Talk:Harvard College

Harvard University and the Adams family

• Samuel Adams Class of 1740
• John Adams Class of 1755
• John Quincy Adams Class of 1788
• Charles Adams (1770–1800) Class of 1789
• George Washington Adams Class of 1821
• John Adams II expelled prior to 1823 graduation
• Charles Francis Adams, Sr. Class of 1825
• Henry Brooks Adams] Class of 1858
• Roger Adams Class of 1909 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.72 (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Gomez Addams

First Indian in the colonial period

Twenty-three years later, in 1665, Caleb Cheeshahteaumuck, "from the Wampanoag...did graduate from Harvard, the first Indian to do so in the colonial period".[1]

I think he was just "the first Indian to do so.[period]" The phrase 'in the colonial period' would only make sense if there was some history prior to the colonial period and therefore the citation needed qualification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.105.72.67 (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Notable alumni alphabetic order

There has been a discussion between me and Hertz1888 regarding the alphabetical order of this section. Most Wikipedia articles don't follow a certain order when adding names, last added name is usually the last, so I liked the note that this article has "!-- Please maintain alphabetical order --". Therefore, I suggested the alphabetical order based on English Standard Language,[1][2] because the current sequence don't follow any rules. Any suggestions, as I don't want to waste time, over and over, on the same topic. Thanks AdvertAdam ^talk 07:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The order followed in this article, as in multitudes of other Wikipedia articles (a few examples: Harvard Law School#Notable professors, List of people from Berkeley, California, List of people from Newton, Massachusetts, Sharon, Massachusetts#Notable residents) has been what appears to be the common convention, first name last name, with alphabetization by last name. The section has been stable long-term in that order. The "English for students" link, notwithstanding, I see no justification to changing the order to alphabetization by first name, or any other arrangement. I am putting it back in the established, very unremarkable order pending a consensus for change. Often new names are added on the fly to existing lists simply at the bottom, until someone gets around to alphabetizing or re-alphabetizing the list. The convention for doing so on WP appears to be exactly as has been done in the present article—first name last name, listed in order of last name. I have never seen any other objection to that practice in this or any other article, and believe we should leave it be. Comments invited. Hertz1888 (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I see that Adam quoted 2 references which sort by last name, but his reverts, by contrast, were trying to sort by first name. Last name is certainly the sensible, and usual, way. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Standard practice in the English language is to sort by family name first, then by personal name secondarily. So a list of names should be sorted thusly:
  • Jane Doe
  • John Doe
  • Bill Evans
  • Andrew Peters
  • Jane Smith
  • Peter Smith
  • Zoe Smith
  • Alexander Zane
• I have never seen any ordering of names done differently, or any style guide, ever written which recommends any differently. --Jayron32 17:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough guys. I insisted to sort them because they aren't sorted either way. The continues reverts were only insisting on one part of the section, while a private discussion was open. I'll take the time to sort the whole section by last name tonight. Concluding that the names will end up written with British English Standard and sorted by American English Standard. Thanks everyone AdvertAdam ^talk 19:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No need—and no justification—for any further alteration. All parts of the section are already done, exactly according to the standard practice demonstrated by User:Jayron32 above. Please let's leave it alone now. Any further changes in the ordering or structuring on your part will be in violation of consensus and could be viewed as disruptive editing. There's been enough time spent (or wasted) preserving the status quo. Thanks to those who commented. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

AGAIN, I saw it weird at first to use both American and British Academic English Standards at the same place; however, I appreciate and accepted everyone's opinion. I JUST thanked everyone and said that I will check the article when I have time. Guess the un-ordered parts that I previously saw were sorted during the reverts. AdvertAdam ^talk 06:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Material salvaged from John Harvard (clergyman)

I've removed this material from John Harvard because it's not really about the man but about the school. Maybe it will be of use here.

In honor of this gift, the New College at nearby Cambridge, which had been founded on 1636 and to his friend, the first schoolmaster of this college, Nathaniel Eaton. Eaton's records indicate that the building of the new college began immediately in 1638 with the assistance of the carpenter Thomas Meakins and/or his son, Thomas Meakins, Jr. of Charlestown. It was completely constructed of wood, with a stone foundation and cellar, had its own apple orchard, and was apparently equipped with live-in accommodations for some 30 students, as there were at least that many attendant within the first year.

The school was renamed "Harvard College" on March 13, 1639. Harvard was first referred to as a university rather than a college by the new Massachusetts Constitution of 1780.

The College's Harvard Hall burned in 1764, destroying all but one of Harvard's original 400-volume donation.( "Tale of John Harvard's surviving book". Harvard University. Retrieved 2009-03-23.

) (Marbled Paper. University of Pennsylvania Press. 1990. ISBN 0812281888. {{cite book}}: |first= missing |last= (help))

Material removed from Harvard University

This edit [3] reflects my removal, from Harvard University, of an enormous block of text headed "student activities", giving one or two sentences on each of dozens of student groups. Aside from the drearily superlative tone (oldest, largest, premeire, oldest, largest, premeire.. OK, OK!) this material is too detailed for any kind of list-in-main-article-of-things-which-have-their-own-articles i.e. it doesn't belong here at Harvard College much less at Harvard University, but in articles on the individual groups. (A spotcheck suggests that most or all of this material is already in those articles alrady.)

AfDs

The following may perhaps be of interest:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dudley House (Harvard College)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mather House (Harvard University)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cabot House (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Currier House (Harvard College)

--Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Maths

Harvard's mathematicians are an odd collection. Kaczynsky is doing a life sentence for murder and Lehrer's maths were slight or none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.68.30 (talk) 14:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

On the plus side, Andrew Gleason solved Hilbert's fifth problem. EEng (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

You are quite right. Gleason's contributions to maths are much bigger than Lehrer's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.69.58 (talk) 09:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Kaczynsky also made more of a contribution than many to maths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.69.58 (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Khurana quote

User:Mj thenovelatre inserted and re-inserted a quote from Dean Khurana. I removed it, because per WP:SELFPUB, self-published sources must not be used for "unduly self-serving material" like this, and a message written by Dean Khurana in his official capacity about Harvard on the College website is a self-published source (essentially Harvard writing about itself, and in a promotional manner). This is necessary to ensure that Wikipedia is not used for promotion and maintains a neutral point of view. WP:Consensus from others? FourViolas (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

See my edit summary in reverting its second insertion: [4]. This is fluff that tells the reader nothing except that Harvard espouses the same lofty goals all educational institutions do (... all except Trump University, of course). If there were some larger, noteworthy controversy over the mission of Harvard College, this might be one tiny part of a larger discussion, but on its own it's filler. EEng 17:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

No more House Masters, now Heads of House, right?

The article still says that each House has a "Master", but I am reasonably sure they changed the title to "Head of House". Right? Source: Original research, but this was a big deal. 146.115.179.89 (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)