Talk:Pforzheimer House

message: 2 September 2006:  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pforzheimer House. Result: keep. `'mikka (t) 03:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote for Deletion

message: I am deleting the following sentence--
:"PfoHo had a student arrested on the premises this fall, basically for Watching Football While Black. (http://thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=509113)"
It isn't all that factually accurate, and certainly isn't objective.
Andrewstillman 19:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  biased point? 

message: The intent of the "famous grads" section is to include people who are famous enough to shed some light on the house, for having played a role in educating them, or to surprise people who would not have expected the famous person to have gone there. How does Isaac Schapira qualify? Searching for him yields the damning Google report
: Your search - "Isaac Schapira" "dirty jesus" - did not match any documents.
Who is this guy that he deserves to be listed here? Uucp 14:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So his claim to fame is that, by getting naked and pretending to be a baseball player, he got his photo on the Boston Globe's website? Harvard's standards must be dropping. Uucp 21:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You're right up there with James Baldwin. Uucp 11:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous Grads 

message: On looking at this article, I see that it's supported with numerous references to the Harvard Crimson. However, it's not very easy to tell from inspection what specific things in the article have published sources and what might have just been personal stories with no sources other than the personal authority of the editors.
For example, what's the source for "War with Adams?" None of the article titles in the references says anything like that, and it's not reasonable to expect a reader to check eleven different articles looking for a source. 
I think this article really needs to have per-section citations for sections like "War with Adams," and individual citations for trivia items. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inline citations?

message: UUCP removed the section on "Dispute with Adams on dining access" and reverted the section on "rechristening" with this edit comment:
:(your assertion that it is noteworthy does not make it noteworthy. also, you are reinserting POV nonsense about people "zealously defending" the new name, for no imaginable reason.)
The reinsertion of the "zealously defending" language was a mistake. My bad. I support the reversion. In fact I was the one who added the  tag and certainly didn't intend to remove it.
As to the dining dispute, what makes it noteworthy is not my assertion that it's noteworthy, but the fact that the Harvard student newspaper thought it was worth a long article. I've explained above that I think that the Crimson is a reasonable judge of what's considered important to the Harvard community, and that the audience for this article is primarily the Harvard community. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The audience for this article, and every article in the English wikipedia, is primarily the English-speaking world.  It's something of a mistake to start writing particular articles for particular communites, as the purpose of the encyclopedia is to provide knowledge not to be a collection of "in" clubs.  As for the notability of this issue in particular, it doesn't seem particularly important, especially given how transient it is likely to be (in 50 years, this will be incredibly trivial).  However, the only reason this is a problem is that the detail is somewhat disproportionate to the rest of the article.  Wikipedia is not paper, however, so greater article depth is not something to be avoided. siafu 18:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: I'm having trouble trying to reconcile material in a 1913 book about Radcliffe,
:. Brief text; content is mostly illustrations by John Albert Seaford Online page images and PDF at Google Books
with the statement in Pforzheimer House that
:Radcliffe College students first took up residence on campus in 1901, and the oldest parts of PfoHo date to that year.
and in Pforzheimer House, that
:In 1901, Radcliffe College students first moved into residence halls, some of which are now part of Pforzheimer House.
The 1913 book says, on page 32 of the PDF (Google's page images show no page number on the original pages)
:Two Dormitories are in Shepard Street. These are, at the left, Bertram Hall, 1901; at the right, Grace Hopkinson Eliot Hall, 1907... Behind these is a rectangular field for out-of-door games. Sarah Whitman Hall, 1912, overlooks this playground from the east; James and Augusta Barnard Hall, 1913, from the west. The four Radcliffe Dormitories are small,—none accommodating more than fifty-five students.
No residence facilities on Linnean Street or on the north side of the "playground" seem to be mentioned in this book. 
Which parts of Pforzheimer represent 1901 Radcliffe buildings? Did the 1913 book overlook a couple of dorms? Were some 1901 living quarters converted to some other purpose by 1913 and thus not mentioned? Dpbsmith (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Relation of Pforzheimer to original Radcliffe dorms?

message: :Image:Pforzheimer house shield.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Pforzheimer house shield.jpg

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Pforzheimer House. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20020305163649/http://www.digitas.harvard.edu/~note/parody/parodies1.html to http://www.digitas.harvard.edu/~note/parody/parodies1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110520115637/http://radcliffe.edu/schles/readingroom.aspx to http://www.radcliffe.edu/schles/readingroom.aspx
*Added  tag to http://map.harvard.edu/level3.cfm?mapname=camb_allston&tile=E5&quadrant=D&series=W
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050219192855/http://oeyweb.com/timoey/articles/2001/noho_shield.htm to http://oeyweb.com/timoey/articles/2001/noho_shield.htm
*Added archive https://archive.is/20020305163649/http://www.digitas.harvard.edu/~note/parody/parodies1.html to http://www.digitas.harvard.edu/~note/parody/parodies1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified