Jump to content

Talk:Harvard University

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EEng (talk | contribs) at 02:45, 30 January 2017 (→Citations in lead section: _). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Former good article nomineeHarvard University was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 27, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
September 1, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee


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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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

Recently, an editor added [1] 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 [2] 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 [3], 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)[reply]

  • 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 [4], 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)[reply]
What cogent reasoning! EEng 06:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Unfortunately all three other editors here disagree with you. Do please have the last word now. EEng 07:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Far from the pithy rejoinder I expected. Still, up for a formal RfC? X4n6 (talk) 08:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please don't tease Jehochman about his alma mater. That's my job [5]. EEng 06:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I don't know ... the Cornellians have done quite well for themselves on Wiki. ;) Neutralitytalk 00:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome?

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)[reply]
What specifically would you add? Can you give your proposed version right here? EEng 22:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can we first agree that it warrants its own subsection? X4n6 (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.[1] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Allston Planning and Development / Office of the Executive Vice President". Harvard University. Retrieved 7 Sep 2016.

Request for comment on proposed new section or subsection

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]

  • Note: edited by X4n6 to add "or subsection" 05:57, 29 September 2016. FourViolas (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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) [reply]
You started an RfC on whether the material should have "its own section" [6]. 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)[reply]
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) [reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I did participate in the previous discussion [8], 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Noted. But when directly addressed, as above, there is the option to respond. X4n6 (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTTHEPRESIDENTIALDEBATES (thank goodness) :-) FourViolas (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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" [9], "Campus" [10], "Organization and administration" [11] "Academics" [12], "Student life" [13], "Notable people" [14], and "Literature and popular culture" [15]. 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 [16]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Just like the U.S. presidential contender you mock on your userpage, I'm beginning to think you also have impulse control issues. You said you were going to take your toys (and your boys) and go home, so you could start "saving the planet, the animals, and the coeds." So what happened? You should have stuck with that plan. Maybe you'd be more successful with that than with your weak attempt to try to ass-ume the role of the arbiter of my knowledge of Wikipedia. But perhaps you also lack the capacity for critical thinking? Or reading comprehension? In either case, my arguments were sound - and given your history - I feel no further need, nor inclination, to once again try to explain them to you. X4n6 (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why would a U.S. presidential contender think I have impulse-control issues? And it's FV who's in charge of planets, animals, and coeds. I'm in charge of world copper prices. EEng 01:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • No. (I became aware of this discussion from a discussion at EEng's talk page.) I don't see anything wrong with adding maybe a sentence or two, but the proposed additions are too much. The nature of the expansions is appropriate content to include, but a blow-by-blow of the regulatory approval process is not. I agree with other editors that due weight and recentism (even if the process has been taking place over some time) apply here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks for your input. I believe the current version adequately resolves this. It reflects most of the consensus and all of the reliable sources. X4n6 (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IMP and Allston

Let's not confuse the reader with argle-bargle. Jehochman Talk 11:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scalia is very dead. And so is this edit war. So you ignore a mountain of RS - that you are well aware of as a participant in the RfC - just to edit disruptively and tagteam?? If you're smart, you'll self revert. But the choice - and its consequences - are yours. X4n6 (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think having a section heading "Allston" makes more sense than having a section heading "Boston" covering all parts of the Harvard campus that happen to be within the city of Boston—the Allston campus is a contiguous unit, adjacent to the main Cambridge campus, and has nothing in particular to do with the Longwood medical area except for being within the same city limits. AJD (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think we have to consider WP:WEIGHT. I agree that Allston (HBS+the athletic complex), Longwood (HMS, Dental, and T.S. Chan), and to some extent the Arboretum are distinct entities, but looking back through history none of them individually has been written about in as much detail as the Cambridge campus. It makes some sense to group them distinct from the Harvard Forest and more distant holdings, because there's plenty of direct commerce between them and the Cambridge campus; the lab I work in has members who work at the Arb, multiple friends (undergrad) works in a lab at Longwood, etc. Maybe we could agree on an RS to follow for this? FourViolas (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(I mean really on a somewhat deeper level I think it doesn't really make that much sense to treat the Allston campus as separate from the Cambridge campus; it's a single contiguous campus which happens to span the city boundary.) AJD (talk) 16:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...with a river in between them. Except for undergraduate athletes, there is precious little intercourse between the two areas, and those studying or working in Cambrudge give the Allston campus little thought.
There are really only a coupla ways to do this:
  1. ===Cambridge=== ===Boston=== ===Other===
  2. ===Cambridge-Allston=== ===Longwood=== ===Other===
  3. ===Cambridge=== ===Other===
  4. ===Cambridge=== ===Allston=== ===Longwood=== ===Other===
  5. No subheads at all
2 is awkward, uses geographical terms not helpful to the reader scanning the TOC, and yields one giant section and two tiny ones. 4 has the same disadvantages as two, plus gives even more fragmented little sections. 3 lumps Boston with Italy. 1 gives the most balanced text sizes and the most balance in terms of centrality to Harvard institutionally and in public perception. I'd even take 5 over 2, 3, or 4. EEng 17:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. ===Main campus=== ===Satellite locations=== AJD (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you're right that's another possibility. By Main Campus you must mean Cambridge-Allston. I have some sympathy with the impulse to gather Cambridge and Allston into a "main campus", but the reality is that Allston is very much a black-sheep-stepchild-poor relation -- more like the Medical School in being "near Cambridge but not in Cambridge" -- and I still don't like lumping the Medical School with Italy. EEng 17:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) 6 actually sounds pretty good, at least geographically. But different sectionings will always make more sense for some things than others, and I think we should just try to see what RS do. This book on "pop culture places" suggests 5, except with Longwood before Allston. FourViolas (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're right that the "outline" organization of your source is 5 but if we do want a finer division, then following the internal organization of your source's single ==Campus== heading, we'd have
===Cambridge=== ===Longwood=== ===Allston=== ===Other===
...which as you say is 4 with the order juggled (and I hope we can ignore permutation for now). As you also say, this puts Longwood before Allston, which is not natural geographically, and this underscores the extent to which Allston is the black-sheep-stepchild-poor relation I mentioned earlier -- not thought of as part and parcel of a "main" campus embracing Cambridge and Allston as a unit.
I'm almost ready to say I like 4 after all, with the understanding that sections will grow a bit someday and be less fragmented-looking, but I still don't like using section headers (Allston, Longwood) unrecognizable to anyone but Bostonians. I'm still for 1, but could maybe be talked into 4. 6 seems like cutting the baby in two with an axe. EEng 19:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And again, why are we reinventing the wheel? Virtually every reliable source: locally, nationally and internationally calls it Allston. Harvard calls it Allston. The Boston Redevelopment Authority calls it Allston. It's universally known as Allston. Why, you may ask? Because it's located where, you may wonder? Wait for it --- Allston. But let's just call this subterfuge what it really is. Not about the obviously correct name: but everything about the same group of users working in concert to continue the RfC - and impose their will on every other editor. What's so interesting is that the leader of this group is now so vehemently opposed to himself. X4n6 (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stop editing with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset and accusing others of "subterfuge". It's disruptive and counterproductive. This is not debate club, and WP:Wikipedia is not about winning. We know perfectly well the Allston campus is called the Allston campus; right now we're trying to figure out the best way to divide up the entire ==Campus== section into subsections, and if we can find RS which (like the one I provided) treat it as distinct and as worthy of mention as other subcampuses, we may indeed end up with an ===Allston=== subsection. Do you have any collaborative input on this question, ideally supported by policies, guidelines, or sources? FourViolas (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, are there no mirrors in your world? Edit warring is disruptive; tagteaming is disruptive; canvassing is disruptive; and ownership behavior is disruptive. Sound familiar? There's plenty to show that for you and a handful of users, it's all just about the winning. Which is why you had zero answer for why EEng was "for it before he was against it." So your faux objection rings hollow. The truth is its own defense - while the only advantage in not expressing it - is to you. As for reliable, published sources which reference Allston? As you know, I've already provided tons. X4n6 (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your battleground behavior continues, and continues to prevent you from understanding the question we're trying to resolve. We don't need sources referencing Allston or the expansion by name. We need authoritative sources surveying the entire campus, like the one I provided, so that we can see how much relative attention they give Allston, and in particular whether they choose to lump it in as part of the main campus or as a group of Boston satellites.FourViolas (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you intentionally obfuscate. What you "need" is direction for what the subsection should be called. The authoritative sources all provide that; just as they all agree that Allston is a distinctly separate entity, not "lumped in as part of the main campus or as a group of Boston satellites." Allston is distinctly Allston. Just as Cambridge is distinctly Cambridge. The End. So it's wholly unnecessary to "survey the entire campus to see how much "relative attention they give Allston." How exactly would you quantify that anyway? By percentages? Hectares? Once determined, how would that be reflected in the subtitle? "70% Allston-30% Boston?" All this hand-wringing and wasted type in an effort to avoid what is plainly obvious - is plainly transparent. X4n6 (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF; I'm doing my best to explain this as clearly as I can. We're not trying to figure out what "the subsection" should be called; we have a big ==section== about the whole campus, which we might divide up into different ===subsections=== to cover different parts of the campus, and ===Allston=== may or may not end up being one of the subsections. To decide whether that's a good idea, we need sources which, like Wikipedia, are trying to provide information about the entire campus, organized logically and usefully, so we can imitate their organization. It's beside the point to provide sources focused on one or another subcampus. FourViolas (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not provide an example of what you think the end result would look like? And the criteria and methodology you would utilize to get there? X4n6 (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Really, X4, you need to stop tweeting at 3 AM. Immediately after my edit you link, I made another edit [17] correcting "Allston" to "Boston". EEng 19:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but remember, EEng, it was your 3AM tweet, not mine. Maybe you were typing one-handed at that hour, got distracted and made a mistake? Or perhaps you just felt empowered to edit war with everybody. X4n6 (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear oh dear. EEng 19:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good answer, good answer - (while clapping Family Feud-style). X4n6 (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea, everyone. I really do like 1 more than 4, but not that much more. And is it worth the trouble? FourViolas has studying to do. I have research to attend to and another talk coming up. Tryptofish's gotta swim. Jehochman has his hands full just being a Yale man.[FBDB] X4V6 has to do whatever he does when he's not obsessing about Allston. And so on. So why don't we just give X4 that separate Allston section he wants after all? Then he can feel he's won. The rest of us can get back to our respective productive and creative lives, and X4 can bask in the warm glow of section-heading victory. It's really a win-win! (Also pinging Ajd.) EEng 19:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, I propose #4 -- actually #4 slightly modified: ===Cambridge=== ===Allston=== ===Longwood Medical Area=== ===Other===

  • Support as proposer. EEng 19:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Although "Longwood Medical and Academic Area" (as that book has it) is slightly more accurate, because the Arb is technically part of it, it's a clumsy unCOMMONNAME. The book also has "Main campus" for "Cambridge campus", reinforcing what you call the black-sheep-stepchild-poor relation status, but "Cambridge" is clearer to the uninitiated who might need to know about the different subcampuses before reading the first sentence of the lede. FourViolas (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't get the drama here. This proposal reflects the geographic reality and the terms in general use.--agr (talk) 04:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No frats?

I thought the student fraternities were meant to be a big part of Harvard life. Valetude (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Something like 6% of undergraduates belong to a Final club or (almost nonexistent) fraternity/sorority. Harvard does not recognize these organizations or allow them to use school facilities, and new regulations forbid members of single-sex organizations to hold leadership offices such as team captaincies or to receive school recommendations for fellowships and so on. So no. EEng 01:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citations in lead section

@EEng: Okay I get what you mean about making small edits now. I just wanted to request that my big removing the citations from the lead edit stay in place just to save the effort I put in, instead of doing it again piecemeal.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't see what exactly you're doing, much less why. You seem to be simply removing all citations from the lead. Why? EEng 03:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Prisencolin, don't repeat your disputed edit again without first generating a consensus. Jehochman Talk 10:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. <Insert H-Y swipe here.> EEng 02:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harvard_University&oldid=762670198"