Jump to content

Talk:History and traditions of Harvard commencements

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

Expansion needed[edit]

Perhaps to inspire others to jump in:

  • "Morning Exercises" is fairly decent though undoubtedly could include numerous additional small details
  • All the other sections are sketches at best.
  • There's no coherent sense of "history" -- mostly amusing traditions

EEng (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incantations for degree recipients of various schools[edit]

We need to log whether or not the same designations are used each year, for example:

  • "generate and utilize knowledge to improve health throughout the world" - to Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health degree recipients
  • "to serve the learning needs of society" and "who will change the world through education" - to Harvard Graduate School of Education degree recipients
  • "leadership in the quest for enlightened public policy and leadership throughout the world" - to Harvard Kennedy School degree recipients
  • Welcoming bachelor's degree recipients to "the fellowship of educated persons" and individually shaking the hands of the Summa Cum Laude graduates*

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MaynardClark (talk • contribs)

"The fellowship of educated persons" (I thought it was "men and women" but in the age of Caitlyn Jenner too a long list of permutations would be needed, I suppose) is a constant, I'm pretty sure, but it's quite possible the others change from year to year. To be honest the Commencement Office was quite snooty about not cooperating when I approached them several years ago, but maybe I'll try again some day. EEng 18:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It (indeed) WAS "The fellowship of men and women" OR "The fellowship of women and men" last year and in (at least immediately) previous years. Anyone's dog or cat applying for Harvard admission? Some great apes were 'liberated' from their regional primate center; maybe we haven't yet learned what kinds of learning can be done, and if learning can be done 'in a more distributed way', maybe educational methods can be developed to optimize such learning possibilities. MaynardClark (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parade order needs checking[edit]

Sources are now cited just before table enumerating President's Parade

Research needed[edit]

  • Extension school, Radcliffe Inst., etc.
  • Technical/formal points re first honorary degree
  • Important commencement addresses, honorees e.g. Geo Marshall, refusals
  • Cancelled commencements
  • Incidents
  • Music (see Grace Notes source)
  • Are candidates still technically candidates after their degrees have been voted? So "candidates" entering the Theatre? If not, what manner of creature are they at this point?

Honorary degrees[edit]

Almost certainly shorthand for D.Litt.. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's my tentative thinking, except I see "D.L." in lots of C.V.s -- formal C.V.s, which argues against it's just being a shorthand. So I don't think we're at Q.E.D. quite yet, O.K.? I think that will end up being the answer but it's the kind of detail that would be so very embarrassing to get wrong. I'd known about the Shaw reply for a long time but I'm surprised it seems to be written up only two places that I can find, other than Shaw's letters which I don't feel like trudging to Widener for just now. I'd still like you to check the order of the parade when you have time -- note an additional link, to some maps, above. One thing that's certainly NOT [NOT! -- I meant NOT!] written up correctly is the position of undergrad officers, summas, Extension graduates. EEng (talk) 03:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More sources on Shaw [3] Note 68 -- see the cite there; but Letters of Shaw is what's really needed.
Hoping to get on parade order soon. OkaynoQED4now. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It might have meant Doctor of Letters, or more likely down-low, as in, "To avoid embarrassment you can keep this Harvard degree on the down-low." Jehochman Talk 00:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sons of Harvard sometimes forget that for Elis, the Harvard-Yale "rivalry" is not just the amusing pastime it is for us. My apologies for awakening old feelings of inadequacy. See [4] EEng (talk) 01:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rivalry? Hardly! Jehochman Talk 01:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You still hung up on this? "My senior year at Yale I stopped going to class and devoted all my time towards pranking the historic Harvard-Yale football game." [5] That pretty much says it all.
Now, what we're supposed to be discussing here is the question of what Shaw meant by D.L. Your suggestion of D.Litt wasn't helpful since it was already under discussion. As mentioned likely our best hope is a scholarly edition of Shaw's letters directly commenting on the point, but in the meantime there's still room for you to contribute some useful insight (though if not everyone will understand). I'll be happy to let you get the last word in, if that can be the end of this tiresome merry-go-round. EEng (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is there is no article on Harvard honorary degree recipients? 19th century and prior it was uncommon for foreign heads of state to receive honorary degrees from any university. The first List of University of Calcutta honorary degree recipients was the Prince of Wales and his state visit to India then under British rule have been subject of academic discourse. I bet there are much more cases for Harvard which Wikipedia needs to cover. Also I am sure there is enough material to get Harvard Tercentenary celebration to FA status. The key appears to compare the celebrations to other anniversary celebrations from universities around the world. Btw FWIW I started the Wikisource transcription project for University of Saint Andrews five hundredth anniversary (see here) and EEng you can look at it if you (I hope) plan to work on it to FA status in near future. Solomon7968 21:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, lists and list-like articles don't do much for me. I prefer to do something more in-depth on a particular personage or event that has some fun stuff going on in the background e.g. Charles Apted. Plus the links I listed at the head of this thread are dead now, dammit. If a particular recipient got especially interesting attention that might be worth an effort if witty things were said and done, but the spirit has to move me. The tercentenary certainly has abundant material but, again, so far the spirit hasn't moved me. EEng 21:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More sources[edit]

General[edit]

  • shands-tucci
  • [http://harvardmagazine.com/2011/07/center-of-attention[
  • [6]
  • Pubs of Colonial Soc Apparently year by year
  • Harvard’s quirky graduation rituals Globe, May 21, 1912
  • [7] possible images
  • Roberts, Russell B. (June 11, 1964). "Commencement: A Melange of Tradition". Harvard Crimson. Open access icon
  • Quincy history -- charters etc.
  • http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/05/test-your-commencement-knowledge/
  • [8] 2020 Crimson
  • [9] 2022
  • [10] Oxonian
  • "2022-2021 Commencement FAQs". Archived from the original on 2022-07-04.

Bells[edit]

Regalia[edit]

Holyoke Chair[edit]

  • "THE AUTOCRAT OF THE BREAKFAST-TABLE." Full text of "PARSON TURELL’S LEGACY: OR THE PRESIDENT’S OLD ARM-CHAIR" available here. The "facts" given may be more a fanciful than factual account.
I was aware of this tale, and the bit about the decrementing payments, but I'm indebted to you for prompting me to read to the very end, as I never knew about the alleged keep-the-chair ceremony and it's conceivable it has some basis in truth, perhaps back when the Governor was a member of the Corporation. I don't suppose you'd like to make this a little research project of your own, would you (if you're feeling up to it)? Morison would be a good place to start. EEng (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Treacherous Chair?[edit]

@EEng - Ok how is chair considered treacherous. Was anyone seriously injured while sitting in it? Jjazz76 (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GuardianH - If you could take a look at this article that would be great. I know you've done a great job of rooting out PUFFERY with college and university articles and this article seems like we have some editors camping out on it refusing to tone down the most obvious examples of PUFFERY. Seems to apply to a few Harvard pages. Jjazz76 (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been explained to you elsewhere by others, and I'm not going to waste my time trying yet again. EEng 09:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok sounds good! Jjazz76 (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mass revert of edits[edit]

Taking the mass reverts of my edits to the talk page. @EEng. Again it isn't clear what you are trying to accomplish with your mass reverts other than make this article not good. This has gone on for months now with me, and YEARS, going back to 2013 with other editors.

I've made multiple changes to this page. You can't just mass revert dozens of edits because you don't like one. If you have a SPECIFIC issue with a SPECIFIC edit, yes let's discuss it here. Let's discuss sources and phrasings and whatever else you like. You simply can't just mass revert edits I spent 2+ hours on because you don't like one. I'll state this again - you simply don't seem to be here to be here to build an encyclopedia anymore, but instead gatekeep a handful of selected articles. Ultimately, I'm here to make this article better, and I'm going to do it, even if it takes months or years to do it.

Happy editing!

Jjazz76 (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're right, it's true: what I'm trying to accomplish is to make this article not good. Ha ha, just kidding. Maybe it's you! Maybe you're trying to make this article not good. OK, maybe not that either. Maybe it's just your edits are well-intentioned but wrongheaded.
As seen in the edit history [11] you did indeed make a bunch of changes. And as explained in my edit summary reverting those changes [12], here's what I found when I sampled a few of them:
  • In your edit summary here [13] you say you removed items from a list because they're not given by the source. But they are in the source. Why you can't see that I don't know.
  • In [14] you deleted a source. I'm not sure why you did that, but the source is referenced elsewhere in the article, so you left the other material unsourced.
  • Your edit summary here [15] shows you don't understand the sentence you changed ("veracity of the lyrics" – WTF???). And what you did turned it into unintelligible nonsense.
So it's not that I just mass revert dozens of edits because I don't like one; it's that I sampled three of them and 100% were flat-out wrong, and after that I wasn't going to pick through forty others studded with boners just to see whether there's one somewhere in there that's an actual improvement. This article needs a lot of work (particularly expansion – see threads above on this page) but what you've been doing isn't it.
This has gone on for months now with me, and YEARS, going back to 2013 with other editors. – That's just more reflexive BS from you. This article passed the (admittedly lightweight) DYK review process ten years ago, and since then (as seen both on this talk page and in the article history) there's been no dispute or controversy about it of any kind – until you showed up with your boundless self-confidence. You think you're some kind of cleanup superhero when really you're just an inexperienced editor who needs to slow his roll.
At [16] you showed you don't understand that words can be used figuratively, don't know what vandalism is, and don't know when you're making a fool of yourself. Now you're doing it again. You've wasted a lot of editor time with your bull-in-the-china-shop approach, not just here but several other articles as well.
You're not going to edit-war your changes in. It's up to you to get consensus for them. Start by making one or two clean, well-defined edits – not scattershots that remove material here, change wording there, and tinker with the wikicode all over the place in between – with appropriate edit summaries, so others can consider them and revert individually if appropriate. Or propose them here. Happy editing! EEng 07:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_and_traditions_of_Harvard_commencements&oldid=1228992932"