WP:PEACOCK, which is may I point out 2 paragraphs up from WP:WEASEL, so it is somewhat disingeneous to portrait this as the entirely wrong thing. I'm not adverse to using the word, just not in the first sentence as it is a clear case of peacocking. The same is in principle true for the Statue of Liberty, but WP:OTHERSTUFF, and that is a discussion that can be had in the future. These adjectives would not be allowed anywhere else on Wikipedia, why would they be okay on architectural articles? Carl Fredrik ^talk 22:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Because it's part of the routine vocabulary of architectural criticism. [9][10][11][12][13]. EEng 17:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to ask whether you're purposefully missing the point: the term isn't neutral. The same can be said about various routine terms used in art, but we do not allow words like "beautiful", "renowned", "masterful", etc. Why would we make these types of exceptions for architecture? Carl Fredrik ^talk 12:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I have to wonder who it is that is missing the point here. WP:PEACOCK objects only to using words to watch without attribution or verifiability, both of which are amply present in the current situation. "Imposing" is not explicitly on the list of words to watch (I am not good at divining what is included by inference in the "..." at the end of the list). If "imposing" is commonly used in architectural criticism, then I would not deem it puffery. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Memorial Hall, immediately north of Harvard Yard in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is a High Victorian Gothic building honoring the sacrifices made by Harvard men in defense of the Union during the American Civil War‍—‌"a symbol of Boston's commitment to the Unionist cause and the abolitionist movement in America."
  |alt=A ground-level exterior photo of a large, ornate, 19th-century building. The main body of the building is longer than high, with two stories below a steep and tall roof, and a tower rises from the far end. The building's exterior walls appear to be constructed mostly of red-orange brick. The roof surfaces are broad horizontal stripes, of widely varying widths, in pale shades of blue, light brown, and red-orange. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Love the ALT. I've added it, somewhat modified. EEng 17:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Seven years later ...

To bring this up again, it is WP:PEACOCK to suggest this in Wikipedias voice. If you insist on keeping it you need to qualify with "described as imposing", or just large. That something is not expressly on the list of example adjectives does not matter. CFCF (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

And to answer you again, imposing is a common term in architectural criticism, and if sources describe the subject that way (and add ten more could easily be added to the three already cited) that's the way the article will describe it as well. We don't need to say it's "described as" imposing when abundant sources agree that it's just plain imposing. The article has read this way for LITERALLY seventeen years. Every few years you show up to complain about it, but you have been signally unable to convince other editors of the validity of your position. Why you're obsessed with this particular point, I have no idea, but slow-motion editwarring is still editwarring. Get consensus or leave it alone. EEng 23:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Also worth pointing out the three cites are from before 1900. Maybe it was imposing then, but there's no evidence it is currently imposing, 130 years+ later. Jjazz76 (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

You got a cite for that? EEng 01:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

What's the evidence anyone has called it imposing since say 1950? Why wouldn't a more accurate line be something along "in the years immediately after it was built" or some other qualifier. Using 100 and 200 year old documents to make claims about what is "current" is a bad look. Jjazz76 (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Unexplained changes

An editor has been repeatedly trying to impose a single large-scale edit, which mostly simply churns the internal wikitext without changing the rendered page, but with few substantive changes sprinkled in. The only description offered has been that his verions is "without weird paragraph breaks and unnecessary words" [14]. However, it's almost impossible to tell what's actually being changed, or why, given the huge size of the diff. Repeated requests for an explanation [15][16] have been ignored. I'm asking here once more for an explanation of how each substantive change improves the article. EEng 05:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)