Talk:Harvard University

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2016

Section about the Campus: "Between 2011 and 2013, Harvard University reported crime statistics for its main Cambridge campus that included 104 forcible sex offenses, 55 robberies, 83 aggravated assaults, 89 burglaries, and 43 cases of motor vehicle theft."

Should be updated with relevant information directly from Harvard University Chief University Spokesperson Jeff Neal indicating that:

As of April 2016 Harvard reported to the Wall Street Journal that 31 % of female Harvard College seniors experienced nonconsensual sexual contact.

Jonsrule (talk) 05:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm out of the country so can't get through the paywall. By any chance does the article state, or do you have another source for, how that compares to other schools? As with the other numbers, uncontextualized stuff like this tells the reader very little. EEng 15:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The comments by the Chief University Spokesperson only addresses issues on their campus. In a sence that might be appropriate restraint. The information on the current page is several years outdated and it seems to make sence to provide details from Harvard recently published in the most widly circualted US newspaper. Mr. Neal points out in his comments that the statistic comes from "A recent survey conducted by an independent company" and seeminly stems from the fact that "Harvard [will not] ignore the pervasive problems of sexual assault and inclusion that are plaguing many institutions of higher education across the nation." Jonsrule (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

My concern is that college/university articles are plagued with two kinds of "statistics": raw stuff like the above, with no context allowing the reader to envision what it means about the subject institution vis a vis other institutions, and sometimes bizarre "rankings" which do purport to compare institutions, but turn out to do so based on shockingly flimsy and ill-considered mishmash statistics. Did Neal really say that 31% of female seniors experienced nonconsensual contact, or that 31% reported such experience? And is this really the %age of all females seniors, or the %age among a sample of some kind (perhaps self-selected)? When details like that aren't reported along with a figure, it's a red flag. EEng 22:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The statistic is not trivial and it comes from page 31 of a study supported by Harvard's Task Force on Prevention of Sexual Assault [2],

the results are here: [3] On page 30 (and elsewhere) there are some stats that show Harvard's reporting relative to the 27 other institutions that accepted the Association of American Universities' invitation to participate in the survey which was conducted by Westat. In short, this information is current, significantly supported by Harvard itself and relevant to life on campus. Jonsrule (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say or imply the statistic was trivial. I said (implied, I guess) that I wanted to avoid the reduction to meaninglessness with which many other statistics/rankings are presented, and asked what Neal actually said. I don't see what you're talking about on page 30 -- what's the first few words of the page you're looking at? EEng 23:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Original edit request has not replied to EEng for 15+ days. Closing for now. It's also become unclear what is the scope of the change requested. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 08:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The request is to update this section. The information on the current page is outdated and contrary to even the public comments of the Chief Spokesperson for the University. The objection to my update request was that the information was out of context or didn't related to other Universities. In response I provided data supporting my point that comes directly from a Harvard supported study (link above and here: ]) across a large number of institutions. Just today in the Washington Post is analysis showing the disproportionate number of sexual assault cases at Harvard:

I suggest the Section about the Campus: "Between 2011 and 2013, Harvard University reported crime statistics for its main Cambridge campus that included 104 forcible sex offenses, 55 robberies, 83 aggravated assaults, 89 burglaries, and 43 cases of motor vehicle theft." should be updated with more current and relevant information from directly from Harvard University Chief University Spokesperson Jeff Neal and possibly include the germane analysis provided from the Washington Post:

As of April 2016 Harvard reported to the Wall Street Journal that 31 % of female Harvard College seniors experienced nonconsensual sexual contact. Analysis done by the Washington Post in 2016 documented that Harvard ranked 6th for total number of rape cases in 2014.

Jonsrule (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Looks like you are autoconfirmed. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 04:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• Jonsrule: You say, "Just today in the Washington Post is analysis showing the disproportionate number of sexual assault cases at Harvard". Where in that article is that said or implied? EEng 05:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The text I propose (above) says "Analysis done by the Washington Post in 2016 documented that Harvard ranked 6th for total number of rape cases in 2014.". This is straight from the analysis by Washington Post. Jonsrule (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

First of all, this isn't the number of rapes, it's the number of reported rapes, and as the second paragraph of the Post article says, "The data reflect what victim advocates say is a positive trend: Growing numbers of students who may have experienced a sexual assault are stepping forward to tell authorities about incidents that in years past might have gone unreported."

And even putting that aside, a high number of assaults is completely different from a disproportionate number. You said the Post's analysis shows "the disproportionate number of sexual assault cases at Harvard", when in fact it's the opposite: Harvard's rate of 1.1 per 1000 compares quite favorably to the schools which really are in the top 10 (i.e. top 10 by rate, not by the meaningless raw count) which run from Reed (12.9) down to Dartmouth (6.7). Harvard being in the top 10% with respect to # of students, it wouldn't be surprising if it was also in the top 10% with respect to # of reported assaults.

And it's quite obvious that there are severe apples-to-oranges problems here, in several dimensions. As the article itself notes, "Sometimes the campus layout affects how the data are reported. At 49,200-student New York University, for instance, there were zero rapes reported on campus in 2014 but six reported in off-campus properties linked to NYU. Most of NYU’s residence halls in Manhattan are off campus." So in-residence assaults at NYU don't count (and thus NYU shows zero rapes -- you really believe that?) whereas at Harvard (where essentially 100% of undergraduates live on campus) the opposite is true.

Once again, even if Harvard's rate was unusually high -- and it's not -- that might very well mean Harvard does a good job of helping victims feel comfortable about coming forward. You seem to be trying to make some point, but whatever it is it can't be made by serving up a raw number and ranking it with no explanation or understanding of what it means. EEng 06:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Continuing

To EEng, the edit completely meets Wikipedia requirements, while your objections are your own interpretation of the data. In your argument you imply that NYU is falsifying data, and seem to believe this is a valid reason to exclude this edit. That has no bearing. Do you want to have this arbitrated? Formulairis990 (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no person or body that "arbitrates" content. If you want to discuss this usefully, you're going to have to start by reading carefully what I wrote above (which your comment re NYU shows you haven't) and responding to it. Stuff isn't included willy-nilly just because it's out there; it needs to serve the reader's understanding of the subject, and a raw number of reported rapes (instead of a rates-per), with no recognition of the apples-oranges problem of residential vs. non-residential schools and so on, doesn't do that.

Your contribution history [4] suggests that you're here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS re rape at leading colleges, and that's bound to lead to frustration for you. In addition, edits like this [5] are WP:CANVASSING, which is a no-no. EEng 00:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

You consider it canvassing that I informed the other person involved in this discussion? Why do you assume I'm frustrated? And what bearing does this have on the validity of the edit? By arbitration I was referring to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee

Mediation only applies to a dispute between 2 editors. But here we have 2 for and you against. How should we proceed? Formulairis990 (talk) 01:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Given the earlier discussion in this thread, it's canvassing -- for example, why didn't you notify the editors who have participated in other threads on this page? The purpose of notification in a case like this is to broaden participation, not to prompt someone who agrees with you comes to come running. I didn't assume you're frustrated; I predicted you will become frustrated if you try to use WP to RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

I don't know where you get the idea that mediation (see WP:DRN) is only for two editors, but anyway we're way, way far from that, and ArbCom doesn't settle content disputes, as I've already explained. As for 2-against-1, see WP:NOTVOTE. We should proceed by you reading, understanding, and responding to my points above. Otherwise this discussion is over before it's even begun. EEng 02:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I reread your arguments, they're erroneous as in the first reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formulairis990 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

First: my original edit is half of Jonsrule (talk)'s original edit.

But I will argue in support of his edit as well.

My edit contained two elements: the number of reported rapes on the main campus, and the ranking based on that number.

Do you object to either elements being included?

Jonsrule (talk)'s original edit was:

As of April 2016 Harvard reported to the Wall Street Journal that 31 % of female Harvard College seniors experienced nonconsensual sexual contact.

You seem to object to this edit regardless of the validity of the number, but you also object to the methodology of the survey behind the number and question the wording in the cited Harvard report, regarding what the number represents, aside from the other objections you raised.

Is this correct?

You also object the current section the edit will update, why haven't you excised it?

I will continue after you respond to the above.

Regarding mediation, I meant WP:3 which is for two editors only.

Regarding arbitration I meant WP:DRN.

Please focus your argument on the validity of the edit and the arguments for it, rather than attacking your projection of me.

Regarding WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS that is an essay, not policy, and it explicitly supports this type of edit in the closest scenario it provides.

It states:

"if you want to: Expose a popular artist as a child molester...you’ll have to wait until it’s been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses."

The edit fits this description.

Formulairis990 (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Please learn to format your comments. They're almost unreadable as you've laid them out. I'm afraid I have deadline coming up, so won't be able to participate further until at least Friday. I suspect that in the meantime other editors may come by who can explain this to you better than I've been able to so far. EEng 00:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

How would you like me to format my comments? You mean spaces between paragraphs? Formulairis990 (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice if your comments weren't a long series of one-sentence separate paragraphs, so the flow of what you're saying can be followed. Now let me ask you a question Why isn't your proposed edit,

In 2014, Harvard University had 33 reports of rape, the fifth highest of any college in the nation on its main campus. According The Washington Post, this "reflects what victim advocates say is a positive trend: Growing numbers of students who may have experienced a sexual assault are stepping forward to tell authorities about incidents that in years past might have gone unreported."

- ? EEng 17:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

In it's current form, your edit is improper editorial synthesis wp:syn misrepresenting the sourced material, because it makes the quote appear as if it is specifically about Harvard. Your edit implies that Harvard's rape ranking is more accurate than other schools and as a result higher, due to a survey bias, when in fact the subject of the quoted speculation is not Harvard students, but student reporting across the nation taken as a whole. It is not specific to any school, and makes no claims one way or the other about Harvard. You seem persistent in trying to minimize Harvard's relative ranking: You earlier opposed the edit based on your own personal unsourced doubts of Harvard's statistical methodology and the accuracy of a WSJ quote by a Harvard administrator, but now you want to misrepresent speculation attributed to unidentified "advocates" in the Washington Post.

I do think the edit should include both Harvard's ranking in reported rapes per main campus, as well as per 1,000 students. This addresses your pov giving more weight to the second ranking and dismissing the first. The edit should also include the WSJ quoted stats on 31% of senior female students experiencing "non-consensual sexual contact", and 47% of those who also attended an all-male club event. The edit should also include male stats; these would come directly from the Harvard presentation and study.

I would support adding text on Harvard's efforts to get students to fill out the survey, such as having alumnus Conan O'Brien urge students to fill out the survey: http://sexualassaulttaskforce.harvard.edu/sexualconductsurvey . But it would be misleading wp:syn to use this to imply that Harvard's numbers are more accurate than other schools'. For all you know, a community college could have staged Punch and Judy, with a party clown giving out balloons about the survey.

The edit should go into detail with material from http://www.wsj.com/articles/harvard-to-bar-members-of-single-gender-clubs-from-leadership-in-official-groups-1462548655 about the all-male clubs' role in sexual assaults as identified by the Harvard Task Force on Sexual Assault Prevention and described in the WSJ article: "deeply misogynistic attitudes," "strong sense of sexual entitlement," "women admitted for social occasions, based in part on their appearance or ties to members, according to current and former Harvard students." And describe Harvard's efforts to combat them.Formulairis990 (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not misleading, since the Post made the point ("The data reflect what victim advocates say is a positive trend: Growing numbers of students who may have experienced a sexual assault are stepping forward to tell authorities about incidents that in years past might have gone unreported.") as the second sentence of its article. What would be misleading would be reporting a shock-value "fifth-highest number of rapes in the nation" -- a raw # unadjusted for enrollment. It's like saying that California has the most rapes of all the states, as if that meant something -- it's stupid. Reporting the raw #, followed by the rate-per-1000, seems to be acceptable, as would adding the ranking of the rate-per (if it was available), [bolding added to aid backward ref from later post] but reporting the rank of the raw # is out of the question, because it either (a) says nothing at all (to the discerning reader who realizes it's meaningless) or (b) completely misleads (in the case of the naive reader who doesn't see that it's meaningless). I'm not trying to minimize Harvard's relative ranking but rather prevent the inclusion of meaningless numbers which don't serve the reader's understanding of the subject; newspapers report all kinds of raw stuff for the record which has no place in an encyclopedia article. EEng 18:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Really? Sentence location trumps semantics?

To focus on your objections to the Harvard reported rapes per main campus ranking: Could you explain your apparent double standard when it comes to your edits involving the raw ranking of Harvard's endowment and library? In your edit https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?oldid=714717632&diff=prev you modified the article from Harvard endowment's being the largest in the US to being the "largest in the world". Aside from your use of a primary source, a Harvard HTML web page, that currently makes no such claims. You assert a raw ranking: that Harvard is largest in the world. By your objections to the reported rape rankings per main campus, your asserted raw ranking is meaningless. According to https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_the_United_States_by_endowment Harvard is third in endowment per student ranking, and way behind much smaller Princeton. And by your objections, your raw endowment ranking makes "no recognition of the apples-oranges problem" involving significant differences between the universities such as Harvard having a two century head start over the 4th place university, and likely close to three centuries over a significant number of all schools in the US (financial performance evaluation always involves time), never mind other significant factors.

Similarly in your edit of https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Harvard_University&diff=prev&oldid=710958889

In the following edit you spruce up the copy of the raw ranking of Harvard Library as the largest private one in the world, though you do not state what they are large in: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?oldid=624939548&diff=prev . Aside from your current source only covering the "largest libraries in the United States by volumes held", by your objections you have "no recognition of the apples-oranges problem": Yale has more volumes per student.Formulairis990 (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Dividing X reported rapes by Y students (to get 1.1 reports/1000) makes sense because it yields a measure of the "risk" of being raped (albeit with extremely serious reporting and definitional questions, as already noted). To not do that, and state in the article that the raw count is "#5 in the nation" would be like a headline declaring that "California leads the nation in rapes", which would be ridiculous.
• The size of a research collection acts a (crude) measures of the breadth and comprehensiveness of research materials available at the institution. These materials aren't divvied up among students, so dividing A million books by B thousand students ("sorry, due to increasing enrollment you get only 673 books each this year") would be, to put it charitably, laughable.
• Endowment is a mixed situation. Where an endowment allows a school to (e.g.) build and operate a museum, that museum isn't "diluted" by a larger or smaller student body, so to that extent dividing by enrollment makes no sense; to the extent an endowment is used for student financial aid, such a ratio would makes sense. There's certainly an argument for including both raw and per-student endowment numbers (just as "GNP" for California might usefully be presented as a raw # -- showing its economic size and influence -- as well as in per-person terms -- measuring the wealth and income of individuals). Your idea of dividing endowment size by the length of time since a given school's founding reflects a misunderstanding of higher education in the US, since (a) the purpose here is to reflect endowments as a piece of what each institution is now, not to measure the investment acumen of various schools' portfolio managers in some mythical race over time; (b) the huge endowments of the top institutions were all built during the last 100 years anyway.
• The apples-oranges problem has to do with things like e.g. residential schools (which count in-residence incidents in their figures) vs. non-residential schools (which don't), and this is still there regardless of whether you divide by student body size or not.

So there's no double standard, as you claim. I think it's cute the way you combed my contribution history trying to catch me in a contradiction, but you're going to have to try harder. EEng 10:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's go to dispute resolution. The absence of this information is very conspicuous.

I see why you've been repeatedly banned for: "clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia... disruptive editing... personal attacks... uncivil nature against other editors" Your comments on endowments are just bizarre. You just make stuff up, like your false edits. Every single response you made to the original editor and me has been disingenuous, starting with your groundless trivializing, as Jonsrule (talk) said, of a survey conducted by the chairman of the Havard Economics department.

You even attempted to convince me to make an edit with a misleading claim.

The way I came across your false edits was that I was reviewing the endowment info in the article to cite here, the superlative description raised a red flag, I looked for other superlatives and found the library one. So I read the sources, and found they made no such claims. So I looked for the source of the edits, and sure enough it was you. No surprise. This is in kind with your pattern.

Regarding the Washington Post data analysis: You make repeated groundless assumptions and you seek to impose your pov by precluding different interpretations of the data by censoring it. Your assumptions are:

• there is a linear relationship between rapes and population size
• there is a uniform distribution of rapes
• that the above holds across within schools and across all schools
• that rapes per institution is an invalid measure
• that rapers per capita is the only valid measure
• the rape stats are of only interest for risk evaluation
• that rapers per-capita is an actual risk evaluation
• that people evaluate schools with uniform expectations and standards
• that there aren't significant alternative povs to yours
• that only naive readers should be served

The reason the WPost provides both per capita and per institution rankings is because it is doing what is called: exploratory data analysis. It is almost certainly because the Washington Post understands assumptions such as yours are groundless, that it explores both units of measure to provide different perspectives on their own and in combination. It does this because significant patterns may be buried in the per capita unit of measure. At a minimum it may indicate institutional leadership, policies and approach, and community norms and dynamics that may underlie the numbers seen. For instance a reader may justifiably wonder if the Harvard number stems from Lawrence Summers' leadership [6] because of his views on women in academia. A per institution measure may also reveal clusters that are responsible for a significant amount of the numbers, as Harvard has identified in associations with male only clubs.

It is easy to see alternative povs on the data. Imagine Harvard is Tesla, and the rapes are crashes. There are justifiably different expectations of Tesla. Imagine the rapes are terrorist attacks or mass shootings and the schools as countries. The common unit of measure country, not capita.

Harvard to its credit -- at a cursory glance -- appears to be taking the institutional responsibility perspective head on, as opposed to saying judge us by our per capita ranking, least because it knows few will do so but will note the absence of most of the Ivy League schools: comparably sized Columbia, Cornell, UPenn and smaller Princeton and Yale. And if rapes significantly go down, this will be used as a point of evaluation of how the school operates. And then it will join the ranks of most Ivy League schools on this standard. Take a lesson from Harvard on this. Formulairis990 (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• If you thought you'd embarrass me by bringing up my various blocks, you must have missed the box at the top of my userpage --

This user has been blocked several times, and isn't embarrassed about it - (see my block log here!).

-- not to mention such threads as "Hands-down the worst block I've seen in my time on Wikipedia, and I've seen some whoppers" and Review_of_EEng's_indefinite_block and Unblocked and so on.

• Since I have a degree in statistics I really don't need any tips on data analysis, nor am I making any such assumptions as "there is a linear relationship between rapes and population size" or "there is a uniform distribution of rapes" and so on (some of which aren't even intelligible as propositions, much less propositions one might or might not assume), nor do you understand the concept of "POV" as used here on Wikipedia, though you throw the term around a lot.
• I haven't tried to convince you to make any edit, much less one with "with a misleading claim."
• I have made no "false edits". (In this diff you linked [7] I accidentally dropped the Crimson source for largest endowment -- a fact you would have seen on the left side of the diff if you were as concerned about improving articles as you are about continuing your ham-handed attempts to catch me out -- but that's not a "false edit", and anyway I've fixed that now [8], adding up-to-date sources. My "library" edit [9] was strictly copyediting with no changes to facts asserted or sources cited, so I have no idea what your complaint could be.) I personally don't care about being on the receiving end of self-indicting attacks, but others aren't so forgiving, and if you hang around Wikipedia long enough you will find that such accusations will get you into very hot water very fast.

I've proposed [proposal now bolded in my earlier post, above] reporting raw # and rate-per, but omitting the rank of the raw #, but you've ignored that proposal, preferring to ramble on about what you think I'm assuming and my alleged biases. That kind of behavior won't serve you well, either here or elsewhere at Wikipedia.

EEng 06:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

So again, are you willing to go to dispute resolution or not? You've similarly been evasive when I previously asked you straightforward questions regarding what it is you exactly object to and want, such as whether you objected to including even just "the number of reported rapes on the main campus". Go back to my quote and see how long it took you to seemingly respond.

You've previously indicated that with the raw# you wanted to include a statement which I objected to on the grounds that it was wp:syn. Are you willing to just include the raw# without that statemet?

The reason I listed all those assumptions as inherent in your labeling of rapes per capita as risk is because you did not provide any reasoning for your interpretation. The Washington Post does not make any such interpretation.Formulairis990 (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Dispute resolution is for situations in which there's been thorough good-faith discussion among the parties. Since you mostly harp about my alleged biases that doesn't apply here. If you, one more time, call me "evasive" or anything else, I'm going to quit this discussion. Then you can go see how much sympathy you get elsewhere.
• I never indicated that I "wanted to include a statement which [you] objected to"; I asked you why you hadn't proposed a certain edit. This is the second time you've accused me of this, and again if you say it one more time I'm going to quit this discussion.
• I'm proposing now, for the third time (see #proposal), that we "Report the raw #, followed by the rate-per-1000" (the rank of the rate doesn't seem to be available) i.e.

In 2014 there were 33 reports of rape among Harvard's 28000 students, for a rate of 1.1 per thousand.

Speak to that proposal, and not about me, or (I now warn you for the final time) this discussion is over. EEng 01:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Please address the assumptions I posted above. If they are not correct, please provide an explanation for of why you believe rapes per capita is a valid statistic while rapes per main campus is not. Please also explain why you label it as a risk measure. The article specifically pointed out the Harvard number of rapes per main campus because it is an outlier. The Harvard number jumps out at you when you sort the table in the article by enrollment. As you scroll down it is very clear Harvard stands out.Formulairis990 (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not making any assumptions. The edit I've suggested includes the raw number of rapes (what you call "rapes per main campus"), which is what you seem to be asking for. EEng 17:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

(came from help desk) It seems EEng is objecting to straightforward stats by Washington post because he's worried about how they might be interpreted/how they were arrived at...but it's well sourced and says what it says so these worries amount to original research really...what am I missing?68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Continuing2

EEng, please respond to the good point made by user 68.48.241.158, describing your objection as original research to the Washington Post analysis. Note, I moved the reflist tag to the bottom of the talk section. EEng, to summarize our discussion thus far: I would like to include the Harvard rapes per campus ranking that the Washington Post arrived at. You wish to prevent that. Initially you also appeared to be against any mention of the latest Harvard rapes stats. The above listed assumptions were regarding your argument that Harvard rapes per capita is a valid stat -- though it has not been discussed in any publication -- while you claim that the Washington Post analysis of Harvard rapes per campus ranking is invalid.

Below is my edit: I've included the rapes per capita you wanted, though it is not discussed in the article, but only in the included table of all collected school stats.

EDIT BEGIN

In 2014, Harvard University had 33 reports of rape on its main campus, the fifth highest of any college in the nation, according to a Washington Post analysis of federal campus safety data, and 1.1 rape reports per 1000 students.

A 2015 sexual-conduct survey of Harvard students conducted by the Harvard Task Force on the Prevention of Sexual Assualt found that 47% of senior women who participated in single-gender final club activities experienced "non-consensual sexual contact," compared with 31% of all senior women at the school. A March 8, 2016 report by the Task Force "blasted the single-gender final clubs, referring mainly to the all-male groups, for 'deeply misogynistic attitudes,' as well as 'a strong sense of sexual entitlement.'” College Dean Rakesh Khurana has stated the groups "undermine Harvard’s campus culture,” and are “antithetical to our institutional values.”"Though less than 10% of undergraduates are members of final clubs, by some estimates, the men’s groups in particular hold an outsize influence on campus as the gatekeepers to parties at well-appointed mansions around Cambridge, Mass."

The report found that the clubs are “imbued with a certain historical tradition that elevates members’ social status on campus,” "creating an aura of sexual entitlement". “A woman’s physical appearance is often seen as the basis for entry to these spaces, and female students described a general expectation that entering final club spaces could be read as implicit agreement to have sexual encounters with members,” it said. According to the report, non-member male students "are excluded from parties at many of the clubs," creating “a gender ratio that makes it easier for members to have a sexual encounter.” "Party themes and invitations have reflected misogynistic views and reinforced a sense of sexual entitlement, according to the report, which also pointed to 'competitive games between members where a man will ‘'win'’ a particular woman or compete for the most sexual triumphs.'” In 1984, the male final clubs and Harvard severed official ties over admitting women as members.

Harvard does not fund or govern final clubs directly.

A new policy announced by Harvard President Drew Gilpin Faust and Mr. Khurana on May 6, 2016 and starting with the 2017 fall entering class, bars members in the single-gender final clubs "from receiving the official recommendations required for prestigious postgraduate fellowships and scholarships, such as the Rhodes and Marshall Scholarships." Members will be barred from holding leadership positions in campus groups, including athletic team captains; "many club members have historically been captains"

EDIT END

Formulairis990 (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• WP:OR applies to article content. In discussing article content, editors are not only allowed, but compelled, to use logic, common sense, and knowledge of the world and the subject area to judge what material is appropriate for inclusion. Just because a fact is available and sourced doesn't necessarily mean that it serves the reader's understanding of the subject, and therefore it doesn't necessarily belong in the article.
• With respect to your first sentence, saying that Harvard's raw # of rape reports is "the fifth highest of any college in the nation", ignoring that Harvard is one of the largest of these schools, has no informative value. Again, it's like saying "California has the most rapes of all the states", as if that meant something. It doesn't.
• As for the rest of your edit: (a) It's grossly WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT, cobbling together bits and piece of sources (some of them WP:PRIMARY or borderline so) to paint a sensationalist picture. The article is currently 4700 words, and you want to add 440 words, or 10%, on this topic alone -- it's absurd. Or, if we assume the article is lacking in many ways, and would be twice as long if properly developed, then still 5% of the article on this 400-year-old institution would be this recent WP:NEWS. (b) This material (i.e. after the your first sentence) is not about Harvard University anyway, but Harvard College (but would be similarly UNDUE there as well).

EEng 22:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

this answers some of my questions/concerns I posted down below the reflist...it would seem odd to place this much content into the article if there's absolutely none along these lines currently...But I'm also surprised there's little or no info in the article critical of Harvard...is this consistent with other Wikipedia articles about large, notable universities??68.48.241.158 (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Articles (all articles -- not on universities etc.) are discouraged from containing general "WP:CRITICISM" sections. Rather criticisms (and praise too, I guess) should be included where appropriate as the article discusses various aspects of the subject. In Harvard's case, the woefully inadequate History of Harvard University would, if properly developed, include material on Harvard's role in the Salem Witch Trials and in slavery, the Secret Court of 1920, resistance to unionization in the 1980s and 1990s, and I'm sure other stuff, as a natural part of the discussion of the school's history.

For the matter at hand, though, I think the real issue is recentism. There's a great way of thinking about this described at WP:Recentism#Suggestions_for_dealing_with_recentism, which is to ask, "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?"

EEng 23:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

[The following is is the comment referred to above as "down below the reflist", now moved here to avoid fragmenting the discussion]

I'm confused, is there no information about this topic at all in the article currently? the original addition and revert along these lines between you and EEng suggested there was to me...what section would this go into? Is there no "criticism of Harvard" section at all or anything negative about the school in the current article??68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

To 68.48.241.158 (talk) : I'm surprised EEng didn't mention this to you. There is already a section with similar stats which the originator of this edit wanted to update. It came up in their discussion. The sections is:

Between 2011 and 2013, Harvard University reported crime statistics for its main Cambridge campus that included 104 forcible sex offenses, 55 robberies, 83 aggravated assaults, 89 burglaries, and 43 cases of motor vehicle theft.[47]

Formulairis990 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• EEng, please clarify if you are against inclusion of:

A 2015 sexual-conduct survey of Harvard students conducted by the Harvard Task Force on the Prevention of Sexual Assualt found that 47% of senior women who participated in single-gender final club activities experienced "non-consensual sexual contact," compared with 31% of all senior women at the school.

This is essentially the original proposed edit by the original editor who started this discussion.

Please also clarify what specific elements of the prose that you object to, and why:

• which parts are sensational?
• which parts are WP:SYN in deviating from the citations?
• which parts are WP:PRIMARY?
• what do you mean by borderline WP:PRIMARY?

The prose is pretty much repeated in all three of my citations, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post, sometimes in multiple articles within the same paper, as well as other publications. Regarding primary sources, I only cited the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post. The links to the Harvard Task Force were only meant as external links not as citations. What is the proper way to include them?

Formulairis990 (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• I completely agree with FourViolas that uncontextualized statistics are of zero (or even negative) value. What is the significance of the contrast between 47% and 31%? Is that different from other schools? What about "single-gender activities" (more on that in a moment) not at final clubs? What's a final club (readers will ask)? And how do "single-gender events" come into any of this anyway? How do women get assaulted at single-gender events? By other women? What???
• How many times do I have to say it? The final club material is about Harvard College, not Harvard University, but even there it would be WP:NEWS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:RECENTISM. As I mentioned elsewhere a good approach is the 10-year test: will people in 10 years wanting to know about Harvard (College or University) want this information? There's an article on Officially_unrecognized_Harvard_College_social_clubs and if this goes anywhere, it's there.

EEng 23:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

EEng, you are against the prose which explains final clubs but then complain no explanation is given. The contrast: 47 - 31 = 16. I have no idea how this compares to other schools or if you can even compare. I've only come across the Washington post analysis. Why does lack of secondary source information about how specifically women are sexually assaulted and any information regarding your question about women sexually assaulting other women detract from the notabilty, sutability an demonstrated interest by and information seeking constituency for this information? Why do you say this is a harvard college issue? Final clubs have no formal ties with harvard and harvard university is trying to end their 225 year old involvement with the harvard community. They're seen as very detrimental to the university by the top administration. This is a significant historical development in Harvard's evolution. Please respond to my questions in this paragraph, none were rhetorical.Formulairis990 (talk) 03:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Only Harvard College students can belong to final clubs. By your argument that stuff about final clubs belongs in the Harvard University article, it might as well go in the Ivy League article too. And -- sorry -- if you really think that this is a "significant historical development in Harvard's evolution", you've lost all perspective. It's just one more thing that's happening at Harvard this year or this decade.
• The fact that talking about final clubs, in this article, would require first explaining what they are, in this article, is part of why the material doesn't belong in this article. Its natural home isn't here, and to transplant it requires too much potting soil. Material specifically on final clubs belongs in the Final club article, or maybe in Harvard College (but I doubt it).
• The question of how it's possible for women to be sexually assaulted by men at a "single-gender event" remains a good one -- it makes no sense.
• There's no point in bothering with your questions re other reasons your proposed text is inappropriate -- NEWS, UNDUE, and RECENTISM are enough, not to mention you can't explain what the numbers 47 and 31 (and now 16) are supposed to tell the reader who turns to this article to learn about Harvard.

EEng 07:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• OPPOSE inserting such a large body of text about this one particular issue within the context of how this article currently presents itself...it's also unfair to Harvard as this is a universal problem at all colleges/universities...so it's just odd to go into it in such a in-depth manner here...perhaps a very brief mention of the issue related to campus safety but it would have to be balanced and point out that Harvard (if it's true, which it probably is) is a relatively safe campus, etc....68.48.241.158 (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

what do you think about inserting just the top stats portion involving the Washington post rape analysis and the 31% vs 47% stats? Regarding the prose that follows is there any form of it that you would be ok with? If you are against just the stats edit would you be willing to go to dispute resolution? Formulairis990 (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure..please see my post below about simply constructing the text you want for consideration...all I know is I oppose the inclusion of the proposed text above...and think the other two involved here probably do to...so the consensus would simply be against it...you could possibly do a RfC eventually but probably too early for that as would have to first clarify exactly what you want in this article...that wall of text above is simply not going to work for this particular article as the article currently stands...68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed bibliography

I'd like to weigh in, disclosing that a) I'm a current Harvard undergrad and therefore theoretically stand to gain or lose materially in the future based on public perceptions of Harvard, and b) I have participated in campus anti-rape-culture activism. In light of this, I'll try to keep my comments objective and directly supported by policy.

WP:OR. The WaPo numbers are a primary source, a collection of data with no prose discussion of Harvard. WP:PRIMARY says we must be very careful with such sources, and this discussion shows why. We could frame the numbers as "fifth highest (total)" or (more meaningfully in the context of individual student experience) "tied for about 200th highest (per student)"; neither frame would give the reader any useful information about whether this reflects a good or bad reporting culture, a large campus, a powerful rape culture, or what. Bare data would help still less. The interpretation of this source should be left to professionals, not WP editors, so it should be excluded. The same confusion applies to the sexual conduct survey and the final club sanctions; consequently, they should be cited only accompanied with WP:Balanced secondary commentary. If none of adequate WP:WEIGHT exists, they should be left out per WP:DEADLINE.

WP:DUE (specifically WP:BALASPS) and WP:RECENTISM. Together, these policies state that we should give this issue space according to the ratio (coverage of this/coverage of Harvard), and that "coverage" does not privilege a recent documentary over a dusty 1800s history book. Despite the importance of this issue in the present campus and national conversation, it is swamped by coverage of other aspects of the school. However, a significant depth of scholarship exists on sexual assault at Harvard (see below), sufficient for a solid paragraph to be included, but not as much as Formulairis proposes.

WP:CENSORED, from the perspective of User:Ritchie333/NOTCENSORED isn't just about boobies. Nobody here is explicitly making an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, but subconscious ideas about what kind of material an "encyclopedic" article about Harvard should contain should be interrogated. Ideas which represent Harvard unfairly, or even perpetuate rape culture, are appropriate if well sourced.

Sources, which I propose be sifted through to build a one-paragraph overview following WP:BALANCE:

• Marine, Susan (2015). ""Combating Sexual Violence in the Ivy League: Reflections on Politics, Pain and Progres". In Wooten, S.C.; Mitchell, R.W. (eds.). The Crisis of Campus Sexual Violence: Critical Perspectives on Prevention and Response. Taylor & Francis. p. 82. ISBN 978-1-317-53448-8. Founding director of OSAPR (should be named as such per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV) provides excellent, detailed analysis of sociological and institutional factors of assault at Harvard.
• Murphy, Wendy (2015). "From Explicit Equity to Sports to Sexual Assault to Explicit Subjugation: The True Story Behind Title IX and Women's Ongoing Struggle for Equality in Education". In Paludi, M.A.; Martin, J.L.; Gruber, J.E.; Fineran, S. (eds.). Sexual Harassment in Education and Work Settings: Current Research and Best Practices for Prevention: Current Research and Best Practices for Prevention. ABC-CLIO. p. 47. ISBN 978-1-4408-3294-9. Retrieved 13 July 2016. Murphy filed a Title IX lawsuit against Harvard while a Visiting Fellow at HLS which forced it to eliminate its requirement that complainants "corraborate" accusations, and her review of the last few decades of such issues has much more detailed analysis of Harvard's evolving policies from her POV.
• Berkowitz, E. (2015). The Boundaries of Desire: A Century of Good Sex, Bad Laws, and Changing Identities. Counterpoint LLC. p. 228. ISBN 978-1-61902-646-9. The letter from 28 HLS professors objecting to Harvard's 2014 policy change as unfair to the accused, was significant and widely noted, and this is a good source for contextualizing it.
• Powers, K. (2015). The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech. Regnery Publishing. p. 108. ISBN 978-1-62157-391-3. Briefly presents the same letter situation, in context as part of an attack on the "illiberal left".
• Lewis, H. (2007). Excellence Without a Soul: Does Liberal Education Have a Future?. PublicAffairs. ISBN 978-1-58648-537-5. Harry R. Lewis is a big voice on campus, and this includes another in-depth analysis of sexual assault (especially date rape) at Harvard which deserves a slice of the paragraph.

A paragraph from these sources would be removed from the NEWS of the day (annual survey data, protests and press releases), and instead be a scholarly discussion of Harvard's sexual assault policies and their praises, criticisms, and evolution over time. This is what RECENTISM, NOTNEWS, and DUE are all about. FourViolas (talk) 03:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Great work! Two points:

• I'm not quite sure what you mean by, "Ideas which represent Harvard unfairly, or even perpetuate rape culture, are appropriate if well sourced." Surely you don't mean WP should include unfair (whatever that may mean) material, or material which perpetuates rape culture. Do you mean unfairly --> unflatteringly, and perpetuate --> exposes/discusses the existence of ?
• Possibly most of this material belongs at Harvard College, not here.

EEng 04:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• I was being radical, in the spirit of NOTCENSORED: I meant that concerns about whether ideas (in sources which pass WP:IRS) are (in some editor's opinion) "unfair" or "toxic" are not grounds for excluding these ideas.
• Some of it could go there, doubtless, but I think if anything the majority of the material discusses HLS.

FourViolas (talk) 04:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• Is the idea to add a new section about a sexual assault problem at Harvard or about Harvard's handling of sexual assault complaints? It seems odd as this issue is going on for basically all colleges/universities...though Harvard, being Harvard, will get more national press about their particular problem as opposed to more local/regional press about it....also, the article doesn't have any criticism at all currently/negative info, so why this particular criticism..? I suppose just because others may not have sections like this this article couldn't...but should Wikipedia be suggesting you might get raped at Harvard...but not suggest you might get raped at, say, the University of Michigan??? Idk...68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The proposed paragraph could be added to #Student life, in a subsection called "Campus issues", along with concise information about campus safety more generally; exclusivity (a major topic); and student activism through history (Vietnam, divestment, etc).

The article shouldn't have any "criticism" or "praise". It should have informative facts or, when facts are contested, a discussion of how they're contested. Passing judgement on Harvard is the sources' and readers' job. FourViolas (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Is the belief being asserted that the issue of sexual assault etc at Harvard is significant enough to be discussed/more discussed in this article? understanding, there's all kinds of things about Harvard that are not in this article (that could also be easily sourced)...??68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is. That was the point of the list of sources: there is a significant depth of high-quality coverage on this, enough that per WP:BALASPS the topic deserves a short paragraph. FourViolas (talk) 05:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• To FourViolas (talk): Why do you say the two top 10 lists in the Washington Post is not WP:SECONDARY. The policymakes no mention that prose is required. The criteria it lists is: "an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."

You stated " Bare data would help still less." Please specify if you are against all of the stats portion of the edit, or which specific parts of it.

From my understanding of your comment, you are saying you want an altogether different edit -- it sounds like a separate article to me -- from the one under discussion. Please open up a new discussion proposing your edit or a rough outline of it.

Formulairis990 (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You know, no one has to do anything here at WP. I see you've been complaining at WP:Help Desk that I "refused" to go to WP:DRN with you. Now you want FourViolas to propose an edit. He doesn't have to do that. What he's done, quite effectively, is show that there are high-quality sources available discussing gender issues at Harvard over the long term, instead of recent news sources quoting from an internal Harvard report. If you want to use those sources to propose something, you're free to do that. EEng 23:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

EEng, I simply asked FourViolas to keep their emerging edit proposal which is significantly different from the one under discussion separated. My help desk question was

"What to do when an editor refuses to go to dispute resolution over an edit and writes he will no longer discuss the issue? The dispute involves this editor on one side, with another editor and myself on the other side" this was a procedural question which made no mention of you nor the specific dispute. It was others who first brought you up and your behavior.

Formulairis990 (talk) 03:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict -- Ah, ya damn Hahvud Kids, ya think ya can boss everyone around just because you go to Hahvud! And a lowly sophomore too!) No, you brought up my "behavior" by saying (falsely) that I would "no longer discuss the issue", and that I "refused" to go to DRN, after I'd explained repeatedly that dispute resolution can't even be contemplated until there's been thorough good-faith discussion. (Even now you're trying to get 68.48.241.158 to go to dispute resolution with you -- after he's been here 36 hours! It doesn't work that way.) Then you kept on talking about me, saying that "his repeated blocks do show he has fans that excuse his behavior because they find him entertaining". Since you bring it up, I'll put it to you straight: what my repeated blocks show is that I have no problem standing up to the 3% of admins who are pricks, and what my repeated (almost immediate) unblocks show is that the other 97% of admins recognize that. You really gotta WP:STOPDIGGING. EEng 07:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

EEng meant to link politely to WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, much as I am now politely asking him to WP:FOC and everyone to review WP:TPYES.

• WaPo meets none of those criteria for Harvard; it's not making analytic or evaluative claims. Its few general (not Harvard-specific) analytic claims are counter to your purposes: they warn readers not to make too much of these complicated numbers. Its analytic evaluation of the Harvard statistic consists of nothing more than a bullet point. As a result, as far as this article is concerned it's a mere reprinting of a primary source, with no analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis added. Here's an example of a secondary source analyzing similar data, in paragraph beginning "Harvard fared slightly better".
• For the reasons I explained, I think the WP:DUE, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:OR policies make your proposed edit largely unacceptable. If you disagree, please explain why these policies or my arguments do not apply. I'm proposing an alternative, which should be done in the same thread. I haven't collected the sources to read through them enough to summarize them completely, and I have several projects I'd like to get through before I do, but here's a sketch:

The issue of campus sexual assault became prominent at Harvard, as at most American universities, in the 1990s. In 2002, after a "spike in accusations of date rape”, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences adopted a policy requiring "sufficient corroborating evidence" to support rape allegations. Wendy Murphy, then a visiting scholar at Harvard Law School, challenged this policy in a complaint to the U.S. Department of Education under Title IX, leading to the removal of the corroboration rule. The university continued to revise its policies throughout the 2000s, and after a 2014 revision in response to [this is complicated, definitely the White House's "Dear Colleagues" letter, and then according to Murphy something about SaVE back-and-forth], twenty-eight HLS professors published an open letter arguing that the process provided insufficient protection for the due process rights of the accused. [mention the several times and reasons the University or College has been under DOE investigation over this]. Susan Marine, the founding director of the University's Office of Sexual Assault Prevention & Response, argued in a 2015 reflection that sexual assault at Harvard is facilitated by a culture of heavy drinking and little supervision for women, perpetuated by the male-dominated final clubs but also independent of them, and that feminist analysis is excluded from official response. [fit Lewis in.]

If we can reach consensus for this framework, I'd be happy to provide you with scans of the semi-online sources if you need them to help fill it out.

FourViolas (talk) 05:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is good. It still sounds to me, though, like this is either a Harvard College, or Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences, matter, and would fit most naturally in either of those articles. The involvement of HLS professors seems mostly to be in their role as legal experts, not implying that HLS is really involved -- though I'm a bit confused as to why a visiting scholar at HLS would challenge and FAS policy. Can you untangle that? EEng 07:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

There were several contentious cases involving HLS itself: The Hunting Ground#Harvard Law School, and controversies about teaching rape law, as well as recent buzz from RHL. Also, the federal investigations and complaints all seem to target the university as a whole, and OSAPR covers the whole university. But you're right that the College is the biggest locus of attention.

Murphy is an "impact litigator": she's brought all kinds of complaints and suits with the attention of promoting ideas and legal interpretations to a wide media audience, and she'd been looking for a Title IX test case. Additionally, she says she'd been lecturing on closely related topics and students came to ask her if there was anything she could do. See pp. 52-54. FourViolas (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I suspect you have plenty to do as it is, and you should be allowed to enjoy your summer without a new project that will probably turn out to be a big chore, but this is beginning to sound like it might pass muster as an article on its own. EEng 07:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the sourcing for a WP:SPINOFF Sexual assault at Harvard University is there. The above paragraph rushes past lots of encyclopedic information besides that HLS stuff. There's Marine's speculation about coercive sex in student life pre-'90s; the fact that Murphy's complaint was one of many which have been filed and that (she claims, this needs checking) it set the precedent for dozens of similar OCR actions around the country; anything about the Clery Act, and Murphy's allegation that the corroboration rule was an effort to depress Harvard's Clery-reported stats; Anderson's legal analysis of different policies; and much more. In a dedicated article, too, secondary journalistic sources could be included, such as this Boston Globe piece with a rundown of recent Harvard sexual assault history. Everything in Marine's analysis I paraphrased has been hotly contested on and off campus, probably in some WP:Weighty sources. And I think the current climate survey/final club sanctions thread is indeed going to be of some lasting significance, although per WP:DEADLINE we should wait until the requisite scholarship appears to prove it. Maybe remind me once I get through the rewrite of Psychology of eating meat, if circumstances warrant. FourViolas (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

References

This thread is a mess and almost impossible to figure out...I honestly can't figure out who's in agreement with who or if anyone agrees with anyone else at all....the only thing I know is that I oppose the suggested new text above for the reasons I explained up there...I would suggest if someone wants to add new text to the article along the lines being discussed here (good luck even figuring that out) they just post the proposed text and state where they would insert it in the article..68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

You, EEng and I agree that Formulairis's proposed edit gives WP:Undue weight to the issue. EEng and I think the WaPo "top ten" article is an inadequate source for this article because it fails to give enough context or analysis to tell readers (or us) what to make of it, while Formulairis doesn't think that's true or a problem. I've proposed an alternative paragraph and suggested a context; EEng likes the material, isn't convinced it all belongs at this article, and has suggested we might WP:SPINOFF a sub-article on this topic, which I think is a good idea. FourViolas (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Removal of "one of the most prestigious"

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

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

To:

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

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

Agree. Yes, I made the hyperlinked edit but it was reverted some time ago. I agree with the move. ♔First Lord of Downing Street♔ 17:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• See [10]. EEng 18:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a reason this has been battered to death so many times. No university not matter how well received is immune from WP:WEASEL, and most importantly the Holy Grail of my argument. Elizabeth I of England (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

No, the reason it's been battered to death so many times is that uninformed editors go off half-cocked without understanding the fact background, sources, and applicable WP guidelines, and without reviewing prior discussions, a link to all of which you will find within the small thread I linked above—and which, for example, directly speak to your WEASEL reasoning. As one participant said [11] in one of those discussions, "If you honestly believe that Harvard is not one of the world's most prestigious universities then you are incompetent to edit or contribute to this article outside of very narrow confines e.g. grammar, MediaWiki markup."

Do not fuck with others' posts again, as you did here [12] (now corrected by me), ever. EEng 20:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Slightly more politely: there's no question of "WP:SYNTHesizing from rankings" here, because as the quotes in the refs show, this language is directly supported without OR from multiple high-quality sources. Reviewing past discussions is advisable, to avoid having to rehash old discussions when policy-based consensus was reached (or to see which policies, if any, have been seriously overlooked). And we have a guideline instructing editors not to change others' talk page comments except in a few specific cases. FourViolas (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Some editors need to calm down. I made the first revert on the article with the same reasoning as presented above. I agree that Harvard is prestigious and I am more thank okay with including the sentence in the "ranking and reputation" section; its inclusion as the first sentence just seems ridiculous. There is a reason this article has been failed as a Good Article twice. I think we all know why. (Hint: take a look at Dartmouth College, and Columbia University.) ♔First Lord of Downing Street♔ 21:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Just a friendly note that I assume the first two respondents here are the same person or know each other otherwise. Regardless, there appears to be several discussions of this very point in the archives, so I suggest our friend(s) start reading up. Talk:Harvard_University/Archive_4 looks to be the most pertinent. Calidum ¤ 22:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

This discussion would actually appear to be the one where the issue was settled. And while we're on the subject, WP:UNIGUIDE, which is being held here as some sort of Magna Carta, is only an essay and not any sort of policy or guideline. All the information in the lead the user(s) object to is properly sourced. Calidum ¤ 22:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict -- I was about to say the same thing, except they're obviously sockpuppets, not meatpuppets.) Since the not-too-cunningly-named First Lord of Downing Street and Elizabeth I of England have blundered into revealing themselves to be a pair of sockpuppets‍—‌(a) Elizabeth fucks with other editors' posts; (b) First Lord's defense of what Elizabeth did begins "I was only trying..."; (c) quickly First Lord reverts himself, realizing he was logged in to the wrong account‍—‌there's no need for further discussion here. Come back when you can remember who you are at any given moment. EEng 22:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Good catch. Thanks for filing the report. They've both been blocked now. Calidum ¤ 01:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, this isn't like the Yale article where you can just pull the wool over everyone's eyes with those Elis none the wiser. Here's we have standards. EEng 04:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2016

Section HISTORY >> COLONIAL

"In 1638, the college became home for North America's first known printing press, carried by the ship John of London."

This should be changed to:

... became home to the first know printing press in what is now the United States of America, arried by the ship John of London.

The first printing press in North America was installed in 1539 in Mexico City (making it actually the first printing press in all the Americas).

Megafonico (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

Topher385 (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/House_of_the_First_Print_Shop_in_the_Americas http://www.cambridgehistory.org/discover/innovation/American%20Printing.html 24.234.81.88 (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• The IP is right. According to both sources already cited in the article, Harvard's press was the first in "British North America". I'll make the change. EEng 23:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

A friendly difference of opinion over what the reader cares to learn

Recently, an editor added [13] the following to the article:

On October 17, 2013, the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) voted unanimously to approve Harvard's 10 year Institutional Master Plan (IMP) for Allston. According to documents filed with the BRA, the plan is for the "continued revitalization of Barry's Corner, a campus and community vision, a new network of green spaces, plans to improve the public realm and streetscapes, a strategy to promote environmental sustainability, pedestrian access improvements, improved transportation networks, and community benefits."

The plan adds three new buildings and one renovation to the Harvard Business School. It also includes a hotel and conference center, a multi-purpose institutional building, renovations to the graduate student housing facilities and Harvard Stadium; and an entirely new facility for the school's baseball team. The plan also includes the addition of a new science building at the John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and an expansion to the Harvard Education Portal. The IMF provides for 1.4 million square feet in new construction, with an additional 500,000 square feet of renovation.

Since filing the original IMP, Harvard added an amendment and an update to the plan. On January 1, 2016, the first amendment was filed to address the university's science and engineering complex. The amendment provided for a new building for laboratories, classrooms and associated research; the renovation of an existing building; and the construction of a district energy facility.

Reasoning that readers wanting to learn about the oldest institution of higher learning in the Americas probably don't care on what date the Boston Redevelopment Authority voted to approve the Institutional Master Plan; that the vote was unanimous; that documents were filed with the BRA; that Harvard's plans include revitalization, vision, improvements, strategies, realms, and benefits; that the baseball team, specifically, will get a new facility; and that the plan was updated on such-and-such a date, I boiled it down [14] to:

Plans call for 1.4 million square feet (130,000 square meters) of new construction and 500,000 square feet (50,000 square meters) of renovations, including new and renovated buildings at Harvard Business School; a hotel and conference center; a multipurpose institutional building; renovations to graduate student housing and to Harvard Stadium; athletic facilities; new laboratories and classrooms for the John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences; expansion of the Harvard Education Portal; and a district energy facility.

-- which, IMHO, tells the reader everything he might want to know, in 1/3 the verbiage. (I reason that if the reader wants to know about realms and vision, he can click on the sources.)

Unfortuntely, dispute has arisen, the original editor reverting to the first version [15], with the edit summary Nitpicky, unilateral removal of sourced & non-contentious material smacks of WP:OWN. Discuss at talk. So, here we are. The opinions of our esteemed fellow editors is solicited. EEng 03:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Shorter version is better. Not only does it better follow WP:BALASPS (particularly WP:RECENTISM) and avoid WP:PEACOCK, it more appropriately handles what is (believe it or not) a WP:NPOV problem. Harvard's expansion has attracted strong backlash from Allstonians [16], and the longer version, leading pointedly with "unanimous approval" and giving an extended quote to Harvard's PR release, reads as promotion for Harvard and gives an unbalanced perspective. I doubt the controversy itself is worth mentioning, but it's certainly better to report the factual information succinctly and objectively than to pad the information with positive language about expansion. FourViolas (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

What cogent reasoning! EEng 06:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• I welcome the opportunity to discuss these revisions. While I'm fine with condensing enormous and unwieldy information, this well-sourced material was neither. It replaced an unsourced section with multiple-sourced information which merits its own section because of its importance to the university's expansion. How is the university's expansion important, but the fact that it is part of a widely-reported, 10-year expansion plan not? But that information was removed, as was the new section to report it. Relevant and sourced content was also replaced with vague, non-specifics like here, here, here and here. I'm also concerned when it appears that edits are being made simply because they can be - not because they should be. Especially when they do not appear to improve the article. As for the above concerns, I don't see WP:RECENTISM in a plan that was first advanced three years ago, nor should it be controversial to note that the BRA vote was unanimous, as that was reported at the time. However, that's one word. If that one word is contentious, I would have no objection to its removal - or the inclusion of any significant local objections, for balance - but none of that wouldn't justify the wholesale removal of all mention of the IMP itself. X4n6 (talk) 04:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The reader wanting to learn about Harvard neither knows nor cares what an "Institutional Master Plan" is, just like he doesn't care the date of approval of the plan, the date of filing of an updated plan, which bits of the proposal were in the original vs. updated plan, and other debris of local-government oversight -- all of which is in flux anyway. Neither is his understanding of Harvard, or this expansion, enhanced by regurgitating the kind of boilerplate vagary -- "revitalization of Barry's Corner, a campus and community vision, a new network of green spaces, plans to improve the public realm and streetscapes, a strategy to promote environmental sustainability, pedestrian access improvements, improved transportation networks, and community benefits" -- that always accompanies any project of this kind.

What, specifically, do you think is lacking in the shorter version which both FourViolas and I prefer? EEng 06:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Your response above perfectly illustrates the problem. You believe you know what "the reader" wants to learn. Setting aside the awkward hubris, I don't know what you feel imbues only you with this capacity; as though you're the lone arbiter of what "the reader" wants to know/read/learn? But the notion of "the reader" as some singular, monolithic entity, instead of vastly different readers with vastly different interests, objectives and perspectives, is instructive. That "one size fits all," watered-down approach is the problem. As such, what is "lacking" in the shorter version, is substance. X4n6 (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, one-size-fits-all is the reality, since Wikipedia has only one "Harvard University" article to offer its readers, and what to leave in and what to leave out is perhaps the most essential decision to make in editing -- and it's the decision we're working together to make here. I'm still not hearing what, specifically, you think is lacking in the shorter version. EEng 10:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Once again your own response provides the best rebuttal against your edits. Rather than trying to edit for your self-described and narrowly-interested, single reader; you would do better to realize you are editing for the masses. That inherently argues for more, not less. Also, your question has already been sufficiently answered. So I won't go down the rabbit hole with you on every word and line. Unless there is factual error or grammatical flaw, there is very little reason for you to remove well-sourced and relevant material which adds significant value to the article. That includes the new section where this information belongs. X4n6 (talk) 12:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, could you give any word or line of what you think is lacking in the shorter version? Saying that "what is lacking is substance" doesn't help. EEng 05:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The point I'm making is the shorter version in no way improves. It's simply shorter for its own sake. And it only serves to remove the substance this new section warrants. As in the real world, less rarely satisfies. Think about it. X4n6 (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the appropriate way to extend your real-world analogy is to point out that more doesn't satisfy if it's all soft and flabby. EEng 06:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

True. But I found the original to be both taut and satisfying. And just the right length to appeal to most readers. So your predisposition to presume flaccidity - not to mention your inclination toward brevity - is revealing. Generally speaking, something you can finish so quickly is hardly worth the effort. I just hadn't expected you to internalize so publicly. You're so brave. X4n6 (talk) 06:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately all three other editors here disagree with you. Do please have the last word now. EEng 07:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Far from the pithy rejoinder I expected. Still, up for a formal RfC? X4n6 (talk) 08:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support the shorter version, obviously. EEng 06:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support brevity. That text needs a bloviectomy. Jehochman ^Talk 12:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Why? Because you're a Yalie? Your bias is showing. And what exactly would you ectomize, Jonathan? I should also point out that since this isn't a formal RfC - voting isn't necessary. X4n6 (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Please don't tease Jehochman about his alma mater. That's my job [17]. EEng 06:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support a shortened version achieved by judicious trimming. Essence can too easily be swamped by excessive detail. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Not one to be sucked into the tide, I always believe we do a disservice when we don't look at things in context. Viewed there (and removed from the pallor of the dreaded green ink), I see nothing either excessive or objectionable. In fact, it appears to be the appropriate length for a new subsection - which the topic warrants. X4n6 (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• Short version is better, but the longer, more detailed content would be appropriate for a more specific article on campus of Harvard University or Harvard University campus. (Note that other campuses have such pages, e.g., campus of Dartmouth College, campuses of Georgetown University, campus of Iowa State University, etc.). Other detailed content can be placed in more specific articles as well — e.g., the new baseball facility would be a perfect addition to Harvard Crimson baseball. Neutrality^talk 20:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes -- there really should be such an article. It's amazing how underdeveloped the whole suite of Harvard-related articles are -- those Ivy League snobs are no doubt too busy manipulating world copper prices and plotting the socialization of medicine to bother with piddly stuff like Wikipedia. EEng 22:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know ... the Cornellians have done quite well for themselves on Wiki. ;) Neutrality^talk 00:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Outcome?

• X4n6, can we agree that consensus has settled on the shorter version? EEng 17:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi EEng, while I think we can agree that the current informal consensus supports your position - I will note that you never responded to my question re: a formal RfC. In the time since we originally discussed this, I think we also haven't reached even the basic agreement that this info warrants its own subsection; rather than being absorbed and truncated into a larger section. Perhaps the best solution is something in the middle: less than I've added, but more than you've offered? So I'd happily either collaborate on a compromise, or submit it to an RfC. Thoughts? X4n6 (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

What specifically would you add? Can you give your proposed version right here? EEng 22:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Can we first agree that it warrants its own subsection? X4n6 (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

As it stands, the consensus version is the single sentence I proposed in my OP, preceded by the introductory sentence that wasn't in dispute i.e. the entire consensus text on the expansion is currently

Intending a major expansion southward, Harvard now owns more land in Allston, across the Charles River from Cambridge, than it does in Cambridge. Plans call for 1.4 million square feet (130,000 square meters) of new construction and 500,000 square feet (50,000 square meters) of renovations, including new and renovated buildings at Harvard Business School; a hotel and conference center; a multipurpose institutional building; renovations to graduate student housing and to Harvard Stadium; athletic facilities; new laboratories and classrooms for the John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences; expansion of the Harvard Education Portal; and a district energy facility.

That doesn't warrant its own section, which would be called for only if there was a lot more material, which no one but you seems to want. For the nth time, can you please give your proposed alternative version? EEng 06:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not understand the argument that a university's major expansion does not warrant its own section. Especially, when you claim it would only be warranted "if there was lot more material" - yet at the same time, that material exists and you object to its inclusion. Trying to have it both ways? But you'd asked for a shorted version. See below. Your version also employs, verbatim, the same first sentence - which I've italicized:

"Intending a major expansion southward, Harvard now owns more land in Allston, across the Charles River from Cambridge, than it does in Cambridge. In 2013, the Boston Redevelopment Authority approved Harvard's 10 year Institutional Master Plan (IMP) for Allston. The plan called for the "continued revitalization of Barry's Corner, a campus and community vision, a new network of green spaces, plans to improve the public realm and streetscapes, a strategy to promote environmental sustainability, pedestrian access improvements, improved transportation networks, and community benefits."

It added three new buildings and one renovation to the Harvard Business School. It also includes a hotel and conference center; a multi-purpose institutional building; renovations to the graduate student housing facilities and Harvard Stadium; a new facility for the baseball team. It also includes a new science building at the John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and an expansion to the Harvard Education Portal. It provides for 1.4 million square feet in new construction, with an additional 500,000 square feet of renovation. A 2016 amendment also added a new building to the science and engineering complex and a district energy facility."

That substantially condenses the current version without the removal of salient information. Also, the metric conversion is not necessary as it does not appear in the plan documents and the U.S. does not commonly use the metric system. X4n6 (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

We're going around in circles here. Your latest proposal adds absolutely nothing beyond dates of approval, technical terms like Master Plan, and boilerplate about realms and streetscapes -- nothing at all that helps the reader visualize what's going on in the expansion. I'm installing the short version endorsed by the consensus above, pending support materializing for anything else. RfCs are for situations where new points of view or good ideas are needed, not a court of appear against overwhelming opinion of others participating. EEng 07:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The only circular logic here is yours. Your obvious attempt to set the rules, then judge the outcome unilaterally, is not collaborative. You asked for a version different from the one I originally contributed. I complied. Then you objected to that version - while offering nothing of your own beyond your own original rewrite. Again, that's not collaborative. Now you've unilaterally inserted your own version in the middle of the discussion? Blatantly non collaborative. Do you not understand the concept of collaboration? You might want to review WP:CO. If you believed you had "consensus," then why waste both our time asking for a collaboration that you fully intended to ignore? Also, my attempt to meet you halfway does exactly what your rewrite does not: it includes valuable information about the when/where/what/how of the expansion. Contrary to your claim, our job is not to help the reader "visualize" it. Our job is to inform the reader of the background and details of the expansion. And once again, you failed to even address why you believe such a major expansion does not warrant its own section. But if you have no real interest in collaboration and you mistakenly think you can steam roll your preferred version, then we'll just RfC. As I don't need your permission - or your explanation - to determine when that action is appropriate. Especially when, as RfC indicates, your view of when it is appropriate is so clearly misinformed. X4n6 (talk) 08:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I was circling back as a courtesy in case you had any new ideas. The version now in the article is that preferred by all editors except you, for reasons well stated (especially by Four Violas). You're free to open an RfC (as you've already done) but I think you'll find other editors resent being forum-shopped. EEng 08:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that "courtesy" was abdicated with your unilateral edit in the middle of collaboration. While the "consensus" you constantly reference was informal - and occurred days before the current failed collaboration attempt. I'm also less concerned about your prediction regarding "forum shopping" - especially, as I've already pointed you to the RfC section indicating the appropriateness of this forum - as I am concerned with your clear attempt to canvass those whom you believe will support your position - and negate the impartiality of this RfC. X4n6 (talk) 09:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Request for comment on proposed new section or subsection

Does Harvard University's expansion plan warrant its own section, or subsection, in the article on the university? X4n6 (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Note: edited by X4n6 to add "or subsection" 05:57, 29 September 2016. FourViolas (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
• Note: edited by Four Violas to underline "or subsection." The change I made was to clarify some confusion, but the underlined overemphasis is excessive and alters the intent. X4n6 (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
• Note: If you change an RfC after there's been substantive comment then -- if it's appropriate to do that at all -- there must be something making clear that such a change has occurred. Underlining / striking out is the standard way of doing that, and certainly can't be misinterpreted given that we now have three of these stupid notes here. EEng 07:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• Note: The RfC was never changed. It was clarified - per REDACT's option to "otherwise improve" and to address the obvious misdirection that you and your canvassers were transparently trying to steer it in to: the false choice that a section required some absurd threshold not called for in policies like BALASP. So before non-canvassed editors had weighed in, I closed your loophole. If you or another editor had a problem with when I did it, you could have asked that I format it differently> But you have no right to presume to undertake that task yourself. That's not the standard way of doing it. X4n6 (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not about emphasis. Your edit took other editors' responses out of context, which not okay; WP:REDACT says that if you must do something like that, you should underline added text and strike removed text. FourViolas (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Still wrong. Even if your claim that I "took other editors' responses out of context" were true - which it's not - where did it occur? Making false charges doesn't help your position. Moreover, what policy would it violate? It's noteworthy that you couldn't even manage to provide one. However, your altering someone else's edit is a clear violation of WP:TPO. You should not have done it; you were wrong to do it; and as someone who so obviously enjoys spouting policy - you knew better - or you should have known better. X4n6 (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

You started an RfC on whether the material should have "its own section" [18]. I and others responded that it shouldn't. You then changed the question to add the possibility of adding only a subsection, a rather different thing. Our responses were consequently out of context. FourViolas (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I started the RfC. You did not. So you had no right to edit it, per TPO - while I had every right to edit it, per REDACT. So why are you rehashing this? Besides, if you feel your vote is now misrepresented, or "consequently out of context" - there's nothing preventing you from changing your vote, correct? X4n6 (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• No as things stand. Here's what's going on [19].Pinging those who participated in the prior discussion: FourViolas, Jehochman, Hertz1888, Neutrality. EEng 08:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Yes. Notwithstanding the blatant WP:CANVASSING vio above and noted; of course a major, 10 year, physical expansion plan by a major university, warrants its own section in the article about that university. How could it not? It also likely warrants its own separate article. X4n6 (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not canvassing to ping every editor (except you and me, of course) who participated in the prior discussion. The fact that not a single one of those prior participants agreed with you still doesn't make it canvassing. EEng 14:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Per CANVASS: "don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions." Per WP:APPNOTE: "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions." So your claim that: "their opinions just happen to agree with yours - but that sure ain't canvassing" is nonsense. You also did not ping every editor who participated in the prior discussion. You failed to ping Calidum, who has also been quite engaged here. But you did ping Four Violas, who did not participate, since the edit log shows you two routinely support each other here. All of that equals textbook canvassing. But the fact that you are so clearly threatened by the process of inviting input from other editors with whom you have no prior history, really says it all. X4n6 (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Calidum didn't participate in the prior discussion on this topic, but I'm happy you've pinged him. EEng 18:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Calidum has participated on this talk page, as have others who have not edited recently. But no question, Calidum should have been pinged from the beginning, if any pinging was done. X4n6 (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I did participate in the previous discussion [20], and it's quite legitimate to elicit responses from all of the editors who have previously expressed an opinion about the prominence due the Allston expansion. FourViolas (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Indeed you did. But you didn't participate in the informal vote, so I neglected to include you. But as with Hertz1888, the objections you noted were all addressed in the compromise that was offered; which, judging by your response, you probably have not read. Because it actually reflects all your previously stated concerns. As regards your new concerns below, you'll also see it is a subsection - not a major section - which is more than appropriate. This also makes it very difficult to see how WP:BALASP could possibly apply to 2 paragraphs in an article this size. But thanks for the correction. Now that we've heard from all editors canvassed by EEng, (except Neutrality), we can look forward to the input of uninvolved editors - which is the actual purpose of this, or any, RfC. X4n6 (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of the RfC, according to what you stated both at the top of the RfC and in the edit you just linked, is to determine whether the expansion plan warrants its own section. And it wasn't canvassing; WP:APPNOTE says it's fine to notify concerned editors if there's no exclusion of opposing views (there just happen to have been no editors agreeing with you). FourViolas (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

First, I noted that a compromise was offered, which you clearly had not read. Your response? None. Then I pointed out that the compromise actually reflected all of your prior concerns. Your response? None. Then I discussed how the subsection easily defeats your claim of BALASP. Your response? None. Then I remarked that since we'd now heard from all of EEng's canvassers, except one, we could finally hear from uninvolved editors - which is the actual purpose of an RfC. Your response? An interpretation of APPNOTE that is not found in APPNOTE. But what is found there is a section on "Vote-stacking." I'll politely invite you to review it. X4n6 (talk) 09:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I had in fact read your compromise, which is still too long and detailed for BALASP. But, as you have been arguing, the question of what content to include about the expansion is different from the question of whether to give it a section heading, so I was staying on-topic. You changed the question after I'd responded, to add the subsection suggestion (which you should have noted, per WP:REDACT); it remains true that the expansion has not attracted as much RS coverage as many other subtopics, such as Widener Library, The Harvard Lampoon, or Harvard Medical School, with no subsections. The part of APPNOTE I'm referencing is An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at...the talk page of one or more articles...directly related to the topic under discussion....The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. EEng notified every editor who had participated, including every single editor who had agreed with you—which, as it happened, was zero editors. FourViolas (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

REDACT only broadly applies to talk pages in general, not specifically to RfCs. And the fact that you responded as a result of a votestack canvass pretty well insured that your opinion was not going to be changed or swayed by anything anyway. And sure enough, it wasn't. Also per REDACT, I made the change before any new and/or uninvolved editors had weighed in; so any minor changes or edits were perfectly acceptable. But it was not acceptable for you to directly edit the title of this RfC: as you did not submit it. I've also already addressed your misapplication of BALASP - while you've still failed to explain how you believe it does apply. And keep in mind, as I noted below, that any alleged BALASP aimed at adding Allston to the section on Campus, would also likely apply to the subsections already there. So tread carefully. As to APPNOTE: as I've also already pointed out to EEng, not every editor was pinged, so your claim otherwise is false. But as your own quote of APPNOTE states: The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions. So why were they pinged at all? Your rebuttal covered almost everything but failed to address the answer I already provided - and also found at APPNOTE - so you should have seen it:

• Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement).[2] Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking. X4n6 (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

As explained over and over, every editor who had participated in the prior discussion was pinged, and the fact that no one in the prior discussion agreed with you has nothing to do with it. EEng 02:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• No. I thought we already had a strong consensus for short and pithy, to not weigh this main article down way out of proportion. I have no objection to a separate article. I resent the forum shopping, coming after so verbose and exhausting a discussion. Hertz1888 (talk) 09:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. As you are here only because of EEngs' canvassing vio, you've also mimicked his false forum shopping attack. This RfC is about a new and separate section. The informal prior discussion was over content. You also seem unaware that a collaboration and compromise was offered, that you were not a party to, which was shorter and "pithier." Please review. It mirrors your original comment. X4n6 (talk) 10:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• An objection stated once is fine. Repeating it after each and every comment makes a mess of the discussion, and should be avoided. Jehochman ^Talk 15:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Noted. But when directly addressed, as above, there is the option to respond. X4n6 (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHEPRESIDENTIALDEBATES (thank goodness) :-) FourViolas (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Certainly not per WP:BALASPS. According to that policy, we emphasize or de-emphasize subtopics in accordance with the amount of attention paid to them in reliable sources, and the Allston expansion has only a tiny fraction of the amount of coverage the other sections have.

The current sections are "History" [21], "Campus" [22], "Organization and administration" [23] "Academics" [24], "Student life" [25], "Notable people" [26], and "Literature and popular culture" [27]. Those links I've provided are each to an entire book, mostly one of many, devoted to that specific topic or a strict subtopic. In contrast, Harvard's Allston expansion has been covered in Harvard press releases and local newspapers [28]. It's not even close. We should have a short paragraph on this in the "Campus" section, as we currently do. FourViolas (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Just Google: Harvard expansion. And sure, the Boston Globe is a "local newspaper" - in the same way the NewYork Times and the Washington Post are local newspapers. To quote you: "it's not even close." X4n6 (talk) 10:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

You're right -- those aren't local papers. Shame on you, Four Violas! Nonetheless, the Globe article is three sentences, the WSJ article is about something else and mentions the expansion in passing in one sentence, and the Post article is from nine years ago. EEng 14:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

True, my bad. But a dozen newspaper articles, in any newspaper, are not comparable to a dozen books. As for the change to the RfC to suggest the material gets only a subsection, the expansion still hasn't attracted as much RS coverage as many other subtopics, such as Widener Library, The Harvard Lampoon, or Harvard Medical School, with no subsections. FourViolas (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Nice try, folks. But since when is a book the threshold for a section? Especially of a work in progress? And all your links are to separate articles. So are you, like Hertz1888, now agreeing that the expansion warrants a separate article? Also, you're wrong on Widener: the Widener Library does have its own section: under Libraries and museums. Just as there is already a subsection under Campus, which lists Cambridge, Boston and "Other locations," which include such far-flung places as Washington, D.C.,; Florence, Italy; and Shanghai, China. And none of them, I might add, come anywhere near the amount of investment, land, construction, or complexity of Allston. So are you seriously trying to argue, in good faith, that a section there about Allston is unwarranted? Because if you are, I invite you to explain any logic which supports that argument.

But also, am I really the only one here who knows how to work the "Google machine?" Then behold! Major Washington Post articles on the expansion? 5: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; Major New York Times articles? 7: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. USA Today? 3: 1, 2, 3. The Wall Street Journal? 4: 1, 2, 3, 4. And that "local newspaper," the Boston Globe? A whopping 12! 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. These all exclude the articles in Time Magazine; the Chicago Tribune; UK's The Guardian; and Al Jazeera! Or those other 5 articles in Reuters: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I could cite many more. But heaven forbid we should include 2 short paragraphs in their own little (sub)section (under Campuses!), on such a widely-reported, reliably-sourced and important topic in the article about the university that's causing this reporting! Because the Earth would fall off its axis - just before we'd all be consumed by Zika virus and flesh-eating cooties. Right, kids? X4n6 (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

BALASP is clear that the standard of coverage necessary for a section depends on the amount other subtopics have received. On this page, that's "many books' worth". Displaying more and more newspaper clippings doesn't change that fact. The "Libraries and museums" subsection is about many dozens of entities, including Widener, many of which have received more coverage than the expansion.

However, since you insist that we should disregard the BALASP policy in favor of your impression that this is "important", consider that no classes, research, or administration is happening on this possible subcampus-to-be; it's irrelevant to the day-to-day experience of almost all university affiliates. You say that we should include it anyway because it's a "work in progress"; but any importance it may someday have is WP:CRYSTALBALL-gazing.

I have no objection to a standalone article if you think you could get one past AfD. There are hundreds of notable subtopics of Harvard University, and we can't have sections (or even subsections) for all of them. Strawman arguments are not productive. FourViolas (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

In what alternate universe is your interpretation of BALASP found? Because it's certainly not found in the policy itself. Rather than trying to distort the one paragraph policy - which, beyond the example, is really a one sentence policy - why don't we just end this by quoting it directly: An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. Where is there any support for your claim that the policy says anything related to: "standard of coverage necessary for a section depends on the amount other subtopics have received?" That's plainly wrong. The policy says the article: "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources" - it does not quantify the body of reliable sources, nor claim they must be approximately equal. Or used as some threshold for inclusion. All of which you claim from the policy - with zero support in the policy. So we can finally put all your claims about BALASP to rest. Your CRYSTAL argument is just as desperate - and just as specious. The fact is, there is nothing predictive about the Allston expansion. As all the RS proves, it exists. It has been designed, approved, funded and is under construction. So your CRYSTAL argument is only about 10 years too late. As to the stand-alone article, it appears the weight of RS evidence I've provided has already persuaded your buddy EEng to move in that direction. So the strawmen are all yours. And like any good strawmen, they all crumble under the weight of scrutiny. X4n6 (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

X4n6, I checked your first three links, and the entirety of their text related to this subject is, in each case...

• "SEAS is the next frontier for Harvard,” Paulson said in a statement, “and its expanding campus in Allston promises to become the next major center of innovation."
• "Harvard is on the verge of one of the most dramatic expansions in its history, developing a new campus in Boston across the Charles River that will more than double the school's physical size... Some faculty members attribute the financial strains to the proposed expansion... Some faculty members, such as Joseph S. Nye Jr., outgoing dean of the Kennedy School, say Summers's legacy will largely depend on how well he handles the expansion to Allston across the river."
• "Since arriving in 2001, Summers has advanced a highly ambitious agenda that includes retooling the undergraduate curriculum, intensifying Harvard's focus on life sciences research and expanding the university across the Charles River into the Boston neighborhood of Allston... Summers was asked by Peter Burgard, a professor of German, at a faculty meeting in the fall of 2003 whether professors would be able to vote on Summers's plan for Harvard's expansion into Allston. The response came in a single word, Burgard said: 'No.'"

I stopped looking after that. This kind of WP:REFBOMBing doesn't help your case. There's no doubt this expansion is notable, and could be not just a section of an article on Harvard University campuses, but an entire article on its own. I've created one: Harvard University's expansion in Allston, Massachusetts.

What you're just not getting is that, even if all of your linked articles had substantive material on this subject and there were 10 times as many of them, that wouldn't be nearly the outside coverage of lots of stuff that get only a sentence or two each here, because everything about Harvard gets saturation coverage. For example, John Harvard himself gets only this:

Established originally by the Massachusetts legislature and soon thereafter named for John Harvard (its first benefactor)... In 1639, the college was renamed Harvard College after deceased clergyman John Harvard, who was an alumnus of the University of Cambridge. He had left the school £779 and his library of some 400 books.

Even as things are, he gets less text than the expansion already gets, and certainly not a section (or subsection) of his own. The President and Fellows of Harvard College‍—‌the oldest corporation in America‍—‌gets all of this:

Harvard is governed by a combination of its Board of Overseers and the President and Fellows of Harvard College (also known as the Harvard Corporation), which in turn appoints the President of Harvard University

There's just too much to say about Harvard to give more than a sentence or two to almost anything (which is why this article is so dense with links to subsidiary articles). Please, direct your energies to Harvard University's expansion in Allston, Massachusetts. EEng 02:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

EEng, I'm gratified that you now recognize the notability of the Allston expansion. And while you may be dismissive of the REFBOMB, I embrace it. It made my point - which had been challenged up to then - and was likely instrumental in your own conversion. In any event, I also appreciate your concerns regarding space in this article. But I'm just looking for parity within that section. That is more than reasonable. If you review the section on Campus, as I've already discussed, there are 3 sections: Cambridge, Boston and "Other locations." Allston clearly belongs there. Probably after the Boston section and before the "Other locations" section. And as a specific location, it should be approximately the same size as the Cambridge and Boston sections. So if we break it down, here's how it should look:

• Cambridge section: 4 paragraphs. 254 words;
• Boston section: 2 paragraphs. 212 words;
• Allston section: 2 paragraphs. 188 words; (the edited version)
• Other locations: 1 paragraph. 50 words.

EEng, since we now agree that Allston is notable, this is more than reasonable - and entirely consistent with that section. As for your stand-alone article, I'll treat that as a separate issue, as it is. I'll address it after this is resolved here. Hopefully, now we can move a large step in that direction. X4n6 (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

There was never disagreement on whether the material was notable, just about the amount of space it is due on this page. The relevant policy is BALASP, which makes it clear that a subsection is inappropriate unless you can find books' worth of RS covering the expansion, regardless of your intuitions about how it would be "reasonable" to arrange the material. FourViolas (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

"There was never disagreement on whether the material was notable?" Really? Have you forgotten this, or https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harvard_University&diff=741631699&oldid=741626055 missed] this, this or this or this. So no, the question of notability has always been at issue. As for BALASP, I've already addressed it ad nauseum, for the last time here. At this point, this is just a case of WP:IDHT. X4n6 (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

None of what you link has anything to do with notability. I'm beginning to think you don't know what notability means in the context of Wikipedia. Now, as elsewhere, I invite you to have the last word, after which I look forward to the input of others. EEng 21:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, X4n6, but you haven't converted me to anything.

• I never questioned that the expansion is notable.
• "Notability" has nothing to do with article content -- see WP:NNC.
• Allston is part of Boston, so a separate section for it makes no sense.

Please have the last word now. I intend to await further input from others (and encourage my esteemed fellow editors to do the same -- FourViolas, back to saving the planet, the animals, and the coeds!). EEng 07:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Eh, I never bought it anyway, EEng. Especially, given your recent history of bailing at the first sign of collaboration. But now you're taking your posse with you back to Dodge City?! Well, at least other unattached editors can now weigh in. Meanwhile, I'll collaborate with you in absentia. See here. According to you, Allston deserves its own subsection. Well, guess what? I agree with you! So I've substantially restored your own edit. Now, you even get the last word. X4n6 (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• No - Put this in perspective of the institution's history of several hundred years. This would violate WP:UNDUE in the form of recentism. An expansion warrants a sentence or two. Jehochman ^Talk 12:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Please see above. This expansion was originally proposed over a decade ago and three Harvard university presidents ago. Hardly recent - or undue - by any definition. X4n6 (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Yes - presuming this is speaking of the 10-year Institutional Master Plan, it seems something that needs to be included and the amount seems enough to warrant a subsection. I'll suggest that it be specific by including the name "Institutional Master Plan" and naming the locations as part of any content. I'll also offer the alternatives that it might reasonably be put instead under existing subsections -- specifically 1.4 History/21st century (the planning and status so far is "History") and/or 2 Campus (the previously debated location 2.3 Campus/Other locations does seem reasonable, or create a new subsection 2.4 Future locations). Want to say it's more relevant and better than bottom article parts (unexplained photos "Alumni", unexplained and badly formatted "Faculty", citation needed, etcetera) but that's not really what was asked. Markbassett (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)