Talk:Harvard University/Archive 1

message: 1. Is the image of Gore hall really the best use of space? And why is the file called colonial harvard 2? I mean, I know most people won't see the filename, but that building is clearly post-colonial.
2. Also, it might be nice to right-align those captions (instead of centering them). Is there a way to do this without building a whole table thingummy?
3. I changed the list of house namesakes. I'm certain about Lowell and Winthrop, but not quite so sure about Adams — somebody let me know if I'm wrong.
Doops 20:57, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Some questions

message: Each of the schools has a 3-letter (except for GSAS) acronym by which they're commonly referred to around Harvard. Some (HLS, HMS, HDS) include H; others (GSD, GSE, SPH) don't. I listed each school by the expaned version of their everyday acronym.
Alternatively, I suppose we could list them in a more consistent manner, but then include the acronyms in parentheses after each school.Doops 16:56, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Why some faculties, schools, etc. are listed with 'Harvard' in their names and some aren't

message: I  just added that Dudley House is named for Thomas Dudley. Is this actually true? AJD 12:18, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. See the little garden behind Lamont for more on the guy. Doops 12:41, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew that; I just wasn't 100% sure that the House and the garden were both named for the same Dudley. Thanks for clearing it up. AJD 15:56, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of Dudley House

message: Fuzheado just removed the Annenberg photo because it didn't look good.  Didn't it used to look better before the last mediawiki change, or am I misremembering?
--Chinasaur 05:27, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Annenberg photo 

message: It seems we are constantly reinserting the section "considered by many to be the world's most prestigious university".  I always considered this sentence factual; it is certainly the opinion of many Americans, and my impression was the opinion was even stronger in Asian countries, if somewhat weaker in European ones.  Am I mistaken?  If it's a simple fact, it is by definition NPOV to state it as such; I don't think anyone is being misled.  --Chinasaur 05:27, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As I explained two weeks ago, Kim wants to publish a grabbier alumni magazine, distributed free to the successnik graduates of the World's Greatest University. I can't resist quoting this example of a story he might pursue, from his website, 02138magazine.com: "Did you know that . . . Paul Bremer, MBA '66, and several of his key advisors in Iraq's Coalition Provisional Authority graduated from Harvard Business School?" First Enron, now Iraq! Another triumph for HBS!
* Harvard is an excellent university, but when most Americans think of "Harvard" they think of the College, which is actually quite mediocre and probably doesn't belong in the top 20; it gets pwned by the top 5 liberal arts colleges, as well as Princeton, Yale, and Stanford, every day before breakfast. That is a fact.
* What I want to know about is grade inflation. I've read that Harvard has problems with it, especially concerning the social sciences. If grade inflation can be proven, that would certainly reduce its position as the "world's greatest university." Furthermore, what are the actual criteria that such a position is based on? Endowment? Professors? Number of Nobel Laureates? Robinson0120 00:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constant battle over "most prestigious in the world" 

message: Should be listed in article.  --Daniel C. Boyer 14:19, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Doops 23:57, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Division of Continuing Education, Harvard Summer School

message: Is "burlesque" better than "drag musical" for the Hasty Pudding show? Burlesque seems to suggest striptease, which the Pudding show isn't; it's definitely a drag musical. User:Ajd
: First, note that the article burlesque is incorrect if, as it seems, it asserts that, in modern usage contrasted with historical usage, burlesque is sexual entertainment and strip-tease, etc. Instead, such burlesque is a subset of the entire class of burlesque entertainment that is mock-heroic or mock-pathetic or humorous by caricature or mockery. In this case, as the About page on the Hasty Puddings website indicates (and which uses the word burlesque and not at all the word drag), the quality of their shows is such mockery and bombastic humor. That the show is "no-holds-barred" may proceed from that, but that men play all the parts is only a small part of the burlesqueness of the show. Because burlesque shows may be of such variety and may be "no-holds-barred" (and so might include strip-tease), they may be considered reserved for adults, but that adultness is rather incidental to the tenor of the show, which is burlesque. Drag, on the other hand, simply means that feminine attire is worn by the men in the show and is not as fully descriptive as burlesque for what the show is. Note also that, at least historically, these were not all musicals. - Centrx 23:07, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hasty Pudding edit 

message: What's the source of John Harvard being the mascot?  I've never seen anyone dressed up as Johnnie H at a football game.  I'm an undergrad here, and we basically don't have a mascot. 140.247.238.202 20:25, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He comes out for some of the games.  They have a big scary pilgrim head for him. http://128.103.142.209/issues/jf98/jhj.sports.html  (photo on left): MattHanlon 19:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mascot is John Harvard? 

message: Should "US News placed Harvard First" really be at the beginning of a section about the institution?  Is it really the most important thing?  Maybe we should add a section about "reputation" nearer the bottom of the page, after history, the institution, etc. that can list these statistics.  They just don't seem that important to me, are the subjective opinion of US News, and also seem a bit boastful.  Would any other encyclopedia list that info at the top of an article about a school?  
Also, I think that some of the rest of this info (about the color crimson, john harvard, etc) probably belongs in some other section.  This whole page needs massive cleanup and reorganization.
--Jacobolus 13:48, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I'm not sure I agree with you about spinning off Harvard College info to that page, I wholeheartedly agree with you about the need for better organization. Every time I come to this page I am mortified to find that the ranking and admissions percentage are apparently the first thing people need to know about Harvard. But I just haven't felt up to the herculean task of rewriting. Doops 22:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  the institution section 

message: This has bothered me for a while. Much of this article (extracurriculars, athletics, houses, concentrations, etc.) is focused, really, on Harvard College rather than the wider university. As I see it, there are two options:
*we could have separate full-scale pages for the university and college, dealing with everything on the appropriate page. (This has the virtue of accuracy and consistency.)
*we could keep the bulk of the info on the Harvard University page, but add a disclaimer and create Harvard College as merely a little explainer page. (This has the virtue of making one page the main article, rather than splintering everything down to lots of little articles.)
As you can see, I've provisionally chosen the latter of the two options, because, as I see it, if we rob the Harvard University article of the Harvard College stuff, there's nothing interesting left -- all the good stuff would go! And where would the pictures belong? (With either method of arranging things, there will be a fair amount of housekeeping, I'm afraid, since people will inevitably put things in the wrong place.) Doops 10:21, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I made up a little template thing.  We might want this to be vertical on the right hand side though.  I really think we should fill out the stubs about the professional schools, and move most of the info about the college into the college page.    We of course should leave a hefty summary, and there should be some summary about the other schools as well.  But the Harvard University article should I think be about Harvard University, not about Harvard College (with pictures of the yard and the science center only, not even upper-class houses) with a list of links to the other schools. --Jacobolus 13:24, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I think a lot of people are not particularly clear on the distinction between a "college" and a "university" and just use the two interchangeably. Maybe Dartmouth has the right idea :-) Dpbsmith (talk) 02:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Lowellian: as jdb said, will someone really be inconvenienced by a link to Harvard College material?  As I see it, currently the Harvard article suffers from poor organization and having information about the college on a page about the University in fact limits the amount that can be added to wikipedia about the subject.  Making the article(s) more modular will allow writers to flesh out sections of the Harvard College article, and those of the other grad schools, without worrying about being too specific for a bloated article like that on this page.  That is to say, right now, the article is a soup.  Structure improves readability. --jacobolus (t) 15:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Re "having information about the college on a page about the University in fact limits the amount that can be added to wikipedia about the subject:" that shouldn't be a substitute for a discussion on the merits. The article is presently about 22K long. The firm limitation to precisely 32K is obsolete and the page size warning notice has been softened accordingly. By all means decide on what the best organization for the material on Harvard is, but the present article could double in size with no problems. Articles should not be multiplied beyond necessity. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, I went ahead and moved it. AJD 02:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this article really about Harvard University?

message: I also feel that the Harvard University page should be better arranged, perhaps with major headings and some detail about each of the schools, with Main Article: Blah links, as many other Wikipedia pages currently do.  It would be possible to then migrate the majority of this article to the Harvard College page, especially about the houses, etc., while keeping some images and data on this page.  I feel that this is the best way to truly make the article about Harvard University.  There is no reason that the college gets 95% of the article, with many pictures and graphics and links while the med school or the kennedy school, etc., get one line and a link.  I'm thinking that the organization could go something like:
* Intro
* The institution
** FAS
*** Harvard College (main article elsewhere)
**** Migrate "Campus" and "Concentrations" sections, add section about extra-curricular activities, etc.
*** Radcliffe College
*** GSAS
*** Continuing Education
** Harvard Law School
** Harvard Medical School
** Harvard Divinity School
** Harvard Business School
** etc.
* History
* Harvard People
* External Links
* Sources
* Footer
I'd be willing to make veritas shield seals for the other schools, if someone was willing to try to help figure out what a modified harvard template should look like
Preferably, there would be some sort of footer, listing all of the schools of the university.
What do people think about this?  I really think the article would be better for the reorganization, which would allow for better consistency between articles about the individual schools, as well as better supporting extending the information about the articles at a later date.  This will take a good few hours of work, and should be discussed somewhere first.
Anyone know how to make those nifty templates that are used all over Wikipedia?  I guess we could start copying some and play around a bit.
--Jacobolus 09:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I made up a little template thing.  We might want this to be vertical on the right hand side though.  I really think we should fill out the stubs about the professional schools, and move most of the info about the college into the college page.    We of course should leave a hefty summary, and there should be some summary about the other schools as well.  But the Harvard University article should I think be about Harvard University, not about Harvard College (with pictures of the yard and the science center only, not even upper-class houses) with a list of links to the other schools. --Jacobolus 13:24, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I think a lot of people are not particularly clear on the distinction between a "college" and a "university" and just use the two interchangeably. Maybe Dartmouth has the right idea :-) Dpbsmith (talk) 02:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Lowellian: as jdb said, will someone really be inconvenienced by a link to Harvard College material?  As I see it, currently the Harvard article suffers from poor organization and having information about the college on a page about the University in fact limits the amount that can be added to wikipedia about the subject.  Making the article(s) more modular will allow writers to flesh out sections of the Harvard College article, and those of the other grad schools, without worrying about being too specific for a bloated article like that on this page.  That is to say, right now, the article is a soup.  Structure improves readability. --jacobolus (t) 15:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Re "having information about the college on a page about the University in fact limits the amount that can be added to wikipedia about the subject:" that shouldn't be a substitute for a discussion on the merits. The article is presently about 22K long. The firm limitation to precisely 32K is obsolete and the page size warning notice has been softened accordingly. By all means decide on what the best organization for the material on Harvard is, but the present article could double in size with no problems. Articles should not be multiplied beyond necessity. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, I went ahead and moved it. AJD 02:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jacobolus's Proposal

message: Not that Harvard isn't, and not to make a big deal about it... but this seems like the sort of remark that would go over better if it could be put into the mouth of someone other than an individual Wikipedian contributor. Preferably someone recognized as reasonably authoritative or neutral. 
This doesn't seem as if it should be hard to do. 
If the context is world's most prestigious, of course it shouldn't be a U. S. source. If we could be satisfied with "one of the most prestigious universities in the U. S." then a U. S. source would do. But not, say, the Boston Globe!  Dpbsmith (talk) 21:48, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about a source citation for "one of the world's most prestigious..." 

message: This tidbit on the mechanics of the admissions process is too small a detail for the HU article. I was going to put it in the HC article, but HC is currently a grab-bag of things that were too College-ish for the HU article, and I didn't want to make it worse by dropping another random paragraph into it. So here it is:
:Harvard recently returned from an unrestricted Early Action policy (where students can apply "early" to Harvard in addition to other schools) to a single-choice nonbinding Early Action policy (where you can apply "early" only to a single school), aligning it with the policies of Yale and Stanford, which had both recently moved from a binding single-choice Early Decision policy.
jdb ❋ (talk) 00:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admissions details redacted 

message: Watchers of this page should see this poll about whether this page should contain a phrase like "widely considered one of the most prestigious universities in the world". Nohat 15:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The "prestige" comment

message: The article claims "With 41 official sports teams, Harvard has the widest-ranging athletic program in the NCAA."  However, MIT has 42 varsity level sports.  So, perhaps some clarification is in order.Kime1R 13:20, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Harvard always claims to have the most. See, e.g., . On the other hand, MIT also seems to have 41 teams (see ), so I guess it's a tie (not, of course, that bare number of teams is a particularly meaningful statistic). Doops 08:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Most sports teams claim

message: People interested in this page may be interested in Talk:The Game (college football). So far it's just been a one-on-one debate on whether the article about the Harvard-Yale game should be called The Game or Harvard-Yale game, and I'd appreciate input from more people. AJD 21:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of Harvard-Yale football article

message: I added a few notes to the "Recent Developments" section.  The information came from the 5/27 edition of The Chronicle of Higher Education.  The URL for the article is http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v51/i38/38a00801.htm.  I'm still a bit new to Wikipedia so I don't know if this minor update merits its own footnote to note the source.  If it does, I'm a bit unsure how exactly to go about adding it. --ElKevbo 05:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Developments 

message: Article currently says: "Harvard boasts a unique $5 million Judaica library which has identified and categorized books by ink type, font type, paper thickness, pagination style, binding method and numerous other categorizations." Several problems with this.  First of all, it seems strange to discuss one of Harvard's many great special library collections in the main Harvard University page.  Secondly, what does it mean that it is a "$5 million" library?  That it has a $5m endowment?  (true?) That it has a $5m building? (false)  That it has $5m worth of books?  Third, what is most important about this collection (like the others) is its great depth of content, not the cataloguing system.  After all, many collections (especially rare book collections) catalogue the physical attributes of books.  I propose to delete this sentence entirely.  --Macrakis 20:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right; that is a weird sentence. We might as well toss it (or move it to the article on HUL/HCL/Widener, if there is one). jdb ❋ (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Judaica collection

message: I hope you'll tolerate this very mild abuse of Wikipedia. This is research for an unrelated project. I'm writing some notes about a 1903 novel set in Harvard University circa 1882. (I'm fantasizing about self-publishing a reprint of the novel, with annotations).
Anyone know: 
*How high is the tower of Memorial Hall? Preferably the original height (or the height after restoration in 1999).
*I assume that it would have been the tallest structure in Cambridge for many years. Can anyone confirm this and does anyone know the actual range of years in which this was true (i.e. what structure eclipsed it and when?)
*The novel mentions seeing Memorial Hall from the general vicinity of Braintree or Quincy: "across the flat suburban spaces, they again sighted Memorial tower, small in the distance; the sun was lighting it." Any personal observations as of 2005 as to distant locations from which Memorial Hall's tower can be sighted? If so, can I quote you (with attribution of course)? 
*Apparently, as of 2005 the building is no longer used as a dining hall. Is this right? When did it stop being used for dining, and why?
Dpbsmith (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In case you haven't found it, here's the official website, with adequate (although not terribly extensive) information: . Doops |  talk 15:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks much. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, yes... I see the page on Annenberg Hall says it was used for dining immediately after the hall was constructed and explains everything. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for information: how high is Memorial Hall's tower? 

message: Contributors to this page may be interested in this article, which has been proposed for deletion:
Midwestern Ivy League
Please review the article and provide your input on that article's Votes for Deletion page. - 18.95.1.22 03:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Midwestern Ivy League" ? 

message: I eliminated the following sentence from the opening paragraph, until its claim is verified: "(The College of William and Mary in Virginia is America's oldest university, however, as Harvard was originally a seminary)." --Masoni 04:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry about it. It's just nonsense. Doops |  talk 05:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "America's Oldest university"

message: I wonder if Harvard really does have the largest university library in the world. The bodleian library, Oxford's library, is a copyright library just like the british library. So, it gets a copy of every book copyrighted in the UK, and has done since the late eighteenth century. Plus they have whatever they had before the late 1700's, although thats probably not too much compared to the amount thats been published since. 67.22.5.134 02:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember seeing the actual numbers once; in first place was the US Library of Congress with ca. 28 million; second was the British Library with ca. 18 million; third was Harvard University Library with ca. 14 million; and fourth was the French Bibliotheque National with I don't rememeber how many. But of course this is just anecdotal evidence; somebody find the real numbers to back me up. Doops |  talk 04:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "library"

message: People who attend the undergraduate school say they "attended Harvard" or "Harvard College"; the lawyers say they went to "Harvard Law School." So Wikipedia style for biographies should prefer saying "XXX attended Harvard College" when the undergraduate college is meant.  Rjensen 08:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh--this reminds me of a joke about Harvard alums. General cocktail party discussion,  Person A says to Person B, "I couldn't help overhearing you say that you went to college in Boston." Person B, "Yes?" Person A, "So, I went to Harvard too. What house were you in?" Not all Harvard alums are so modest, of course. betsythedevine 21:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  ????? I don't get it... Is the point that Harvard isn't in Boston? Or that Harvard alums think Harvard is the only school in "Boston?" Or is it that if a Harvard alum is trying to establish pecking order and discovers that the person he's evaluating also went to Harvard, the next step is to determine who lived in the more prestigious dorm? Or is it an in-joke incomprehensible to anyone who didn't go to Harvard? Or do I just lack a sense of humor? Or... Dpbsmith (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  Some Harvard students and alums often are timid to mention Harvard in a conversation. I think mostly because the school has so much cultural weight that it sometimes can be hard to refer to it in a casual manner. So a lot of people just end up saying that they go or went to school in Boston. Tfine80 00:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! Fascinating. I find it astonishing that in person Harvard alums are thought to be so modest in person that they will not even name the institution they attended, yet have no objection to the braggadocio currently displayed in the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dpbsmith - ouch! As a Harvard (College) alum myself, I'll attest to the fact that once the "H-bomb" is dropped, a person's attitude towards you can change pretty quickly. Some struggle for words, thinking that they need to say something "smart" to be on your "level"...some become guarded, expecting you to become arrogant and condescending...the best I got was from a girl who, when I told her that I was a Harvard student, replied in a relatively irritated way, "Wow, you must be rich." (My response: "Umm...OK"; my thoughts: "Yeah, I guess, but what difference does it make?") My point is that the Harvard name, with all of its positive connotations, carries various negative ones as well - stereotypes that are only exacerbated by such (otherwise excellent) movies as "Good Will Hunting" and "How High". Say what you want about the braggadocio (that's what the Talk page is for, after all), but implying that some hypocrisy is created by taking a different approach to generally agreed-upon facts (the "general agreement", in this case, being a main function of the Wikipedia vetting system) versus socially constructed prejudices seems a little unfair... - myu kulathungam ('04) 2 December 2005
===College v. University===
This gets to a deeper problem with this page in that it doesn't do a good job discriminating between a college and a university.  Historians of the university understand that the rise of the modern university as a cultural movement in the US began with the founding of Johns Hopkins University in 1876.  A university is an amalgam of colleges, graduate, and/or professional schools.  Harvard University, as a modern university, followed after Johns Hopkins (sure, it may have been called a "university" earlier, but typologically it really wasn't).  WHEN? is why I came to look on this page and could not find out that information. 
I think a major re-write is in order here.  Separating out the various colleges associated with Harvard University (Harvard College, Harvard Law, Harvard Medical, etc.) would be very helpful.--RedJ 17 21:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If you're interested in the introduction to the US of the new German-style research university, Johns Hopkins was certainly a key player; but Yale did award its first PhD in 1871 and Harvard in 1873. At any rate, it's certainly true that this page'ss history section is still a stub and this shift is among the things it should address. Do note, though, that there already are pages for each of the faculties and schools. Doops |  talk 22:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, the first known mention of Harvard as a university was 1779 in Massachusetts's Constitution. Of course, that didn't mean then what it has come to mean now. - Nunh-huh 03:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Attended Harvard College or Harvard University?

message: This gets to a deeper problem with this page in that it doesn't do a good job discriminating between a college and a university.  Historians of the university understand that the rise of the modern university as a cultural movement in the US began with the founding of Johns Hopkins University in 1876.  A university is an amalgam of colleges, graduate, and/or professional schools.  Harvard University, as a modern university, followed after Johns Hopkins (sure, it may have been called a "university" earlier, but typologically it really wasn't).  WHEN? is why I came to look on this page and could not find out that information. 
I think a major re-write is in order here.  Separating out the various colleges associated with Harvard University (Harvard College, Harvard Law, Harvard Medical, etc.) would be very helpful.--RedJ 17 21:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're interested in the introduction to the US of the new German-style research university, Johns Hopkins was certainly a key player; but Yale did award its first PhD in 1871 and Harvard in 1873. At any rate, it's certainly true that this page'ss history section is still a stub and this shift is among the things it should address. Do note, though, that there already are pages for each of the faculties and schools. Doops |  talk 22:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, the first known mention of Harvard as a university was 1779 in Massachusetts's Constitution. Of course, that didn't mean then what it has come to mean now. - Nunh-huh 03:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: College v. University

message: Hey guys, I'm a newbie here, and I've recently been adding to the Harvard School of Dental Medicine article that has been pretty empty until I started adding.
Strictly speaking, I don't think HSDM is the first US dental school. The first US dental school would probably be the Baltimore College of Dentistry (formed before harvard), which later merged into the University of Maryland to form the Baltimore College of Dental Surgery in the early 1900s. Another similar situation happened with Pennsylvania College of Dental Surgery later merging with the University of Pennsylvania. 
However, Harvard still has a claim to fame because these initial colleges in Baltimore and Pennsylvania were probably like barber colleges before they merged with their universities. These colleges were like trade schools.  Harvard School of Dental Medicine is the world's first university-based dental school (that's a fact). And so it was probably the first dental school that actually made dentistry a science, and created the dental educational institutions we know today with research and all that. 
So, harvard is the World's First University-Based Dental School and probably not, strictly speaking, the The First US Dental School. But writing the World's First University-Based Dental School might seem a little pompous. I don't know. Anyhow, I'll let you guys chew on this one. I'm not gonna change it cause I haven't contributed to the Harvard University article. Good work guys, keep it up! : )  --HarvardToofDoc 00:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Harvard School of Dental Medicine - First US Dental School?

message: I've renamed the "criticsm" § "views". Here's my vision for it:
*all of us responsible editors, whenever we spot either choler or puffery elsewhere in the article, can instantly and confidently move it to the "views" § without so much as a thought.
*editors with a strong stomach (i.e. not me) can then go through this section periodically to whittle it down to the factual and relevant and notable. 
Hopefully this will help deal with the frustrations we've been having recently. Doops |  talk 08:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Views" section 

message: I trimmed the last phrase from
:It was founded on September 8, 1636, by a vote of the Great and General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, making it the oldest institution of higher education in the United States and older than the country itself. 
This is a good example of something which is, assuming a certain meaning of "country," true, but unencyclopedic. Of course 1636 < 1776. This is a comparison that a reader can easily make for himself. It's also a pointless observation, or at least I can't think of any non-boosterish reason to mention it. 
The important facts are the date of founding, and that it is the oldest college-like-thing in the U. S.
One could write, equally factually, 
:It was founded on September 8, 1636, by a vote of the Great and General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, making it the oldest institution of higher education in the United States, making it older than the formal organization of the United States; about the same age as Dedham, Massachusetts; younger than St. Augustine, Florida; and four centuries younger than the Sorbonne.
But what's the point?
Is there a good reason, other than boosterism, why, after saying that Harvard was a) founded in 1636, and b) the oldest institution of higher learning in the United States, it is valuable to add that it is "older than the country itself?" Dpbsmith (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? How does the fact that Harvard is older than the US affect Harvard's history? Doops |  talk 23:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, among other things it means that Harvard's second president, Rev. Charles Chauncy, was somewhat audacious when he had tea with William Goffe, one of the refugee Regicides, and it might be of some interest that Harvard acquired Goffe's house, in Harvard Square, to become a dormitory called "Goffe's College" (no longer standing, though marked by a plaque in its former position.) And it meant that early documents and legislation relating to the founding of Harvard were subject to endorsement by a foreign power. From 1636 to 1650 Harvard was operated without a charter, untested by Crown or Parliament, making it an operation of questionable legality. (P.S. The Regicides had to flee Cambridge for New Haven, where they received more reliable protection. Trend-setting?<g>).  - Nunh-huh 00:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, having seen the Regicides' cave on West Rock, I can't say that I would recommend New Haven to any fugitives from justice asking me for a comfortable hideout. But in all seriousness, your answer doesn't show Harvard's history being affected by the fact that it's older than the US — because at the time when those incidents took place the US didn't exist yet and to the best of my knowledge the future can't affect the present. :) Doops |  talk 00:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I rather think monarchical institutions are differently constitued than republican ones. Harvard was also founded in the British tradition that established churches were desirable, which is not an American concept: it was not until 1843 that other than Congregationalists were eligible for election as overseers of the college . The Revolutionary War disrupted education at Harvard and other institutions.  Your mileage may differ. (The Regicides, of course, moved from their cave to more accomodating circumstances, were never turned in, and were never caught, which would certainly seem to make New Haven recommendable.). - Nunh-huh 00:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 1) Harvard's a monarchial institution? That's new by me. 2) What does the establishment or disestablishment of churches have to do with the sectarianism of colleges? Lots of sectarian colleges have been founded since independence. 3) 'Not an American concept': Surely early puritan New England was by temperament both ANTI-monarchist and yet at the same time PRO-religious establishment? 4) You obviously have a habit of knowing your facts, so I probably shouldn't question your 1843 date; but it does strike me as odd given that Harvard was supposedly a bastion of Unitarianism in the early 19th century -- and didn't direct election of overseers only start in 1836? (That's just off the top of my head, mind you.) Doops |  talk 03:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [1] OK, you're right, that was really stretching the point - though the authority on which the charter of 1650 is ultimately based is the royal charter of the Massachusetts Bay Colony of 1629.  [2] The establishment of sectarian colleges by public legislation qualifies, I would think, as a form of establishment of a church. [3] rebelling against/escaping the clutches of the elsewhere established church was a defining part of the American experience. [4] well, it's from a note, and I wouldn't swear to it, but I could try to pin it down if you like. [5] Please stop. New Haven has enough of your criminal friends<g>. Please just recommend it to amiable regicides. - Nunh-huh 06:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Tracked it down. According to the Quinquennial Catalogue of Harvard University, referring to 1780, the date of the adoption of the Constitution of Massachusetts: "The term Congregational as then understood included the Unitarian Church. Membership in the Board was thrown open to clergymen of all denominations by an Act of 1843." - Nunh-huh 06:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clergymen? And a reference to the 1780 constitution? Does this mean that direct election of the overseers began after 1843? (i.e. that "the Honourable and Reverend" were still literally such?) Doops |  talk 06:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Direct election of the board of overseers was enacted by the legislature in 1865 and begun in 1866. There's a good page (i can find it only in Google's cache) which I hope you can get to with this link - Nunh-huh 06:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: So from 1843 to 1866 ANY and ALL clergy of the six towns were on the board? Doops |  talk 07:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scratch that. The 1810 entry suggests that there must have some sort of election, although who did the electing is unclear. Doops |  talk 07:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "....and older than the country itself. "