Talk:Harvard University/Archive 5

Dennis Ritchie should be lusted under Alumni
He shaped the modern era! I'm sure he should be honored enough to be listed under Alumni. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.10.27.39 (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know much about Ritchie's personal life, but I imagine he would prefer not to be lusted under more than one person at a time, even if such persons are Harvard alumni. One way to encourage such lusting might be to get some old Lionel Ritchie pornograph records and play them on a pornograph. EEng (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 November 2012
Please add J. Robert Oppenheimer to the list of notable alumni.

Noonie12 (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. (One of my personal heroes, BTW.) This list is in desperate need of pruning and organization, BTW, or maybe a separate list (there's probably already some abortive list already -- what a headache). EEng (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 April 2013 Interquartile Range
In the Students section, an SAT interquartile range is listed which was been calculated by adding together all of the individual SAT section 25th and 75th percentiles. For instance, the 75th percentiles for all sections are 780, 790, and 800. So the 75th percentile is listed as 2370 overall. This is inaccurate, though, because both the 75th and 25th percentile scores in one section would regress towards the mean in other sections, so the true 25th percentile is higher than listed and the 75th is lower. So this should be changed to reflect the actual statistics accurately, however would present the information best I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.235.254 (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The phenomenon of regression to the mean makes almost (but not quite) zero sense here. This is not a series of scores for one person on three trials of the same type of test, nor for one person on three different tests -- it's three summaries, each of thousands of numbers, and each for a different kind of test. Putting aside the grotesque overemphasis on test scores as a means of evaluating individual achievement and potential, and similarly grotesque overemphasis on test scores, and some dumb magazine's rankings, as a way of evaluating postsecondary institutions, the sum-of-three-scores is an established summary statistic. Part of the purpose of a summary statistic is to let near-the-mean (or one-side-of-the-mean) data points dilute, (or compensate for) data points on the other side of the mean. So if anything, what you're calling regression to the mean is a desired property. In any event, to break out the scores the way you suggest would give a lot of extra numbers against which there's nothing to compare, since corresponding numbers aren't available for other schools -- not, as I said before, that any of this makes sense as a way of making intelligent comparisons anyway. Trust me on this -- I studied statistics at Harvard so my opinions are officially approved and obviously correct. EEng (talk) 01:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, I'm glad someone so qualified showed up! I think I might not have communicated myself well here. Mainly what I'm getting at is that I believe that this 2370-2080 range gives an incorrect impression, and should be removed or replaced. The 75th percentile combined SAT score at Harvard is not a 2370, and neither is the 2080 the 25th percentile. While this statistic surely has value as you've explained, it suggests that these are the 25th and 75th percentile scores which is incorrect. It is also for whatever reason labeled an "interquartile range" which it certainly isn't, regardless of the accuracy of those numbers! :) 96.18.235.254 (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't be too impressed -- no doubt this article is on the watchlist of all kinds of knowitalls. Ideal or not, inferior to other statistics one can think of or not, the only question is whether it's a typically quoted statistic which can therefore be compared against other schools (though as mentioned already I think all this ranking and so on is a lot of bullshit, especially "this year's numbers" shifting around all the time). I checked the articles on Stanford, Berkeley, and Yale, and I don't see this pair of numbers in any of them. As far as I'm concerned we should just delete it. EEng (talk) 02:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 February 2013
Please format the Alumni section so that easily readable. Maybe a bulleted list or a table. I would have done it but the page is 'semi-protected'

68.5.184.72 (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: A bulleted list or table would make the article unnecessarily long. The stand-alone articles List of Harvard University people and List of Harvard University non-graduate alumni do feature lists of notable Harvard people in table format. This article should only include the most well-known of those such as royalty, heads of state, etc. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 April 2013
The color in the sidebar, Crimson, should be #A51C30, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimson and http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k75408&pageid=icb.page392678&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent820252&view=view.do&viewParam_directory=/EPS#a_icb_pagecontent820252, which states,

""" Harvard Crimson Whenever possible, the Veritas Shield should appear in the Harvard Crimson. It should never be represented in any other colors. Use only the officially designated shades and always insist upon accurate color matching, as poorly matched colors weaken the impact and effectiveness of our graphic identity.	PMS 	CMYK 	RGB 	HEX Crimson

PMS 187U

PMS 1807C

C= 7

M= 94

Y= 65

K= 25

R= 165

G= 28

B= 48

A51C30 """

Jwsuchow (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. ElKevbo (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Use of the word prestigious
The use of the word "prestigious" in the article to describe Harvard is not encyclopaedic. I recommend the word is removed from the article. Additionally, Wikipedia guidelines explicitly advise against the use of the word in such a context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch

81.170.234.118 (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This has been chewed over so many times it's absurd. Read the prior discussions and offer new insights if you have any. EEng (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you refer to "and wealth have made it one of the most prestigious universities in the world" it is referenced from 8-11. WP:WEASEL says so perfectly: "However, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source". WEASEL is for those words that give an unsourced point of view, and it is not the case. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  18:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Harvard College
Harvard College (the origin of Harvard University) should be mentioned in the article, given the fact that Harvard's faculty has a strong historical influence from Cambridge and Oxford's scholarly communities from its founding. (111.248.240.20 (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC))
 * No, Harvard College should be mentioned in the article because Harvard College is a vital part of Harvard University. And it is mentioned, in the 2nd sentence after the lead.
 * However, while we're on the subject it's amazing how much stuff is here that really belongs in Harvard College e.g. statistics on athletics (to name one of many things). EEng (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Gustave Whitehead
Gustave Whitehead, the first person to successfully build and fly an airplane, was noted as being employed at Harvard's Kite-flying Meteorological Station in 1893. (Source: http://www.connecticutmag.com/Blog/Connecticut-Today/August-2013/The-Case-for-Gustave-Whitehead-as-First-in-Flight-Continues-to-Soar-in-Connecticut/index.php?cparticle=2&siarticle=1 ) Would it be more appropriate to add the venue and then provide supportive information regarding the aviator, or to simply add Gustave Whitehead? Unsure if Mr. Whitehead was a professor, and whether or not this occurred at the Blue Hill Meteorological Observatory, thanks in advance! Twillisjr (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * From what I'm seeing at the Whitehead article, no one seems to believe he preceded the Wrights, and even if he did I'm not sure why that in particular is worth noting here. (He wasn't on faculty, BTW.) EEng (talk) 07:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

First Woman Admitted
I wonder why the allreged first woman admitted to Harvard was not named in the Women Section. I mean, she was admitted 9 years before the University officially opened its doors to women. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fe_del_Mundo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monmon298 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * According to Fe_del_Mundo, the subject herself doesn't subscribe to the claim, and this bit:
 * she arrived in Boston and went to the dormitory assigned her in a letter from the director of the hospital housing, much to her surprise she found herself in a men's dorm. Unknowingly the Harvard officials had admitted a female to their all-male student body. But because her record was so strong the head of the pediatrics department saw no reason not to accept her.
 * seems suspect for any number of reasons, including that (to my knowledge -- I stand ready to be corrected) HMS students never lived in "dorms" -- and what role did the "head of the pediatrics department" play in admissions? It all smells somewhat off. EEng (talk) 11:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 September 2013
Near the beginning of the article, the word "and" is used immediately before and immediately after some parentheses. Namely "Harvard is both the United States' oldest institution of higher learning and (as The President and Fellows of Harvard College) and its first chartered corporation." should be changed to read "Harvard is both the United States' oldest institution of higher learning and (as The President and Fellows of Harvard College) its first chartered corporation." TheLaconian (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

TheLaconian (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * For a Laconian you certainly use a lot of words to effect the deletion of four bytes from the article. But one more day and six more edits and you'll be autoconfirmed, after which you can do stuff like this (on semiprotected articles) yourself! Welcome. EEng (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Someone needs to...
As a start on pulling this embarrassing article out of the mud, someone needs to eliminate the ongoing confusion between Harvard University and Harvard College -- it's ridiculous. At least for tonight, that someone is not going to be me, however. EEng (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove relevant referenced information about the cheating scandals. It violates Wikipedia's policy of WP:NEUTRAL.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue here is not neutrality but whether this tells the reader anything worth knowing on a longterm basis about Harvard. As sourced this is an investigation coupled with an amateur poll by the student newspaper. And there's no evidence this is anything remarkable relative to comparable facts about other schools -- as pointed out in my edit summary similar reports are easily found about many if not most other schools. Furthermore, the fact that you've restored this material to the Harvard University article -- where it clearly doesn't belong -- and then commented on doing so here in a discussion specifically about editors' confusion between Harvard University and Harvard College is truly telling. I'd like to hear why, of thousands of things reported in the Harvard Gazette over the last few years, this particular topic is worth including. EEng (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The cheating scandal also smacks of recentism. To the extent it even warrants mention in the university article, it should be perhaps a sentence in the academic section, not the history section.
 * Turning to revamping the article, I think the history section should do away with the current topical sections and revert to a more temporal sectioning based on presidential terms or macro-social eras (post-war, post-coed, etc.). Madcoverboy (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently the subsection heads were just stuck in by someone -- with them removed it's a perfectly sensible chronological narrative. As to the cheating, a further point is that to be neutral (indeed, to be anything beyond titillating) it would need to be put into context with he situation at other schools -- otherwise the reader is just given some numbers of unknown significance. It's very much like the crime statistics I removed earlier -- there were X rapes and Y armed robberies. Is that a lot given the school's size and setting? How does it compare to other schools. On their own such numbers are meaningless. I feel justified in removing the cheating material again. EEng (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Cheating by Harvard students
I added well referenced information about cheating by Harvard students. It was removed twice. Is cheating by Harvard students relevant? Student applicants might think it is highly important, since they will know how to get in—cheat. It's relevant for current Harvard students—so they will know how to pass their courses—cheat. It's relevant for Harvard graduates, when they do something truly prestigious like edit Wikipedia, they'll know how to whitewash the Harvard article—cheat. Just how things work.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Harvard cheating fits a pattern. Several years ago, it was not just a few students investigated, but 125——one hundred twenty-five——investigated and publicized by Harvard University itself. Second time, in a poll, 42% of incoming freshmen admitted to cheating, published by the Harvard Crimson – a reliable source, which was then picked up by NBC News – a national media outlet. There are many more references possible; this is not some minor development to be swept under the rug. The distinction between University and College may be relevant in other contexts but it is not a valid reason to remove referenced information, since the identities of both the university and college are tightly bound up together. If students at the college cheat, it affects the reputation of the university as a whole. Information about cheating at Harvard was removed as well as information about crime statistics at Harvard -- problematic, since students attending the college (particularly women) would find this information important. So it seems to be a likely conflict of interest when a Wikipedian, perhaps a Harvard graduate or sympathizer or public relations person, continually removes the few negatives from this article in clear violation of Wikipedia's rules about neutrality.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Boldface text and accusations aren't going to get you very far. (If I'm a Harvard graduate "sympathizer", perhaps you're a resentful non-Harvard "naysayer" -- see how easy it is?)
 * The sources don't support a "pattern" -- the Crimson poll was in the wake of the "125" scandal.
 * There are other sources indicating a pattern.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see your sources could equally well support the idea that Harvard takes cheating more seriously than other schools instead of covering it up. Cobbling together incidents back to Ted Kennedy to establish a "pattern" is inappropriate. There's a separate article on the 2012 scandal -- all that's warranted in a toplevel article like this is a single sentence linking to it. And BTW, you don't seem to know what "expelled" means -- no one involved (including Kennedy) was expelled. EEng (talk) 03:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Like student newspapers at most major schools, the Crimson is reliable for straightforward reporting of facts on current school happenings, but must be used (at best) with great caution for interpretation, historical context, or (as here) any kind of investigation or research. "'We emailed the freshman class a completely anonymous survey,' Crimson President and undergraduate Robert S. Samuels told NBC News." Uh huh. A mass-email survey -- that's good research there. I note that a Harvard official says, later in the same article, that "Harvard continues 'to beat national averages in reports of cheating, an aspect of the subject which, to achieve the neutrality you keep talking about, would need to be included as well -- except that as an unsupported claim it's about as useful as the Crimson poll.
 * Anonymous survey -- people are likely to tell the truth when it is anonymous. Harvard Crimson has an excellent reputation for integrity. Not just that -- the national media picked up the story because they believed the Crimson's survey.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You need a course in statistics. There are good ways to get honest answers to embarrassing questions, but they required high-quality data from a small sample. Mass mailing everyone and having no idea who responded is the most elementary of rookie blunders, not to mention that (the article says) sixty questions were asked, though we have no idea what those questions were exactly, not how all those answers got summarized as "X% admitted to cheating". EEng (talk) 03:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So, in your supposedly expert opinion, the Crimson survey was simplistic, stupid, flawed. If so, why did the national media cite it extensively? Your You need a course in statistics comment confirms what many think of Harvard's snooty, uppity attitude, making hasty assumptions about what people know and don't know.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * One of our jobs as editors is to evaluate source reliability (which may be different for different purposes, as mentioned). As it happens my degree is in applied math and statistics so, yes, I am well qualified on this topic; but you'll notice I didn't bring that up until you did -- good laymen's judgment is sufficient here. And there's no hasty judgment -- your comments make it clear you don't know what you're talking about. But don't believe me -- why not post at Reliable Sources Noticeboard and see what others think? As to your snootiness comments -- well, that does well explain why you're so hot to include your imagined "pattern of cheating" material. EEng (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As already mentioned, your own crime statistics example makes the case for the indispensability of context perfectly.
 * Why? Wouldn't Harvard students (college and university) want to know this information? Prospective students? Parents? Administrators? Why remove it?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Because as already explained it has essentially no meaning unless it can be compared in some what to other schools. I'm getting tired of repeating things I already said. EEng (talk) 03:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no Wikipedia policy about having to provide comparative context for everything here. Simple: stick to sources. What do the reporters report? Cite them. If they compare Harvard crime rates with Yale's, write that; but do not remove referenced data about crime at Harvard because of a lack of context.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good articles aren't written by including every sourced factoid willy-nilly. It's a matter of judgment -- you can't just keep saying, "You have to let me include it because it's not forbidden by policy." EEng (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * EEng (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Other editors may be interested to know that you've made an accusation of "whitewash" at COI noticeboard WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. EEng (talk)
 * Heh, if EEng has a COI then 99% of the editors on university articles should be blocked. I've moved the content from history to academics where it's more topical and used standard citation templates. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good idea to move the content to the academics section. My problem is not with EEng's connection with Harvard but rather blatant disregard for Wikipedia's rules regarding neutrality.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Then why did you post at the COI noticeboard? But since that didn't work for you, why don't you move on to NPOV noticeboard next, and see what happens there? This is a question of editorial judgment and nothing else. The sooner you stop spouting about alleged policy violations and engage the question of what will best serve the reader's understanding, the sooner you'll be able to contribute productively here. I won't be responding further unless you make a substantive point worth engaging -- have the last word if you wish. And in future please don't interrupt another's posting by interlarding your comments. It fragments the discussion. EEng (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Popular culture
Given the much-litigated "prestigious" phrase in the lead, it's essential to substantively discuss this point in the body of the article. I think something along the lines of a "popular culture" culture might be the most apropos place to do this alongside some discussion of prominent examples of Harvard in literature, cinema, and art. I'd also like to move the content about the perceptions of liberalism (removed by EEng) to such a section given its importance to US politics historically as well as popular constructions of Harvard's identity. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. I removed the "liberalism" material only because there was nothing in it but random jibes instead of sober consideration. I won't be easy to find appropriate sources for this, though, amid all the chaff. EEng (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * These links may help:, , ,. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The links are helpful if we want to discuss the political leanings of Harvard faculty -- which I think may veer into coatrack territory if it's much longer than a sentence or two. That said, my perceptions of the politics within the faculty and among students as a local resident suggest HBS is notoriously conservative, FAS is notoriously liberal, and the student body is not so progressive as one would find on other campuses. But that's all OR and content that we might verify and write about in other sections. I'd rather see such a section discuss popular perceptions of and reactions to Harvard's prestige vis-a-vis politicians calling it "Kremlin on the Charles", Buckley's famous quote, being a liability during populist campaigns, etc. While the previous paragraph's prose and location was not ideal, I did spend some time tracking down references to attribute them and would like to bring it back in to work on. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Notable "Professorships"
At present Category:Professorships at Harvard University lists only 4 Professorships (excluding the lists/disambigs) whereas in the parent category Category:Professorships by university or college lists Category:Professorships at the University of Cambridge‎ with 80 entries, Category:Professorships at the University of Oxford‎ with 54 entries and even Category:Professorships at the University of Glasgow with 36 entries. Interestingly there is no other US Universities Category except Harvard and only one Non US/UK category Category:Professorships at Leiden University‎. I am finding it very hard to believe that Harvard has only 4 Notable Professorship! Solomon7968 16:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * When you think about it, it's much easier for editors to guard a category against entry by something that doesn't belong there, than to search the universe for articles that ought to be there but aren't. Thus categories tend to be correct but more or less (usually more) incomplete. I've never found them useful for anything.
 * As to the topic at hand, certainly there are zillions of notable professorships at Harvard -- notable in the WP sense of having multiple reliable sources blah blah. That's not because Harvard is better than any other school on earth (although it is -- JUST KIDDING ) but Harvard's age means that sooner or later many or most of the old, named chairs (see this 1916 course catalog for an avalanche of them) were written up several times in the various histories of Harvard, house organs like the Harvard Gazette and alumni bulletins, newspapers needing fillers, and so on.
 * Yale, naturally, will have had significantly less coverage, as God intended.
 * How many of these professorships already have articles is another question. Therefore it's not clear, if you found all the Harvard professorship articles already extant and added them to whatever category, how much difference that would make. (I don't think it's possible to add a "red link" to a category.) Another thought would be a "List of Harvard University named/endowed professorships/chairs" or something) but even as I think about it that's a big, big job -- could break it down into Arts & Sciences, Medical, etc. to make it more manageable, I suppose.
 * I think it's great you're volunteering to take care of this -- do you think you can be done by, say, next Thursday? EEng (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and created List of Harvard University named chairs (title chosen because the official university historian William Bentinck-Smith uses "named chairs" instead of "Professorships"/"endowed chairs" or any other combination). I have also created s::Portal:Harvard University at Wikisource. The Quinquennial catalogue of the officers and graduates of Harvard University, 1636-1905 (1905) is available on archive.org and is in Public domain. So our best option will be to put the catalogue in wikisource. No big deal, it appears we have to proofread only 30 or so pages from the 764 pg book. Solomon7968 03:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Although the focus here is faculty not graduates, nonetheless an invaluable resource (less for the list of chairs, but for any articles on the holders of those chairs) is Sibley's Harvard Graduates. One of the weird things about working on Harvard stuff is that e.g. Sibley's and the QQ (as it's jauntily known around the dusty stacks of Widener) are themselves notable and merit articles on their own. EEng (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Why Harvard is cool
Why Harvard is cool is why Wikipedia is cool -- respect for facts, for fairness, for procedure, playing by rules, telling it like it is. Like Wikipedia, Harvard is a work-in-progress, updating itself, dealing with issues like integrity, spam, learning new stuff. I think it was cool for the Crimson editors to care enough about issues which plague academia in general such as academic honesty, to do a poll, ask tough questions, then publish what they learned: it shows openness, a respect for candor, real integrity, seeing the real benefits of openness. That takes moxie. I admire that. I respect the 42% who answered honestly about their past dalliances (although it would have been better not to have dallied previously, obviously) since it suggests real honesty and a willingness to confront a tough problem. It suggests that they think Harvard is more than an educational designer-label, more than a marketing club or elite in-group, more than a rich kids' school, more than a grooming outfit for public life, but an institution which cares about scholarship, academic integrity, learning, and virtue. I think keeping the information about the cheating scandals reflects positively on the school, overall, by seeing it from a larger perspective of an institution fixing problems, although I agree it is possible that persons who do not care as much about learning may see it as a negative. But this struggling-to-be-enlightened handyman sees it as a plus in Harvard's column, worthy of respect, and I wonder if there isn't some way to get across the whole idea of the institution being dynamic, being responsive to change, working to fix problems, striving for openness and purposeful change, to be included somehow in the article, that is, if we could add material along those lines, without being too POV-ish.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what to say about this overall. But if you're even in Boston I'll be happy to give you a personal guided tour of Harvard, if you like. EEng (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll be in Boston in two weeks. That would be enlightening.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll meet you at the John Harvard statue at noon on a date to be determined. Me and my big mouth. EEng (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC) P.S. Bring no weapons.
 * Don't go, Tom -- can't you see it's a trap??? 108.7.154.122 (talk) 03:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't listen to him. We're harmless academics.. EEng (talk) 03:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't be a fool, Sulcer! If they invite you to a departmental colloquium, run for your life! One sip of that sherry and you're converted to the Dark Side. The, er, Whitewashed Dark Side. 108.7.154.122 (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ignore him. Listen, dress nice. One of our top researchers want to meet you. EEng (talk) 03:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I've added thousands of photos to Wikipedia, including colleges, although once this got me detained for a half hour by campus police. Harvard is already well photographed although I see few photos of students. I think this is a shortcoming of most articles on colleges -- no students. So if I visit, I'll wear my best attire and maybe take photos, without getting detained maybe? It would be cool if Harvard had a masters program in handyman science so I could talk shop. Thanks for the warning about colloquiums (colloquia?) and sherry-sipping, although it would take powerful spirits to reduce my intellect even further.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See http://www.harvardhandyman.com/
 * Just kidding -- dress normally, whether that's bluejeans or whatever.
 * There's been no alcohol at most functions since the drinking age was raised to 21 in the 1970s.
 * Many photos are needed for Harvard articles and I'm not so good at that, so if it would give you pleasure there's lots you could snap along the way. Sorry to hear about Union County. Actually, almost all large institutions and corporations have formal policies forbidding photography without permission, but as a practical matter at Harvard (though of course I can't speak for Harvard officially) no one cares outdoors assuming you aren't being creepy. Some facilities are posted for no indoor photography, and that's all that matters. (The John Harvard statue has been said to be the most-photographed location in the US after Lady Liberty and the Lincoln Memorial, but of course it's hard to see how anyone could possibly know that. Interestingly, the Harvard and Lincoln statues are by the same sculptor.)
 * It's colloquia, and while we're on the topic (since I'm sure you'd want to know) dalliance means a brief or casual romantic or sexual relationship -- in other words, it might be interpersonal cheating, but not academic cheating (except, I suppose, in a course on Dating and Relationships or something like that).
 * We seem to have drifted off the main topic of this talkpage, so perhaps we should continue elsewhere for future communications. EEng (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)