Talk:Harvard University

Edit warring over including honorary degrees in the Notable People/Alumni section?

Why? What are the arguments for inclusion? X4n6 (talk) 07:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• I think there are two unrelated questions being conflated here: (1) Should someone be listed here as an alum if they received an honorary degree from H but were never actually a student there? I think not. (2) If we are listing someone as an alum for other reasons (see: Bill Gates), should we list all of their H degrees or should we hide the honorary ones? I think we should list all of them, since that's how such a person would most likely be included in any actual official alumni listing from H (for example this one). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

(1) Agree.

(2) Agree (and you're correct about the alumni listings).

Kind of like I said here [1]. EEng 23:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

1) sounds right to me: an alumn* is a former student or graduate [2]. For 2), I agree that honorary degrees should be listed for completeness, but wouldn't it make sense to label them with "(Hon)"? Leaving it off, despite being standard in Harvard external and internal listings, seems misleading. FourViolas (talk) 23:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, or we could link to Legum_Doctor#United_States, or both. EEng 01:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC) "Hey, have you seen my Harvard degree, hon?" "In your cufflink drawer, Bill!"

• My concern is based primarily upon consistency. While I agree that an honorary degree does not make one an alum and said so here, I also think:

1) If we're going to include honorary degrees, then we should either include them for all the folks in that section who are recipients - or not at all. For example, why isn't JFK's LLD '56 listed? Or Sirleaf's LLD '11? Or John Quincy Adams' LLD in 1822? Or FDR's LLD in 1929? Or even Teddy Roosevelt's honorary A.M. in 1919? They're all listed, they're all alums and they all received honorary H degrees. So why is only Gates' listed? Again, it should be all or none. And if it's all, does that muddy the waters and confuse the reader with so many honorary degrees?

2) Also, regarding both Gates and Zuckerberg, obviously, neither are graduates. As such, we already have the article: List of Harvard University non-graduate alumni. They're both listed there, joining the ranks of people like Ben Franklin, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Matt Damon, Robert Frost, Buckminster Fuller, Benjamin Netanyahu, Cole Porter, Eugene O'Neill and many others. So why are Gates and Zuckerberg even listed here? And if they remain, why are they the only 2 non-grad alums listed? Especially since some of those folks have honorary H degrees too: like RBG, Ben Franklin, Frost and many others. But yet that article makes no effort to list their honorary degrees there either.

Of course, I realize this section in the article is not comprehensive. I also realize consistency from article to article is a virtually impossible ask on this project. But certainly, we're all kind of sticklers for demanding consistency within a single article. So, it appears the options are as follows: we either remove the honorary degree from Gates, or add it to every other listed subject who is a recipient. Or we even remove Gates and Zuckerberg altogether, since they're already noted in the non-degree alum article. Or just expand the section here to include more prominent non-degree alums. With or without their H honoraries. But whatever we ultimately decide to do, I just ask that we be consistent. And the problem with the current edit is that it clearly isn't. X4n6 (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Honoraries other than Gates' aren't listed probably because no one thought about it. Seems like you'd be a good person to add them. EEng 12:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Noting the comment from FourViolas, please do not 'label them with "(Hon)"' as it is inconsistent with standard practice and potentially confusing with Honours degrees. Such degrees should be listed as "Hon LLD, 2007" or "LLD (h.c.), 2007" (with or without wikilinks), in line with the information at honorary degree. EdChem (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. As there are several different types of honorary degrees, the degree should be specified. But also, there are several possible options for fixing this. I'm just looking for consensus. Should non-grad alums even be listed here? Should the section be expanded to include more? Should everyone's honorary be included or should no one's? Should there even be a separate new article on honorary H degrees? Dozens of other schools like Florida, Binghamton, Hofstra, NYU, Canterbury all have their honorary degree recipients as the subject of separate articles. I think it's another glaring omission that H, of all places, doesn't. But again, I'm looking for consensus. So I'd prefer to wait for others to weigh in; so we can determine the approach that most people will be comfortable with. X4n6 (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Can we add John Cochran to the "Notable People" section?

John M Cochran attended Harvard law and went on to win reality tv show Survivor and become a screenwriter/comedian. He is notable and did attend Harvard.

Exploding-moose (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The list here in this article has to be for the most notable of the notable, for obvious reasons. There's a Harvard people page for the hoi polloi. EEng 06:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you can argue that John Cochran is a notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exploding-moose (talk • contribs) 06:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Also John Cochran isn't even on that but other page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exploding-moose (talk • contribs) 07:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead and add him to the Harvard people page, but not here. EEng 14:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Academics are important, aren't they?

Recently, I introduced the word "academics" to the first sentence of the lead: [3], so that it read:

Harvard University is a private Ivy League research university in Cambridge, Massachusetts, established in 1636, whose academics, history, influence, and wealth have made it one of the world's most prestigious universities.

My reasoning for this is simple, Harvard is prestigious mostly because it has high academic standards and its faculty, staff, students, and alumni have contributed significantly to many academic pursuits. To me, this seems clear, and it deserves placement in the lead sentence along with the other factors of "history, influence, and wealth". EEng reverted inclusion of "academics" twice, asserting that it sounds "off" [4] and that it is unclear whether or not "academics" means "academic pursuits" or "academicians" [5]. I would say it means both in this case. Anyway, simply removing the mention of "academics" hardly seems like an improvement. Perhaps more optimal wording can be found, but I suggest that the notion of "academics" (be it with this word or another) belongs in this sentence. Thank you. Nechemia Iron (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you provided (many) reliable sources that support your preferred wording. In any case, I doubt that it's true or widely supported since I suspect that most people who think highly of Harvard can name even one academic accomplishment the institution or its faculty and alumni have developed. For many people I think it's famous just because it's already famous with perhaps a small nod in the direction of its selectivity (which, of course, is a largely a function of its fame since it attracts many applicants but cannot admit but a fraction of them). ElKevbo (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Part of the problem with this wording is that academics is largely meaningless when talking about a school or college, since the word pretty much just means "stuff related to a school or college". Is the research what makes it prestigious? The teaching? The product that comes out? The raw material that goes in? Anyway, those things alone can't explain Harvard's unique status, which is why the lead focuses on the other factors which, as ElK points out, are probably more enduringly (if that's a word) at the core of Harvard's prestige. The academics are a given. EEng 22:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Down on the farm

I'm sorry... Harvard ranks #13 worldwide in... Agricultural Sciences??? WTF? EEng 03:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey, it probably should be higher...for all the cow manure it peddles. (That one was just for you!) Cheers! X4n6 (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

You Delaware Tech men are so very witty. EEng 21:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Moi?! Mon Dieu, non. However... since we're a-tradin' clipsies, there is something undeniable about this little gem. X4n6 (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Mine's way better. EEng 21:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Predictable - and typical - response. No way to have seen that coming! X4n6 (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Ditto. EEng 22:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Plagiarist. X4n6 (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Sources for translation: Christo et Ecclesiae as ("For Christ and his Church")

Four unrelated and reliable sources were given for this edit. More were available: here, here, here and here, etc. But the ones listed should have been sufficient. In addition to the one challenged by a user here, they included:

• Dictionary of Latin Quotations, Maxims and Phrases: A Compendium of Latin Thought and Rhetorical Instruments for the Speaker, Author and Legal;
• Muhlenberg College: A Quarter-centennial Memorial Volume;
• The National Catholic Reporter;

But since when do we remove multiple, published SOURCES because of one user with a hyperactive and unattended OWN gland? X4n6 (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• These sources notwithstanding, the translation "his church" is clearly a looser one, since there is no "his" in the original. A web search for "Christo et Ecclesiae" reveals most sources giving the more literal translations "Christ and the Church" or "Christ and Church". groupuscule (talk) 04:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Indeed, X, let's see... you've got:

• a missionary newspaper from 1895;
• The Racine Journal-Times Sunday Bulletin from 1963;
• a priest's personal blog which misquotes the original Latin in the first place;
• a print-on-demand book of Latinisms held by (and I am not kidding about this) a total of two (that's TWO) libraries worldwide (those being the Laramie County Community College Library and the College of Southern Nevada) [6].

The idea that any of these competes with the scholarly work of Samuel Eliot Morison (two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and for fifty years Harvard's official historian) and Mason Hammond (one of the real-life Monuments Men you may have heard of, who succeeded Morison as Harvard's historian after retiring as – ahem – Pope Professor of Latin) is laughable. All of the following translate Christo et Ecclesiae as "For Christ and Church", not "For Christ and His Church":

• Hammond, Mason (July 1981). "A Harvard Armory: Part I". Harvard Library Bulletin. XXIX (3): 261–297.
• Hammond, Mason (October 1981). "A Harvard Armory: Part II". Harvard Library Bulletin. XXIX (4): 361–402.
• Hammond, Mason (Summer 1986). "A Harvard Armory: Part III". Harvard Library Bulletin. XXXIV (3): 251–293.
• Hammond, Mason (Summer 1987). "Official Terms in Latin and English for Harvard College or University". Harvard Library Bulletin. XXXV (3): 294–310.
• Harvard University. Corporation. Seals, 1650-[1926]. UAI 15.1310, Harvard University Archives.
• Morison, Samuel Eliot (September 1933). "Harvard Seals and Arms". Harvard Graduates' Magazine. 42.
• Morison, Samuel Eliot (1936). "Harvard College in the Seventeenth Century". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Morison, Samuel Eliot (1935). "The Founding of Harvard College". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Rosenmeier, Jesper (January 1968). "Veritas: The Sealing of the Promise". Harvard Library Bulletin. XVI (1): 26–37.

Do you honestly not see the difference? EEng 05:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes best not to used self published books or blogs

Julie A. Reuben (1996). The Making of the Modern University: Intellectual Transformation and the Marginalization of Morality. University of Chicago Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-226-71020-4.

--Moxy (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The academic works from the first three pages of Google Books results for "'Christo et Ecclesiae' 'Christ and'":

• for Christ and the Church
  1. DeMar, G. (1995). America's Christian History. American Vision. p. 103. ISBN 978-0-915815-71-5.
  2. Federer, W.J. (1994). America's God and Country: Encyclopedia of Quotations. Fame. p. 282. ISBN 978-1-880563-05-2.
  3. Stone, J.R. (2013). The Routledge Dictionary of Latin Quotations: The Illiterati's Guide to Latin Maxims, Mottoes, Proverbs, and Sayings. Taylor & Francis. p. 144. ISBN 978-1-135-88110-8.
  4. Stone, J.R. (2003). More Latin for the Illiterati: A Guide to Medical, Legal and Religious Latin. Taylor & Francis. p. 332. ISBN 978-1-135-96195-4.
  5. Homer-Dixon, T. (2001). The Ingenuity Gap. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. p. 372. ISBN 978-0-375-41271-4.
• a WP:SPS Valmyr, W. (2009). Christianity and Culture: A Christian Perspective on Worldview Development. Xulon Press. p. 65. ISBN 978-1-60791-941-4.

• to Christ and the Church
  1. Williams, G.H.; Petersen, R.L. (2014). Divinings: Religion at Harvard: From Its Origins in New England Ecclesiastical History to the 175th Anniversary of The Harvard Divinity School, 1636-1992. Divinings: Religion at Harvard : from Its Origins in New England Ecclesiastical History to the 175th Anniversary of the Harvard Divinity School, 1636-1992. V&r Academic. p. 277. ISBN 978-3-525-55056-4.
  2. Sprunger, K.L. (2016). The Learned Doctor William Ames: Dutch Backgrounds of English and American Puritanism. Wipf & Stock Publishers. p. 72. ISBN 978-1-5326-0934-3.
  3. Williams, G.H.; Smith, J.D. (2016). Wilderness and Paradise in Chistian Thought. Wipf & Stock Publishers. p. 150. ISBN 978-1-4982-2456-7.

• for Christ and his Church
• a WP:SPS S.O.M.A. (2010). Soma's Dictionary of Latin Quotations, Maxims and Phrases: A Compendium of Latin Thought and Rhetorical Instruments for the Speaker, Author and Legal. AuthorHouse. p. 115. ISBN 978-1-4251-4497-5.

• to Christ and his Church but then Christ and the Church in the next column
  1. Thayer, W.R.; Castle, W.R.; De Wolfe Howe, M.A.; Pier, A.S.; De Voto, B.A.; Morrison, T. (1906). The Harvard Graduates' Magazine. Harvard Graduates' Magazine Association. p. 200.

• Christ, and Church
  1. McClay, W.; McAllister, T. (2014). Why Place Matters: Geography, Identity, and Civic Life in Modern America. New Atlantis Books. Encounter Books. p. 111. ISBN 978-1-59403-716-0.

I conclude that, although SOMA is one of the better sources a Latin-specialist source (albeit self-published), WP:WEIGHT is decisively on the side of the definite article. FourViolas (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC), edited 13:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

How do you get that SOMA is one of the better sources? And what are you doing on WP on a Saturday night? Don't they have a vegan dance tonight or something? I gave your # to that freshman. EEng 05:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• People pls review the books before posting .....we dont use self published books like Xulon Press .. and the term "Christ and his Church " was a proposal. :Julie A. Reuben (1996). The Making of the Modern University: Intellectual Transformation and the Marginalization of Morality click here read me. University of Chicago Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-226-71020-4.--Moxy (talk) 05:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Bishop Hare's Address. In the Harvard Crimson. January 18, 1895

Bishop Hare's Address.

No writer attributed. January 18, 1895

Bishop William Hare of South Dakota spoke last night at the invitation of the St. Paul's Society, in Sever 11, taking as his subject "Christo et Ecclesiae." He said, the most striking thing about these words is that they are in the dative case. It is not merely two words, "Christ and the Church," but the dative case is used, grammarians tell us, to name one for whom something is done or to whom something is given. So we are to work for Christ and His Church.

Interesting. I'll continue researching, but will ultimately accept consensus. Now that we have a quorum. X4n6 (talk) 05:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Don Quixote, his horse Rocinante and his squire Sancho Panza after an unsuccessful attack on a windmill.

–EEng

References

It would be so much better if you could learn to draw these distinctions on your own, without four other editors having to explain it to you. This isn't the first time we've gone through this sort of thing. EEng 06:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The Crypt-Keeper as rendered by Al Feldstein for Crime Patrol #15

(Sigh) Just what "distinctions," I don't know. But I do know what would indeed "be so much better" would be if you finally followed OWN and realized that no one has to genuflect to you before working on this article. You are not its Crypt Keeper and it is so very tiresome and tedious that "this sort of thing" routinely happens here with you. Certainly, not just with me - but the edit log is littered with the record of you routinely harrasing contributors here. That record, unfortunately, is equally clear that you've cultivated an impressive list of enablers, as you've been allowed to play the system like a fiddle. X4n6 (talk) 07:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The distinction is that between careful scholarship and a blog. I meant to say "This isn't the first time we've gone through this sort of thing with you"; Talk:Harvard_University/Archive_8 and Talk:Harvard_University/Archive_9 tell the story. You can think of them as enablers or whatever you like, but the fact is no one ever agrees with you yet you keep coming back, over and over, to waste others' time by offering nonsense such as Latin translations found in The Racine Journal-Times Sunday Bulletin. EEng 08:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It speaks volumes that you don't even know the difference between books and blogs. Or that you are clueless about the actual concept of "careful scholarship." Otherwise, you would recognize an official volume published by a respected Evangelical Lutheran-affiliated university and written by the Evangelical Lutheran pastor and scholar, who also edited the Lutheran Church Almanac and Documentary History of the General Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in North America; and a Catholic publication that "has won the Catholic Press Association’s Award for General Excellence 15 out of the last 16 years, with a staff that boasts Pulitzer Prize nominees and former writers for TIME Magazine and Religion News Service" with an article written by a published scholar/author who is also a Visiting Fellow at Catholic University's Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies, as "careful scholarship." Further, in "careful scholarship," multiple articles from two sources are still just two sources; and Morison was a historian, not a Latin scholar; and while Hammond was a Latin scholar, so too, was an also prolific Bishop William Hobart Hare.

As for what tells the story about you? Your lengthy block log does that pretty well. As does your ridiculous "you keep coming back, over and over?" - because no one needs your permission. That's the point. Sadly, you don't get it. So to make it abundantly clear, I'll be editing here much more frequently now. Because despite your best efforts, you are not a deterrent. You're just a minor, and inconsequential, irritant. X4n6 (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• I get the block-log thing now and then so I have a canned response for it: You must have missed the box at the top of my userpage --

This user has been blocked several times, and isn't embarrassed about it - (see my block log here!).

-- not to mention such threads as "Hands-down the worst block I've seen in my time on Wikipedia, and I've seen some whoppers" and Review_of_EEng's_indefinite_block and Unblocked and Astoundingly_atrociously_poor_block and so on. Then there's the arb who wrote "EEng (despite his block log, which is not as bad as it looks at first glance if you understand it) and [other editor] are respected editors and know a lot. You need to listen and learn from them." [7] Gotta love that.

• You can puff up your sources all you want (Where do you get that Hare is a Latinist?) but the bottom line is that in this discussion, as in those before, everyone but you agrees that you indiscriminately grab at low-quality sources offering misinformation.
• I'll be editing here much more frequently now ... you are not a deterrent. – WP:POINTY, much? My goal isn't to deter you from editing, but to deter you from editing in such a way that wastes people's time.

EEng 18:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The only person wasting time here is you. I check the quality of my sources. Don't know who they are? Then perform a little scholarship - instead of making asinine and unfounded accusations impugning them. You remain inconsequential. Own that - like you've owned your pathetic block log. X4n6 (talk) 04:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)