Talk:Harvard University

Inclusion of cheating scandal in See Also
Editor @ElKevbo believes that the article 2012 Harvard cheating scandal should be included in the See Also section of this page. I believe that this is WP:UNDUE, given that gravity and relevance of the cheating scandal in regard to the University's 388 year-old history is not significant in any way. There are many other events that occurred at Harvard, such as the Harvard–Yale Regatta, Harvard Psilocybin Project, Murder of Trang Phuong Ho and the Parkman–Webster murder case. Additionally, the university has been directly involved in many controversies over the years, such as Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Free Harvard, Fair Harvard. If these aren't linked to in the page, the cheating scandal should not be either. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Include in See Also because: 1. the cheating was "unprecedented in its scope and magnitude". 2. The Crimson said it was news story most important to Harvard in 2012. 3. Plagiarism and academic dishonesty are major issues for Harvard since Prof. Gay stepped down. 4. The 2012 case reflected larger issues of: athletes cheating, grade inflation, and student networks. This is very relevant for gaining a better picture of Harvard University as a major university. --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It has been over ten years since the incident. At what point would you say that the incident no longer is relevant for gaining a better picture of Harvard? Dawkin Verbier (talk) 10:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Its age doesn’t make it less relevant. Seasider53 (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Even if it's a hundred years old? Then shouldn't we include, as @EEng mentions, the Secret Court of 1920? Dawkin Verbier (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * EXclude. As I pointed out in another topic on this discussion page, there was a similar cheating scandal at Yale of almost the same magnitude yet that is not in the Yale article. Treat the schools the same. The same goes with the addition of Gay's resignation in the history section. Stanford's former President also resigned because of issues with his research yet that is not in the Stanford article. Highlighting each and every scandal in the case of Harvard is discriminatory towards that one school when compared to wiki articles of other (similar) schools. Can't make any changes myself as the article is protected, so I can pretty much only comment as an external observer. But maybe User:EEng wants to chime in on that one too as he could make changes. 2A02:1210:2C5A:AE00:DD9D:4293:4314:8B4F (talk) 08:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * One does wonder why this one thing, our of literally hundreds if not thousands of articles about Harvard (including some Very Bad Things e.g. Secret Court of 1920) needs to be highlighted. I think where this belongs is Template:Harvard University (under "College", or maybe "Misc"). EEng 15:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I can currently see a draw on this matter. Three people for inclusion (@Seasider53,@Melchior2006 and @ElKevbo) and three people against inclusion (@EEng, @Dawkin Verbier and me). What's the procedure on an include/exclude issue when there is a draw? My view is that the proposed change is the INclusion and that therefore a majority would have to vote for that in order for it to happen. Conversely, since a majority was not reached, the proposal of inclusion did not get enough votes to be included. Would be good if someone with some profound experience with wiki policies could chime in though and explain what happens when there is a draw in a discussion. 2A02:1210:2C5A:AE00:6148:4BF9:9CC8:3FF9 (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not have a strong opinion on this - removal is okay with me as long as readers can follow a reasonable path to get to that article from this one. The suggestion above about adding this to the relevant template would be fine with me. ElKevbo (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm... since there now seems to be rather a tendency among users in this discussion not to include (in said section and instead shift to where @EEng suggested), can someone therefore make the corresponding edit? I can't as the article is protected and I am an IP user... 2A02:1210:2C5A:AE00:DC59:58D0:66CB:5421 (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I will make the edit. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 06:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Re-instatig the prestige statement in lede and cut the bashing.
I've been observing this article and the discussions here for a while. I would like to argue for re-instating the removed (and pretty substantially sourced) prestige statement in the lede as well as ask you to cut the bashing. For the former: I think in the case of Harvard, calling it prestigious is not POV but an encyclopedic fact. I mean, come on, it's the oldest and richest school in the US (plus all the other "glamorous" stuff like being in the Ivy League, the alumni, the prizes, the selective admissions process etc.). I think in the case of Harvard, calling it prestigious can hardly be seen as promotional but rather factual, despite the recent scandals in its almost 400-year-history - which kind of is a good transition to the second issue I want to highlight here and thus leads me to my latter point: to kindly ask to cut the bashing.

I feel the most recent scandals have somehow, for whatever reason (jealousy? Sour grapes of any sort?), "motivated" a few individuals to systematically discredit the school (here on Wiki) (e.g. removing the fact its prestigious, digging out a decade old cheating scandal and putting it at the forefront of the see also section etc.). Certainly, scandals occurred but now magnifying recent negative events and digging out older ones; in the grand scheme of things (an institutional history spanning almost 4 centuries); plus almost denying the school's prestige; that just isn't right.

Look at the controversy sections of Goldman Sachs or McKinsey. And? They are still prestigious companies; or do you want to tell me otherwise? Look at the controversies and conspiracy theories surrounding the US government. And? The US government is still perceived as prestigious and the most powerful in the world. Look at all the financial crises of the US economy throughout its history. And? The US economy is still perceived as prestigious and as one of the wealthiest and most successful economies in the world (if not THE wealthiest and most successful). What I'm trying to get at with all those different examples is that, no matter what the context is (school, company, economy, country), something simply is or isn't prestigious, independent of controversies or scandals. Harvard simply IS prestigious - not POV but fact. It simply is. Period. Instead of now trying to find flies in the ointment and look at them with a magnifying glass, it's arguably more advisable to look at the broader picture. I think those who now emphasize and inflate the negative events of the school throughout its centuries-old history, I think those individuals don't see the forest for the trees. 2A02:1210:2C5A:AE00:B8F6:6D44:2A6A:3C2B (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia editors should be committed to revealing the necessary complexity in order to understand subjects better. Harvard is certainly a famous school, but many have pointed out that it is over-rated. Here are three examples: "Turns out, Harvard students aren't that smart after all", "Harvard Is Over-rated", and "A Harvard Education Isn't As Advertised". So I think it is ok to question the adjectives "elite" and "prestigious." --Melchior2006 (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I have this right: your evidence is student-written opinion pieces? EEng 15:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Look a little closer, and then be more honest. And by the way, I could have easily listed ten sources here. People don't take the Ivy League as seriously as they used to, that is part of the Gay story. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you think for even a moment that any of those "articles" are relevant to this discussion, then you're not competent to participate here. Seriously. EEng 22:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In addition to what User:EEng said about the quality and substance of User:Melchior2006's sources, I would also add that, quite frankly, from a logical standpoint, User:Melchior2006's point is absurd that the recent events surrounding Gay automatically mean that Harvard is therefore not prestigious anymore. A quick Google search reveals that other schools of a similar calibre faced similar scandals as Harvard. Stanford's former President resigned last year because of manipulated research data. Yale had a cheating scandal involving 81 students a few years back. And? Do you seriously want to tell me that these schools are therefore also not prestigious anymore? The assumption that such scandals automatically equal a decrease in the prestige of these schools is just ludicrous. If anything, one could even put forward that those scandals, as paradoxical and surprising as it may be, increase the prestige of these schools - as in when people admire villains, known in sociology and psychology as the Bad boy archetype or Hybristophilia (a.k.a. Bonnie and Clyde syndrome). 2A02:1210:2C5A:AE00:DD9D:4293:4314:8B4F (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the current formulation in the lede is very apt: "Its influence, wealth, and rankings have made it one of the most prestigious universities in the world." I can't imagine how even the most nervous defendants of keeping themselves prestigious could have a problem with that. --talk:Melchior2006|talk) 04:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, @Melchior2006, that is because this formulation was removed and restored again just recently as this conversation was going on. That is, as you put it, the "formulation in the lede" which I was referring to when I wrote "reinstating the prestige statement in the lede". Anyway, now that it's back and no-one else chimed in, I think we can close the case. 2A02:1210:2C5A:AE00:DD9D:4293:4314:8B4F (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

21st Century History Section
The 21st century history section mainly consists of explaining (or rather listing) the last few university presidents. Is this really a historic event when a president assumes office, steps down or retires? To me, this is WP:NOTNEWS or 2A02:1210:2C5A:AE00:D4C6:1398:98F8:A7E5 (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2024
209.23.254.18 (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC) I saw error
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)