Talk:Harvard University/Archive 6

Cheating scandal
There's some disagreement re "cheating scandal" material -- see individual points below. As a preliminary see the confused discussion above, and the claim of conflict of interest which was laughed off the COI noticeboard.

2006 physics exam

 * In 2006, there were charges of academic dishonesty on a physics exam. 

I propose this material be omitted. As a check of the cited Crimson article will confirm, nothing in it suggests that any student did anything inappropriate -- in fact the only text on point is someone saying the opposite. (Harvard final exams have always been published openly -- apparently this instructor didn't know that.)

Comments, please. EEng (talk) 02:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This was a Paper-Chase-ish situation in which four questions from a test were (essentially) repeated from an earlier test; some students figured out there was a correlation between past tests, checked with past students, and had a slight advantage on the test because they knew the likely questions which were, in fact, asked; but overall, in review, perhaps we should leave incident and reference out of the Wikipedia article because (1) it was only one high-level class (2) the professor did not know about exams from previous years (3) no discipline issues (4) more like a misunderstanding.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So we are agreed this should be omitted? EEng (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think it is currently out.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This section needs an official tick mark, or I'll be confused. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 20:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

We don't want to make any false moves here. The green checkmark usually means "I implemented the thing we all agreed on" but I think we should resolve all the other sections below before actually changing the article, since they all go together and e.g. we still have to argue about what order the different statements should be in, whether or not to use the Oxford comma (as it's called at Harvard -- I understand that at Oxford that call the "Harvard comma") and so on. Therefore I'll add a big smiley face to indicate "we are pleased to announce that agreement has been reached on this point, but we haven't actually done it yet." Here goes... If anyone disagrees with the choice of graphic please open a new discussion section elsewhere on this page, and then stick your head in a lion's mouth. EEng (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

"Culture of cheating"

 * University policy is to expel students engaging in academic dishonesty to discourage a "culture of cheating".  


 * What the source says is, "Kester, a 2008 Harvard graduate who wrote a memoir, That Book About Harvard, about his own struggles with academic honesty and the high expectations of Harvard, said the cheating scandal didn't surprise him. 'When I was a student there, I definitely noticed there was a culture of cheating there,' " This is just some guy providing a shock-quote to promote his book and including it is UNDUE.
 * Even if "culture of cheating" were worthy of inclusion, tying it to the (nonexistent -- see below) "policy"...
 * University policy is to expel students engaging in academic dishonesty to discourage a "culture of cheating,"
 * ...has no basis at all and is pure SYNTH.

I propose the above be replaced by
 * Students found engaging in academic dishonestly are typically required to withdraw for one year.

(There are no fixed policies on punishments for various offenses, and no one has been expelled in several decades, as anyone who knows what he or she is talking about would know.) EEng (talk) 02:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The phrase "culture of cheating" sounds, to my ear, a bit POV-ish, unfair, maybe we could change it to simply "to discourage cheating" in the line in Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly you are suggesting
 * University policy is to expel students engaging in academic dishonesty to discourage cheating.
 * You're kidding, right? More seriously: as is often the case when the "obvious" is stated, the purpose of Harvard's policies in cases of academic dishonesty, and other serious offenses, are more complex than deterrence. I know it may seem startling, but unless there's a source explaining the why Harvard metes out the punishments it does it's not appropriate to assume the obvious. I therefore suggest:
 * University policy is to expel students engaging in academic dishonesty.
 * (There's a separate discussion elsewhere as to whether expel is the correct term, but that need not concern us here.) EEng (talk) 03:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Omitting the "culture of cheating" bit seems like an obvious move given that it only seems to be present in one source that is autobiographical in nature and not written by an expert in academic fraud or higher education culture. The remaining bit seems odd to include but relatively innocuous although I worry that it's a bit distracting and frankly useless information. ElKevbo (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * EEng's wording above University policy is to expel students engaging in academic dishonesty works for me, although I'm persuaded that the "expel" is confusing, probably should be replaced by "required to withdraw", as has been suggested elsewhere. I disagree that it is useless information; students would certainly need to know this, as well as others, about Harvard's policies.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we're over the hump on this one though there are still some problems:
 * After changing expel --> requirement to withdraw we have the new problem that readers won't really know what that is
 * As I mentioned way back, there are no fixed disciplinary policies. Failing to credit an obscure source for an idea presented in a paper is also academic dishonesty, but likely to be punished by something less than requirement to withdraw (e.g. F on that paper). So the statement isn't true as given.
 * Something else which, having got to this point in the list, I can't recall.
 * However, I'd like to suggest we leave this one for a bit, and focus on the other two points below (Crimson poll, 2012 scandal). It's possible that what happens there might make it clearer how to finish up here.
 * EEng (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Crimson poll

 * ''In 2013, there was a report that as many as 42% of incoming freshmen had cheated on homework and exams prior to entering the university.

I'll repeat here a discussion on this point found above on this Talk:
 * 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)

Not surprisingly no post was made at RSN. I'd like others' comments. EEng (talk) 02:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the well-referenced and relevant content should be truncated. It received broad media coverage. Omitting it would make Wikipedia seem amateurish, distorted. I agree the wording expelled for cheating could be changed to required to withdraw; in Kennedy's case, he was required to withdraw for cheating, but he later returned and graduated, so expelled likely means the requirement was not permanent.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Saying over and over that it's well-referenced and relevant doesn't help much in the face of careful reasoning suggesting it's misinterpretation, misrepresentation, and unreliable. Please speak to the individual points above. EEng (talk) 03:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You claim the Crimson survey information is a (1) misinterpretation (2) misrepresentation and (3) unreliable, that the Harvard Crimson, NBC News, Washington Times and Los Angeles Times and other major national media, including identified people on record such as Harvard Crimson president Robert S. Samuels and NBC's reporter Simon Moya-Smith, LA Times reporter Matt Pearce somehow got the story wrong, that the Crimson survey was flawed, or that Wikipedia inaccurately reflects these media reports. The burden is on you to show why. It is not enough to claim errors without being specific or by claiming some special knowledge of statistics.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Still, in a sense of fairness, let's review the survey and the reports.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The Crimson did an email survey of entering freshmen of the Class of 2017. Was the email list good? Were the email addresses actually those of the entering freshmen? It seems reasonable to suppose that the list was obtained from the university itself; it does not seem reasonable to assume that Crimson staff made up the email addresses, or emailed the survey to random people, to friends, or others, from the reasonable assumption that it would be too much work to do so. It seems to a reasonable person, looking at this, that Crimson staff genuinely wanted to survey entering freshmen—who are these people, what do they think, where do they come from, what do they expect to do after graduation, and so forth, for the purpose of generating content for their publication.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Was the choice of delivery reasonable? They chose an email survey, which brings numerous benefits: it is free, fast, allows for digital tabulation by computer; in contrast, in-person research is slow, expensive, time-consuming, error-prone; telephone surveys would have a lower response rate, higher costs to pay for interviewers, intrusiveness; snail mail surveys are expensive and slow and introduce the possibility of error via scanners or humans. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What about the choice to survey the entire incoming class? This was a reasonable choice, rather than taking “high-quality data from a small sample” as you suggested here in an earlier post on this talk page. A small sample of the class of 2017 could have introduced sampling bias, such as whether the sample chosen accurately represented the incoming class; the Crimson wisely avoided this issue. How big was the class? According to the Harvard Common Data Set information for 2011-2012 year (a year behind – CDS data for 2012-2013 not ready yet) the incoming class size was 1657 students (first-year undergraduates, degree-seeking); it seems reasonable that the size of Harvard college's Class of 2017 would be approximately this number, since it probably does not change substantially from year to year. This agrees essentially with the Crimson report that they emailed “over 1600” students, which is roughly consistent.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Suppose we assume the surveys were received via email by entering freshmen; did persons other than the entering freshmen answer the surveys instead? This seems unreasonable; most likely, since most communication between a college and entering students is by email, the link between the college and the incoming student is solid; it does not seem reasonable that the surveys were answered by younger brothers or sisters, parents, aunts or uncles, friends——why would they waste their time? It does not seem reasonable that incoming students would share their email address and account with others.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Did students answer honestly? The Crimson had their email addresses; so individual surveys could be tied to specific people; but most likely the respondents were promised anonymity, that the answers would only be reported in groups, not by individuals; if the Crimson violated this pledge of anonymity, then there might be legal issues for the Crimson (eg if they reported specific students to the administration, who then used the information to deny the students admission -- but this did not happen). Another likely possibility is that the Crimson used an intermediate service which guaranteed the anonymity. Either way, it seems reasonable that the respondents liked the anonymity, felt they could answer honestly because of this anonymity, and did; there were other questions about use of narcotics which could have been considered sensitive as well, so the anonymous approach was, in this case, the best way to handle it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The length of the survey – 60 questions – seems perhaps a little long, perhaps straining the patience of some answerers, but it was not overly long where I would seriously question the results; the Crimson claimed it took 10 minutes to complete, and this seems reasonable; I have completed similar surveys in about that length of time, on the computer; if the survey took a half an hour, I would begin to question the 80% completion rate. The Crimson noted that not all of the surveys which were started (and submitted) were completed fully; still, it is reasonable to assume that the Crimson accounted for this properly, simply by basing the percent (42%) on those answering “yes” to the cheat-on-a-homework question, on the proper base (ie, those answering “yes” divided by those answering either “yes” or “no”, and not using a different base or including nonrespondents in the base.)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems reasonable that most questions were probably in the closed-end format (eg “Did you ever cheat on a homework assignment? Yes or No) rather than the open-end format (eg “Did you ever cheat? Please explain...”); this seems reasonable since an open-ended cheating question could introduce interpretive bias during the coding of the answers, which would also mean more work for Harvard Crimson staff or employees or volunteers, and it seems reasonable that the Crimson would use the smartest cost-efficient way.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree it would be nice to know the exact question asked, its phrasing, since in market research, the exact wording of the question can introduce all kinds of bias; still, it does not seem reasonable that there was serious distortion resulting from question wording, since why would Crimson staff willfully do this? I assume they really wanted to know about the incoming class, that they asked the question reasonably.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The Crimson claimed that their survey response rate was 80% which is, in survey terms, a solid return; it is not 100%, of course, but this is almost never the case in survey research; in this case it was much better than half of respondents; could there be nonresponse bias? That is, could those 20% of incoming freshmen who chose not to answer the survey be somehow different than the 80% who did, in terms of the cheating question, and in so doing throw off the accuracy of the survey (ie that the 80% “sample” does not accurately reflect the 100% “universe”? This is hard to say, obviously, but my sense is the 80% is close, an excellent reflection on the group as a whole, that at most, if there was nonresponse bias, that it could only throw off the 42% result by perhaps a few percentage points at most, but I doubt that happened. Suppose, for example, that none of the 20% of nonrespondents cheated, then the 42%-who-cheated percent would drop to 34%, but in the absence of any sign of nonresponse bias, it seems likely that the 42% number is reasonable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The results are roughly consistent with surveys done from a previous year.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Could there be some other problem with this particular survey? Could a hacker have gone in and switched the email addresses around? Could there have been a bug in any tabulation programs? Could some backroom person have fudged the results as part of a hoax or stunt? Of course these things are still possible, but they seem extremely unlikely, since the overall pattern is consistent with the pattern at most other universities, that acknowledge that cheating is a problem, an issue for administrations and students to contend with.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In sum, what I am asserting, is that the survey design, method, results seem reasonable to a neutral person, looking impartially at these reports, even if they were only educated, like me, at the truly greatest university (okay, my POV) in the world.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is almost all WP:OR. We don't often make our own judgments about sources in that manner but instead rely on what has been published in other reliable sources. If this survey is truly significant and has major flaws then we would expect (hope) to find published information supporting that. Without such evidence then we're on very shaky ground trying to draw our own conclusions about the survey. Instead of analyzing the survey - which we shouldn't do as Wikipedia editors and which we can't do without a lot more information - I think we should focus on the issues of due weight and how recent this information is. Personally, I am not convinced by the sources that this incident by itself rises to the level of importance and lasting significance to warrant inclusion in this particular article. If this can be placed in a broader context then I may be convinced otherwise but by itself this one recent event doesn't seem important enough to be included in a grand summary and overview of the entire history, culture, organization, and impact of this 377 year old institution. ElKevbo (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * User:EEng has been removing the lines about cheating repeatedly, here and here, without substantial discussion on the talk page, on the basis of believing that the Crimson survey was flawed; I am merely pointing out that, for a reasonable person, the survey seems reasonable; it does not constitute original research to assess the worthiness of a source. This is a talk page, not the article. I agree that for the survey to be shown to be flawed, we would need other reliable sources to show this; so far, there have been no sources calling into question the survey methodology, only User:EEngs assertions.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Recentism is writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention and possibly resulting in: (1) Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens. (2) Articles created on flimsy, transient merits. (3) The muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets of a subject, previously recognized by Wikipedia consensus."

- Wikipedia, WP:RECENTISM.


 * Recentism is really a criticism of an article as a whole, that it disproportionately focuses on recent events while ignoring the bigger, long-term picture. I can hardly see a line or two about the university's policy towards academic dishonesty as “overburdening” the article or “muddling or diffusing” the subject. Recentism should not be an excuse to remove any information because it happened in the last year, otherwise much of the data in the infobox would have to be removed. It is hard to see how a few lines about university policy and events constitutes undue treatment.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * My concerns about the Crimson poll have never been based on its technical merits, and indeed they cannot be, because there's almost no technical detail available. And that is the concern. Reliable sources disclose their methodology for scrutiny. It's one of the hallmarks of reliable statistical work, not just in polling but in medical research, economics, and everything else.
 * El Kevbo is right that "We don't often make our own judgments about sources in that manner" i.e. by attempting our own technical analysis, but we do judge sources on their areas of competence. I repeat: "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" -- because student journalists, for obvious reasons, lack the experience and resources to undertake a valid poll, just as they would have little idea how undertake a serious forensic financial investigation -- expecially where, as here, their report says so litttle about how their investigation was carried out.
 * The Crimson didn't even reveal what questions were asked, and that sure does matter. "42% of respondents admitted to cheating on a homework assignment before coming to Harvard." Um, OK. In the 5th grade I compared spelling papers with another kid on the bus; does that count? I did something similar in 8th-grade German; does that count? In high school physics, I realized I'd done Problem 5 instead of 15, so in a panic...; does that count? Was the the Crimson asking about grades 1 to 12? 7 to 12? Grade 12 only? Did their question even specify, or did the respondent have to guess what was being asked? 42% of some group answered yes to some question, but we don't even know what that question was.
 * No expertise is needed to see that this is fatal. Some college students -- bright as no doubt they are -- doing something or other unknown came up with some uninterpetable but shocking-sounding numbers which made a splash for one day. They were widely reported for the same reason that the National Enquirer publishes pictures of "ugliest celebrity beach bodies."
 * If the article is going to continue to say, "In 2013, there was a report that as many as 42% of...", then perhaps we should append, "...but there was also a report that Harvard 'beats national averages in reports of cheating. A meaningless, uninterpretable quantatative claim, balanced by a meaningless, uninterpretable unquantified claim, is the best way to achieve neutrality.


 * EEng (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * EEng (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this was a valid poll which has been argued at length above, and that the one line about it should stay, perhaps we could add context to the paragraph that the subject of cheating is one which afflicts most universities and colleges in the US and probably the world.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * For reasons already given I must insist that the wording either reflect the absurd meaninglessness of the Crimson poll:
 * In 2013, there was a report that as many as 42% of incoming freshmen had cheated on homework and exams during an unspecified period sometime between birth and 12th grade.
 * or that, as already suggested, an equally meaningless truthy-sounding fact-like assertion be included for "balance":
 * In 2013, there was a report that as many as 42% of incoming freshmen had cheated on homework and exams prior to entering the university, though Harvard continues to beat national averages in reports of cheating.
 * EEng (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The question on the Crimson poll was probably "Have you ever cheated on a homework assignment?" or a close variant; I continue to urge Crimson people to publish the exact question wording. When answering the question, students most likely were thinking of assignments in high school, perhaps middle school, almost certainly not elementary school, where it becomes difficult to fudge finger painting or show-and-tell, so it seems reasonable, in the absence of specifics, to leave this out, and let readers form their own views. Any estimate on our part about the time frame would be guessing. The statement Harvard continues to beat national averages assertion is suspect -- from a Harvard communications officer, responding to the poll -- much better to get a source commenting generally on collegiate cheating nationwide, hopefully backed by some kind of data.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The body of evidence presented thus far does not convince me that this material belongs in the article. I agree that it received some significant media attention but the substantive information seems to be quite weak and very muddled. To be accurate, we would have to write such a weak and confusing summary of this information that it's better left out of the article entirely especially since it wouldn't add much to a readers' understanding of this topic (indeed it would only cause more confusion). ElKevbo (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I continue to think this information is relevant, important, for numerous reasons outlined above; I think the sentence in Wikipedia, as written, is accurate, as reflected by numerous nontabloidal (?) reliable sources, and omitting it would call into question Wikipedia's reputation. Wikipedia's readers, familiar with the press coverage of the Crimson poll, then reading this article in Wikipedia about Harvard University and not finding it, would doubt the veracity of the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You're still not addressing the point I've made from the beginning, and which ElKevbo has repeated: what do we say this "42%" means? You put it best: "The question was probably... students most likely were thinking of... perhaps..." You worry a lot about the low esteem in which readers will hold us if we omit this or that point -- I'm more worried, actually, about readers thinking, "This article says 42% cheated before they came to Harvard. What in the world does that even mean? When? Did these editors write this without realizing even they can't possibly know what it means???" EEng (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Simple: it means that of the incoming Harvard freshmen, class of 2017, 42% reported that they had cheated on a homework assignment. What's so hard to understand?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Not so simple. Let's review: "Ten percent of respondents admitted to having cheated on an exam, and 17 percent said they had cheated on a paper or a take-home assignment. An even greater percentage—42 percent—admitted to cheating on a homework assignment or problem set."  "[The Crimson president told NBC in an interview that] more than 1,600 freshman from the class of 2017 were emailed the 10-minute, 60-question survey last month. An estimated 80 percent responded to the survey, he said." 

That's the entirety of what's known about this 42% figure. In addition to the fundamental problem of our having to surmise what question was asked, the Crimson president told an interviewer that "an estimated" 80% of the class responded. Estimated? If there's one thing the Crimson should not have to estimate, it's the number of surveys returned. So is it just that the Crimson president himself didn't know, and made up a round figure for the interview?

And even if 80% indeed returned the survey, surely not all of them really answered all 60 questions.

So no, the poll doesn't mean, as you say, that 42% of the class of 2017 reported cheating on a homework assignment. It means the 42% of an unknown subset of an "estimated" 80% of the class of 2017 answered "yes" to an undisclosed question.

You keep saying that national media treated this as an important story and so on. Actually, the NBC webpost is the closest thing to serious news reporting I can find on this. NYT, Washington Post, LA Times, WSJ, and other major papers did not carry it, as far as I can tell. What you do see is columnists fretting about the awful implications of the 42% figure, but these aren't the kind of people one would expect to be thinking about whether the figure means anything in the first place.

In contrast, when the Boston Globe publishes a poll like this, the story includes a link to this explaining what was asked and how. I wouldn't expect anything nearly so elaborate from the Crimson, but to believe they knew what they were doing I would expect something. Instead it's all just quicksand. EEng (talk) 04:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * These issues have been discussed at length above. The story was covered by numerous national newspapers, including Los Angeles Times, United Press International, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg News, Chicago Tribune, Baltimore Sun. None of these sources suggested substantive methodological problems with the poll. Can you provide a reliable source questioning the integrity of the Crimson poll?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, as matter of fact -- this excellent paper from the Institute for Public Service and Policy Research (University of South Carolina), explicitly endorsing the idea that laymen can identify unreliable polling -- one of the hallmarks of which is (drumroll please) failure to disclose detail on how the poll was conducted. Especially salient points:
 * 3. Know How the Survey Respondents Were Selected ... All serious surveys use some form of random or probability sampling strategy.
 * 5. Know the Exact Wording of the Questions Used
 * It doesn’t take an advanced degree in statistics to become an astute consumer of survey research information. It does, however, take a basic understanding of the process involved and an awareness of the potential problems posed by this method of gauging public attitudes. The best advice for survey consumers, therefore, is "buyer beware." Just as consumers in a supermarket will often inspect the list of ingredients in a product, so should public opinion consumers question what went into a poll before accepting its results. In their recent volume, "Best Practices for Survey and Public Opinion Research," the [American Association for Public Opinion Research] governing council states:
 * Excellence in survey practice requires that survey methods be fully disclosed--reported in sufficient detail to permit replication by another researcher--and that all data (subject to appropriate safeguards to maintain privacy and confidentiality) be fully documented and made available for independent examination. 
 * (bolding added) EEng (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source questioning the integrity of the Crimson poll itself? That the Crimson poll was flawed, unreliable, inaccurate, etc?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I share User:EEng and User:ElKevbo's reservations about the inclusions of a single, non-scientific poll result. It smacks of recentism and the press coverage is little more than tabloid titillation and does little to communicate the extent to which cheating is tolerated or pervasive among Harvard students. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source questioning the integrity of the Crimson poll itself? That the Crimson poll was flawed, unreliable, inaccurate, etc?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I share User:EEng and User:ElKevbo's reservations about the inclusions of a single, non-scientific poll result. It smacks of recentism and the press coverage is little more than tabloid titillation and does little to communicate the extent to which cheating is tolerated or pervasive among Harvard students. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"High-quality" coverage
Let's examine the "coverage" TWS cited (just above) as validating the Crimson poll:
 * LA Times: I was wrong. The LA Times did cover it -- in an unpublished 200-word blogpost (by "independent journalist" Matt Pearce) beginning "Well, that's one way to get into an Ivy League school."
 * Chicago Tribune: Unpublished repost of Pearce on their website.
 * UPI: Other than the opening, "Some Ivy Leaguers may not be so smart without the answers", it's almost exactly the same as Pearce -- sentences closely paraphrased with a couple of paragraphs reordered. Impossible to tell if this was meant as conscious irony or not.
 * Baltimore Sun (unpublished blogpost): Sober evaluation warning against a rush to judgment:
 * As The Times’ Matt Pearce wrote Thursday [etc etc]. Which means two things: A) These folks are short on ethics, and (b) they’re too stupid and/or smug to even lie on a survey about it for the school newspaper. Better lock up your 401(k)s while you can, fellow Americans. In four years or so, the Unethical Men and Women of Cambridge are coming for your assets. And don’t expect them to put your life savings ahead of their right to an Upper West Side penthouse, a BMW and summers in the Hamptons.


 * Wall Street Journal : It's not WSJ, but something called WorldNewsInc. Story opens,
 * Last week, we brought you 10 of the most interesting facts about Harvard’s newest students, but we wanted to do a deeper look at one of the most intriguing topics: the sex lives of Harvard students ...


 * Bloomberg: This is a one-minute video, "Harvard's Incoming Class: More Cheating Than Sex". After a bar chart is exhibited showing percentages who have tried alcohol, had sex, cheated in various ways, and so on, a panel of experts considers the implications for the future of human society:
 * Senior Education Policy Analyst #1: 35% have had sex, 42% have cheated!
 * Senior Education Policy Analyst #2: Yeah, sooooo... more kids going into Harvard have cheated on their homework than have had sex.
 * Senior Education Policy Analyst #3: Wow!
 * Senior Education Policy Analyst #2: Pretty stunning!
 * Senior Education Policy Analyst #3: How bout we put the two together -- how many have cheated on their girlfriends?
 * Senior Education Policy Analyst #2: [chuckle] Ooooh! Yeah!
 * Senior Education Policy Analyst #1: Wow! There you go!
 * Senior Education Policy Analyst #2: Hey you know what? Why does it have to be cheating on their girlfiends? Why can't the girls be getting it a little there ... ... Eric!
 * Senior Education Policy Analyst #3: That's true.
 * Senior Education Policy Analyst #2: They could be cheating on their girldfirnds OR their wives!
 * Senior Education Policy Analyst #1: Oh wow! The most forward thinker at the table!
 * (All chuckle and nudge one another. Cut to commercial.)

Tabloid: Featuring stories of violence, crime, or scandal presented in a sensational manner. EEng (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The Los Angeles Times published it. That they call it a "blogspot" does not mean it is a blog. The LA Times put their name and reputation behind the story. Most newspapers today, to save costs, reprint work by other journalists; it would be too expensive in today's journalistic climate to hire separate reporters for each story; what is important is that they printed the story, meaning, they thought it was important, relevant, of interest, accurate, worthy of being read. There are many more sources covering the story. The reason the story was so big was that it touched a nerve.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Had the LA Times found it worthy to print in their print edition, it could only have gone on the opinion page, not the news section -- but in any event they didn't publish it, possibly because after realizing (see next section) that what the data suggests is that Harvard students are far more honest than high school students generally, they knew that to publish a piece that opens "Well, that's one way to get into an Ivy League school" would be an embarrassment. I think we've exhausted the possibilities of this discussion. Please comment on my proposed compromise in the next section. EEng (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Nationwide statistics
I continue to believe whoheartedly that the Crimson poll is meaningless tripe and should be omitted. However, I recognize that compromise is sometimes necessary. Therefore, if editors absolutely insist that the Crimson poll be included, I would reluctantly accede to TWS' suggestion that we include "a source commenting generally on collegiate cheating nationwide, hopefully backed by some kind of data" -- actually, on high school cheating, because the Crimson poll covered cheating before entering Harvard:
 * In a 2013 poll of incoming Harvard freshmen by the campus newspaper, 10% of those responding said they had cheated on an exam before entering Harvard. (In a 2010 poll of 40,000 U.S. high-school students, 59% admitted to cheating on an exam in the previous year.) 

EEng (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * EEng for Congress! I actually feel this compromise explication would cause more harm than good as it is factoids piled upon factoids standing the place of substantive discussion about institutional tolerance for academic dishonesty. The latter seems to be the claim editors want to make but with only flimsy sources to back it up. In lieu of such discussion until such a report or coverage comes forward (and in typically lame Wikipedia fashion), I feel this 50kB discussion could be distilled to a sentence without mention of other factoids: "In 2012, Harvard forced 70 students to withdraw for one year after teaching staff uncovered evidence of widespread and academically dishonest collaboration on take home exams in a popular course." Madcoverboy (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I repeat (with all -- nonwinking -- sincerity) that I think this entire matter should be omitted. But if TWS really wants to include it -- with the comparative data too, of course -- that's fine as well. In the meantime I'd like to suggest we return to 2012 scandal (below), which I think is the only real one of the four still not "over the hump" on the road to resolution. EEng (talk) 03:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

2012 scandal

 * In 2012, dozens of students were expelled for cheating after an investigation of more than 120 students. The university does not have an honor code. 

I propose this be changed to:
 * In 2012, dozens of students were required to withdraw for cheating on a take-home exam in one course. The university does not have an honor code.

(I actually think this material should be omitted entirely as recentism, but I won't push the point.) EEng (talk) 02:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm pushing the point: I think the material should be omitted entirely as recentism and undue weight, especially the pointy bit about the lack of an honor code. If this incident can be placed into a larger context then it might be worth keeping but right now it's just an odd factoid that adds little or nothing to a reader's understanding of this topic.
 * It's particularly objectionable for a Wikipedia editor to juxtapose this event with a statement about the university's lack of an honor code. If someone can make a case that U.S. college and university articles should routinely include mention of the institution's honor code or lack thereof then we should have an open discussion about that idea. But to try to paint this institution and its students in a negatively light by blithely mentioning that it doesn't have an honor code - I don't know but I'm pretty sure that most U.S. colleges and universities don't have honor codes - is disingenuous particularly when it's done to try to explain a cheating incident. ElKevbo (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't buy the recentism or undue weight arguments that have been made. The cheating scandal is the only thing about Harvard that has reached the news this side of the pond (UK) in the last twelve months or so, and looking at the whole article, a few lines cannot be construed as undue weight.  If I didn't AGF I would think that an Old Boy Network was working here.  I am also concerned that an editor asked Tomwsulcer (talk) to examine the issue in greater detail, and after he did so, another editor accused him of OR.  Make your minds up, Harvard guys.  --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 20:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In ElKevbo's defense I can testify that he utterly fails the Harvard Old Boy Network Litmus Test. . EEng (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Lay off the attacks and baseless assumptions about me, please.
 * I don't know about the UK but here in the U.S. news about Harvard is so routine and common that it's tabloidesque. That is one of the primary things shaping my opinion in this matter: just because it's been reported by reliable sources doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article.  If it's only worth one line and is disconnected from the rest of the article then it probably doesn't belong at all. ElKevbo (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Roxy. I just wanted to point out that the cheating-scandal and honor-code juxtaposition was not by me, but by both the Harvard Crimson and the New York Times. They suggested that the impact of the cheating scandal was reviving discussion about the honor code, that the two issues were logically related to each other. The current version of the text does not say that the cheating scandal was caused by a lack of an honor code, just merely that Harvard does not have an honor code, which is well supported by facts, and is relevant for context.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Then that - the cheating scandal has revived discussion of an honor code - must be included in this material if it's to be added or retained as currently written. Otherwise the connection is completely unclear and it looks like either very poor writing by Wikipedia editors or a swipe at the institution alleging that the lack of an honor code is directly related to (i.e. caused) the cheating scandal.  Right now the connection is not obvious at all. ElKevbo (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right.✅--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm (again) removing the ✅ template from TWS' post immediately above, because (as that template's documentation states) "This template adds a green tick mark with text and is often used on talk pages to show clearly that a section of discussion has been resolved, so that each editor does not have to re-read the section." Until consensus is reached the matter is not resolved. EEng (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "...there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission."

- Source: Wikipedia's Talk Page guidelines --Tomwsulcer

This discussion (in this subsection, 2012 cheating scandal) remains open despite one editor's attachment to the green checkmark above.

Without endorsing TWS' latest change, I'd like to let this section (2012 cheating scandal) ferment for a bit. Can we get some comment on the other 3 topics above:
 * 2006 physics exam
 * "Culture of cheating
 * Crimson poll

EEng (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

This event appears to have generated quite a bit attention outside US. Covered in Bengali newspaper Anandabazar Patrika for example. Solomon7968 04:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course it was widely covered; it happened at Harvard. Relatively minor, routine events are major news simply because they happen at the oldest and richest university in the U.S. and one of the most well-known and highly-regarded universities in the world. That means that we as editors have to look beyond "the event was written about in reliable sources" and ask more nuanced questions about whether an event or fact is of lasting importance or significance for a reader interested in this topic. ElKevbo (talk) 06:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * For the reasons mentioned above, that Harvard is one of the oldest/richest universities, respected for academics -- and when a scandal happens involving academics, involving its supposed core mission, it is important, necessarily, and belongs in the article; omitting it would be POV-ish.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am extremely uneasy with the logic outlined above by Tomwsulcer. This is an encyclopedia article about a research university, not a coatrack on which we enumerate every scandal affiliated with a university. Its prominence does not override the criteria we use regarding undue weight, neutrality, and style in writing about it and nothing is important, necessary, or must belong simply because negative portrayals are required to counterbalance its reputation to ensure NPOV. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It would be hard for anyone to see the current article as a coatrack for "every scandal associated with a university". This particular entry, one sentence, about the 60+ students required to withdraw from Harvard, for cheating, is important -- it impacted dozens of academic careers, the university's reputation, made news nationally and internationally, is relevant for elucidating Harvard's policy regarding academic dishonesty, is relevant to Harvard's primary purpose being an academic institution, and will be helpful for current and future cheaters at Harvard, so they might know what the punishment might be if and when they get caught.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think perhaps Madcoverboy might have put it better as, "not a coatrack on which we highlight the latest scandal..." EEng (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the push for dismissing this rather unpleasant event in the history of Harvard doesn't hold water - I agree with Tom - these events should not be ignored by Wikipedia, they reflect how Harvard is seen by the public, wanting to dismiss them smacks of ... something, not sure what ... yet.  --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 15:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment on content, not editors and their motivations, please. I'm getting awful fucking tired of being accused of carrying water for an institution to which I have no connection. ElKevbo (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I continue to believe that this factoid is unnecessary, tabloidesque information but I'm happy to compromise with others and include it provided it's very brief and accurately summarized e.g., any mention of an honor code must be clearly linked to the incident. (This truly does strike me as the kind of information that someone is going to remove later as a weird, isolated thing to mention in an article unless it proves to be part of a larger story.) ElKevbo (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure what is getting at here (eg if the story was "tabloidesque" then why did it run in most major newspapers and TV shows in the US and many internationally?) and not sure who is charging him with carrying water or what that is about, but I think the line in its current state is suitable, except I agree the word "expel" should be replaced by "required to withdraw", as agreed elsewhere.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The historical notability of this controversy in the grand arc of Harvard's history is dubious and claims about the critical need to include it "because it's Harvard" are a misreading of WP policy. A cursory search through Google News for "Harvard students expelled" between 1800 and 1990 reveals a host of events, none of which currently are mentioned. This is not to say that all other controversies must first be enumerated before including this one, but that this event will be little remembered in 5 years time. Episodes like this may suggest one thing or another about Harvard's tolerance for dishonesty, its reputation, or discouraging future cheaters, but these implications are synthesis not supported in any of the sources. If there are institutional reports or journalistic sources discussing academic dishonesty as a institutionally-sanctioned, culturally-embedded, or historically tolerated pattern of behavior, we should absolutely include those. But I have not yet seen such sources. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Consider this list of shocking things that have happened at Harvard and various other schools over the years:
 * In 1920 Harvard undertook a witch hunt against homosexuals.
 * Possibly could be added to the history section.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Unabomber Ted_Kaczynski went to Harvard.
 * Include in list of notable (infamous?) alumni?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In 1849 a Harvard professor killed his creditor (a fellow Harvard man, no less!), cut him to pieces (or incinerated him -- don't remember which) and stuffed him down a privy.
 * Interesting but irrelevant.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Over several years Harvard German instructor Erich Muenter murdered his pregnant wife, then went on to bomb the US Capitol and stab J.P. Morgan Jr. (Thankfully, only the wife-murder happened while he was on staff at Harvard.)
 * Interesting but irrelevant.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Napalm was developed at Harvard.
 * Possibly include.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In the 1970s some Harvard football players apparently were able to earn credit for studying their football playbook, or something like that.
 * Uninteresting.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A few years ago a kid with completely faked credentials made fools of Harvard officials by studying there for two years before being unmasked.
 * Interesting, borderline relevance.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In 2004 Harvard was embarassed by a very public scandal over whether one of its Law School stars had plagiarized six paragraphs in a book (not to imply that isn't a serious matter if literally true).
 * One guy, not much relevance.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Teen mother killed in Harvard murder, suicide, police say." (Oops -- turns out this is Harvard, Illinois.)
 * Irrelevant to Harvard as an academic institution.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I put the important point in bold above -- it's silly enough that you undertook to comment on all these items individually, but given that you did, could you at least pay attention? Christ! EEng (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is still irrelevant to Harvard as an academic institution.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OH MY GOD! OF COURSE IT'S IRRELEVANT. WE ALL KNOW THAT. IT HAPPENED IN HARVARD, ILLINOIS. IT WAS JUST COMIC RELIEF. YOU DON'T HAVE TO POINT OUT THE OBVIOUS -- AND CERTAINLY NOT TWICE. This stubborn literalism is the reason this discussion goes on and on and on. EEng (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC) P.S. And please don't now quote some guideline saying I shouldn't use caps. We all know that too. Extreme situations call for extreme measures.
 * You'll have to get used to handyman humor. If we're going to be a comedy duo here, great, but you'll first have to figure out that you're the straight man, not moi. :)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In 1968 a Berkeley grad student stabbed a local teenager to death, despite campus police having been warned by the student's therapist that he was homicidally dangerous.
 * Irrelevant to Berkeley as an academic institution.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * MIT had a cheating scandal in 1991.
 * Possible material for MIT article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Dartmouth in 2000.
 * Unclear, probably not notable incident.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In 1995 a Harvard undergrad murdered her roommate, than hanged herself, and there's a good argument that school officials could have prevented these horrors.
 * Too bad for these two, but irrelevant.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In 2003 a Harvard grad student stabbed someone on the street basically because he was pissed off.
 * Temper temper, not newsworthy, back page police blotter section, irrelevant.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A series of scandals forced Stanford's president out in 1991
 * Possibly interesting for Stanford article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

None of these things is mentioned in the main articles on those schools. Actually, I didn't check -- I'll leave that to those arguing the other side of the case -- but I'd be astounded if more than one or two of these is even hinted at, despite the fact that most of them are notable in their own right and are covered in there own articles. Why? Because they have little or no significance to an understanding of these institutions overall. They're interesting and important events, but don't define the places at which they happened -- though no doubt someone at the time argued they absolutely must be in the article to ensure neutrality (assuming WP existed at the time -- use your imagination). EEng (talk) 01:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the events above are generally irrelevant, (I commented after each one) since they often involve personal squabbles or other tangents, don't really reflect anything basic about the institutions themselves. But Harvard's primary mission is an educational institution, to educate youth, to expand learning, to further scholarship. Harvard is an academic institution. Cheating is directly relevant to its mission as an academic institution. Cheating suggests it is not really doing its job. The fact that Harvard required 60+ students to withdraw is a sign that it takes cheating seriously, that it is true to its academic mission, that it cares. I see the whole thing as a positive for the school, that it is trying its best to get its academic house in order.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh honestly, TWS, can you get your story straight? When this started, you portrayed the cheating scandal as a stain on Harvard, the omission of which would be whitewashing. Now it's a positive thing which should be included to show what a great place Harvard is.
 * Somewhere along the way you argued that uncontextualized crime statistics (such as # of car thefts on Harvard property) should be included so that potential applicants will know how dangerous a place Harvard might be. Now you say that murders and suicides at various schools are irrelevant to Harvard's mission as an academic institution -- if you really believe that then you have no understanding at all of what a university is.
 * The fact is that every one of these things is relevant, in some way and to some extent, to these schools as academic institutions, or symbol of whatnot, or [insert whatever you think should be inserted]. In fact just about everything you find in the Crimson every day, or the Harvard Gazette, or Harvard Magazine, or any of the literally hundreds of books and thousands of articles written about life at Harvard, academics at Harvard, history of Harvard, Harvard's influence on the world, the world's influence on Harvard, Harvard's contribution to napalm (evil), Harvard's contribution to smallpox eradication (benevolent), Harvard's contribution to the atom bomb (of controversial moral import), and everything else ad nauseum, is somehow "relevant". But only those things that add to the reader's understanding of Harvard overall, in the big picture, belong in the main article on Harvard. I'm sorry, but the fact that you think that a Harvard chemist's development of napalm even possibly belongs in this article shows that you utterly lack perspective on this. EEng (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The cheating scandal is both a stain on Harvard as well as an opportunity for it shine by fixing the problem. I believe, given the extensive news coverage, that the incident will be important five years from now. It might help future students avoid getting booted, if they read Wikipedia, and realize it is a good idea to be extra careful with exams and tests and how they answer survey questions.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You know, I've only continued this because I survived a 10,000-foot fall with a parachute that didn't open, and have been in full traction for the last 8 months. Only my left pinkie finger can be moved, which I've been using valiantly to whitewash the Harvard article. But in 15 minutes they're coming to take all the casts and bandages off, after which I will return to the ranks of productive society, and my participation here will have to be more focused. Anyway... Let's see... Oh yes. WP:NOTHOWTO. EEng (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ouch. Did you land headfirst?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I landed in a mountain of substanceless bullshit almost as big as this discussion, so the severest of my wounds were to my dignity, Walt Whitaker. EEng (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm shocked. You guys have been whitewashing this article for years.  But seriously, I'll start a new section and we'll get all these in, the Harvard ones at least.  Can't waste good research on your part, can we?  --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 04:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No research was required -- it was all from memory.
 * At the beginning of this discussion, long long ago, TWS said:
 * 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. ... 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.
 * There was definitely a shameful incident of students apparently collaborating when they damn sure should have known they should not do so. (But its lesson isn't, as TWS said in the quote above, that to pass your Harvard courses you should cheat, but rather that you shouldn't, lest you get thrown out of school for a year -- a fact that, BTW, Harvard requires be mentioned on any letter of recommendation from any school official.)
 * Then there's these 42%/10% numbers -- oops, except it turns out that if these numbers mean anything at all, it's that Harvard students are more honest than the typical US student. (So contrary to TWS opening arguments the lesson isn't that the way to get into Harvard is to cheat, but to be honest.)
 * Ted Kennedy's Spanish exam disgrace was part of the material TWS had added to the "cheating" paragraph of the article (though not mentioned in his comment above) -- except that was sixty years ago.
 * So there's no pattern (much less a boldface pattern), and even if there were, TWS can't SYNTH it himself. Absent substantial discussion of such a pattern, in sources reliable for such discussion (not sources warning, "In four years or so, the Unethical Men and Women of Cambridge are coming for your assets"), then as Madcoverboy said, "The historical notability of this controversy in the grand arc of Harvard's history is dubious." At best.
 * EEng (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm coming around to seeing that the "pattern" stuff was too much, but I continue to think that the 60+ students being required to withdraw is important information, necessary for people interested in the institution, particularly students, future students, faculty, many others should need to know this, that is, it helps them become better informed to know about this incident.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The test, as several people have mentioned, is whether anyone five years from now will be any more interested in this than in any of the literally thousands of incidents and episodes in Harvard's history that could be included, but aren't. The answer is no, just as the answer is no for the MIT, Dartmouth, and Stanford scandals listed earlier. You're just focused on this because it was in the news recently.
 * One thing I always like to point out is that the US Postal Service never honors anyone with a stamp until that person is dead. Why? Partly because it's only in the long view that someone's real significance can be judged. If it were up to me WP would take a similar view for topic inclusion: concentrate on stuff that's far enough in the past that all the evidence -- well, at least a good deal of the evidence -- is in as to its true significance. That would save a lot of arguing over whether and how to include stuff which, three years later, either (a) everyone's forgotten about anyway, or (b) if they do merit inclusion, can be included with much less controversy because the facts have shaken out in the meantime. For current events, readers can read the newspaper.
 * EEng (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

General comments (not classifiable in one of the above sections)

 * The word expelled -- I added this discussion point (ie not above); but I am opening it up for discussion. My thinking is that expelled is the right word, in this case, even though it can have a different meaning academically, specifically, expelled => permanently ejected from a university. The common sense of "expelled" is to eject or remove from membership, and the definition does not have a time period; the common sense of expelled does not include a sense of permanency, so, Ted Kennedy could have been expelled from Harvard for cheating, but then, later, forgiven, and allowed to finish his degree, lesson learned. Here is one definition of expelled. That is, I think the word "expelled" should remain, regardless of a stricter academic meaning.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The Globe, which for obvious reasons can be expected to know what it's talking about on matters Harvard, very carefully uses the phrase required to withdraw. Meanwhile, I think ElKevbo, who is an expert on higher education, will back me up when I say that expel carries the clear connotation of intended permanence of separation, both in technical academic usage and in common understanding. And without question at Harvard specifically.  And MIT . Oh, and this medical-school report (admittedly a random source, but one question is what the general-use connotation of expel is) opens by stating, "Expulsion is the most severe disciplinary sanction that an educational program can impose."  EEng (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Let's use required to withdraw since it is more specific. What's interesting is that cheating is not considered as serious as offence as I had thought, since cheaters can return, that is, on some level, universities think this is a behavior pattern that can change, can be corrected.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Can a neutral party please try to summarize where we're at right now with all of these statements? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a good idea to summarize more than "status" here -- risks fragmenting the discussion. I know the quantity of text seems daunting, but skipping to the end of each of the four subsections...
 * 2006 physics exam
 * "Culture of cheating
 * Crimson poll
 * 2013 scandal
 * ...will shows pretty quickly where things stand. (I hope TWS will agree when I say physics and culture are fairly well resolved, though endorsement by others would nail it down. Poll and 2012 scandal aren't there yet.) EEng (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * As UN peace observers have already reported on CNN, there has been a temporary cease-fire among the main combatants (see next section) pending face-to-face peace talks (see next section). All parties are cautiously hopeful. EEng (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Endowment update
It seems Harvard's endowment needs to be updated to $32.7B for the FY 2013 according to this source. I see that there is a source from NACUBO that was used for last year's update. Is NACUBO considered to be the main source and we have to wait for their report to be released? Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good idea to update endowment information in individual college/university articles when we have a reliable source with up-to-date information. It seems that we use the annual NACUBO tables quite frequently because (a) some people get confused about endowments and improperly update articles with incorrect sources by confusing endowments and capital campaigns and (b) some articles are best served by using the same source to keep data consistent (e.g., List of colleges and universities in the United States by endowment).  ElKevbo (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And can we keep it to 2 significant figures? It's silly to pretend 32.7 is more informative than 33. At one point I think it was listed as 29.234 or something. EEng (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Recentism
For an institution that is hundreds of years old, why are we adding a rather lengthy discussion about "rankings" from the last decade or so? What about the prior hundreds of years? Moreover, the rankings are produced by twerpy, ephemeral publications that are much less significant than the subject. The rankings are bait to get readers for magazines. Nobody in academia takes these rankings seriously. Jehochman Talk 13:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have great sympathy for your argument but that ship sailed long ago my friend! There is widespread consensus that some discussion of well-known rankings published in reliable sources merit inclusion in college and university articles.  Although I agree with your opinion that most of these rankings are less than useful, a bit ephemeral, and often intended more to drive publication sales and website hits than promote useful public policy and academic improvement the rankings are taken seriously by many in the public, including policy makers at all levels.  They've even become woven into the strategic goals and funding systems of some universities and even many of us in the academy that decry the evils of insufficient unidimensional ranking systems ensure that students, parents, the local community, and our policy makers know our own institution and department's laudable rankings.
 * This might be a good place to either move this discussion or at least drop a note if you'd like to continue this discussion with additional input from other editors. ElKevbo (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Could we trim these sections? I think they are bloated.  If instead of 4.3 kb they were 1-2kb of the most important rankings, that would be sufficient.  I think the situation with Harvard, Yale and Princeton, and Oxford and Cambridge is a little different from most colleges.  For the really old institutions the recentism and WP:UNDUE violation is more extreme.  These pages should have much shorter sections on Rankings, because this is a modern phenomena.  A long section gives the modern view excessive weight.  These are issues best addressed, perhaps, at each article. Jehochman Talk 19:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with ElKevbo here. Rankings, like it or not, are generally accepted. recentism, if I read the rules right, is when an entire article becomes too focused on a recent event, not when a section or specific fact is recent, and I don't think the Harvard article suffers from this problem.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * At 4.3 kb, this section is bloated and takes up a disproportionate share of space for events of the last decade, which only represent 3% or less of the University's history. (Princeton's ranking's section is worse, filling 6+ kb.  Yale's at 1.5 kb is better.) Jehochman Talk 20:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Eight sentences is bloated? I did not see any repetition. Material looked worthwhile on cursory inspection.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The content of the paragraph is largely duplicative of content already summarized in the infobox. I feel the infobox is an appropriate balance between including this statistically vapid but nevertheless notable content information while limiting the tendency for these sections to accumulate superfluous language and crufty non-notable rankings. Editors interested in splitting hairs over the merits of why some rankings are included over others should discuss this at Template talk:Infobox US university ranking. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2014
Harvard alumni founded Yale University (Abraham Pierson, Samuel Andrew, Timothy Cutler).

39.248.174.171 (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Technical 13 (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2014
I'd like to add information to this page.

Egfp (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2014
Could you please add U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Anthony Luzzatto Gardner to the Harvard notable alumni list? Reliable source: U.S. Mission to the EU Thank you.169.252.4.21 (talk) 12:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

169.252.4.21 (talk) 12:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 14:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Ebola reaction at Harvard
I added a note about the ebola travel ban -- I thought this was worth including as Harvard's a research university with a medical school -- and it's been reverted. I see that the article is semi-protected -- did I err in adding this without getting permission? valereee (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The edit summary says not news...but clearly the Daily Mail, USA Today, Huffington Post, and American Bar Association think it -is- news. valereee (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Concerns over wording addressed...and can I say instead of deleting, why not edit or rewrite? Concerns over 'recentism' -- just because something happened recently does not make it recentism.  This is a prestigious research university with a medical school.  It's news that they've suspended university-sponsored travel to an area in response to an outbreak of disease currently being heavily researched.  valereee (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2014
 * You're interpreting WP:NOTNEWS backwards -- I'm not saying this isn't news, rather that Wikipedia doesn't try to cover "the news". As well, WP:RECENTISM warns against the tendency to include a lot of recent stuff when, in general, articles should take the long view. As it is now, under "21st century", there are two passages: one about the installation of Harvard's first female president, seven years ago, and one about Ebola, seven days ago. That tells the whole story right there.
 * You certainly don't need permission to edit the article, and I hope this won't discourage you, but the article's purpose is to inform people about Harvard, and this development doesn't tell us anything, really, about that subject -- as the sources you've now re-added to the article show, many universities are enacting similar measures. As usual, because Harvard is so prominent, people think that Harvard's action means something about Ebola -- "Look, if Harvard's doing this, it must be serious!" or "Even Harvard is overreacting!" or whatever. In this sense, such material might belong in an article on Ebola and the current situation, but -- again -- if someone says, "Hey, I'd like to learn about Harvard", this isn't the sort of material they're looking for. It doesn't belong here, IMHO. IMHO = In My Harvard Opinion, of course.
 * BTW, the Daily Mail is borderline at best as a reliable source. EEng (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)(UTC)
 * LOL on IMHO. :)   I'd still argue that a major/prestigious research/medical institution deciding to suspend travel to a site important in disease research is worthy of inclusion.  I don't think the fact other 21st century events have been left off the page necessarily means this one isn't important to include, so I'd argue it doesn't tell the whole story right there.  If there are other important stories, some editor should add them.  And the fact that other universities are enacting similar measure also means nothing as to whether or not the item is relevant here -- they may be relevant on their pages, too.  This story is being covered in the mainstream media, and in fact between your reversion and my rewrite received additional coverage.  Whether someone chooses to interpret the story as 'If Harvard's scared, we all should be!' or 'Are they really sure they're a research center?' is also immaterial. valereee (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad you appreciate the humor -- usually it's an acquired taste. But I'll say it again: this titbit isn't about Harvard, but rather about Ebola. Here's the test: three years from now, what will someone reading the Harvard article learn about Harvard when they read this little fact? Nothing, because Harvard did what lots of other colleges did, and Ebola shows no sign, so far, of having any longterm effects (or short-term, for that matter) on Harvard different from its effects on other colleges. (If the headline was "Harvard Declines to Take Ebola Steps Enacted by Most Schools", that might be different.) Do you plan to add this material to the articles on MIT, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and Berkeley when they make similar announcements?
 * On the other hand, if you added something to Ebola article saying, "Beginning October 2014, many US colleges and universities began to discourage travel etc etc", someone reading that will learn about the attitude of a certain kind of institution at a certain point in the crisis, and that might be informative about Ebola, which is what a reader of the Ebola article wants.
 * Let's wait to hear what other editors think. EEng (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I thought we were waiting to see what other editors thought? IMO this is NOT unimportant in understanding Harvard of the 21st Century. valereee (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * See WP:UNDUE. Harvard has a history of several hundred years.  This Ebola thing is a tiny nothing and should not get disproportionate attention. Jehochman Talk 16:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course, you're just jealous it's not Yale getting all the attention. EEng (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with EEng that we shouldn't add this stuff per WP:RECENTISM. Just because something is in the news doesn't mean it's important enough to be included in an encyclopedia article. -- Calidum  16:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but it feels like protectionism of Harvard. This is a major research center with a top medical school that is remarkable -- and remarked on -- for allowing fear instead of science to form policy. I'll restate that I think this is significant, but I'll give on recentism for now. I think we should revisit if/when it's still being remarked on in future. valereee (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I says a lot that you (apparently) assumed we all agreed with you (or were even aware of the possibility) that this is some kind of blight on Harvard's record. I guess if you believe that then you might think this is some important incident in Harvard history. I'm pretty sure none of the rest of us had even the remotest idea that's what you were getting at. EEng (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a blight on a record. I think it's a remarkable incident in the history of a research institution.  valereee (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You just said "This is a major research center ... that is remarkable -- and remarked on -- for allowing fear instead of science to form policy." Assuming that's true how would that not be a blight on its record? Otherwise, what was your justification for including this material? EEng (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

AfDs
The following may perhaps be of interest:
 * Articles for deletion/Dudley House (Harvard College)
 * Articles for deletion/Mather House (Harvard University)
 * Articles for deletion/Cabot House (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Currier House (Harvard College)
 * Articles for deletion/Harvard University Shields

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

Location of the university
'Harvard University is a private Ivy League research university in Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States.' The introductory line does not mention the country of the university; a lay reader cannot be expected to know the states and cities of United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.211.31.111 (talk) 08:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * A lay reader, however, can be expected to click on Cambridge or Massachusetts if he or she is unclear about where either is located. - Nunh-huh 16:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * True, but for the sake of completeness and convenience, it is unacceptable that such an important information be omitted. Likewise, wiki pages of all Ivy league and other major institutions in US - CMU, UCB etc. mention that they are located in US.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.211.4.164 (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The second sentence mentions Harvard is the oldest university in the U.S.  Hot Stop     (Edits)   14:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

None of this matters. Per MOS (though no time to chase down the specific point now) in running text states of the US are not qualified further, thus Cambridge, Massachusetts, not Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States. It is expected that most readers will recognize the names of US states, and those that don't can, as already mentioned, follow the link. I believe a similar rule applies for counties of the UK. EEng (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit Of The Day Year
Award goes to Fat&#38;Happy for the words "social critic and mathematician" - please accept your award here. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (I assume you meant to quote "mathematician, social critic, and serial killer", but with that understanding...) I add my praise. I once referred in a paper to "San Francisco inventor, editor, banker, and blackmailer Frederick Marriott", but this is way more funny. Slave -- fetch the barnstar! EEng (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I just looked at the wiki page for my alma mater, and I'm not on the list of Notable Alumni. :-( Roxy the dog (resonate) 18:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, are you a mathematician-serial killer or inventor-editor-banker-blackmailer or butcher-baker-candlestick maker? I see ever-envious Yale alumnus Jerochman has decided to counterbalance the "whitewash" (see see edit summary here) by, apparently, adding such criminals and Axis military leaders as came to mind. He's also taken the fun out of the Ted K. epithet, but I think we should let him have this one, no? EEng (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. I meant to invite everyone to help out, if the spirit moves you, at History_and_traditions_of_Harvard_commencements. EEng (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

that said ok it was true but not really pretty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.235.137.232 (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

study abroad
i am a indian and i want higher study in there harvard university. i complete my 12th and now i want study on computer science. so what can procces will do ? dear sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.96.138 (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * See this. EEng (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Harvard Tercentenary celebration
I don't see this article becoming anything more than a stub Deunanknute (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe because you didn't make even the most superficial check for sources. The NYT alone had literally dozens of articles. EEng (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that there are dozens of sources about this event just as there are about anything even remotely connected to Harvard. However, I'm not certain that even with those sources this is an event of historical significance.  Did anything especially memorable or of lasting significance happen during the celebration?  If not, it seems silly to document the event here or anywhere else. ElKevbo (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised at you, ElK, because I'm sure you know that historical significance isn't the test for notability. Now it's true that, even if a topic T is notable, it might nonetheless be best treated inside the article for some larger topic.L, especially if there's not too much to say about T and the L article isn't too big already. The problem, though, with Harvard University (the article, not the university -- the university has plenty of other problems...) is that even though its treatment of almost all its subtopics is very spotty, it's already becoming unwieldy. Even a halfhearted effort at the Tercentary article would probably be something like History and traditions of Harvard Commencements -- and you wouldn't suggest that it be stuffed into the main HU article, would you? EEng (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that a fully-developed article on this topic be merged into this article; there isn't yet a fully-developed article to discuss. I gently suggest that our colleague who proposed the merger table the suggestion for a reasonable period of time to allow the article to be developed.  It seems unnecessarily hasty and possibly premature to insist on us deciding the fate of an article ten minutes (!) after it's initially begun (although I also sympathize with the argument that such a draft belongs outside of article space until it's more developed).
 * I do believe that this specific topic is one that meets the letter of WP:N but possibly not its spirit. I'm sure that a long, detailed article can be written that would be full of reliable sources and that the article would certainly survive discussions of its deletion.  But if the event doesn't have any lasting importance or interest then I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia. I understand that I may in the minority and if you'd like to spend your time writing this article then of course you're welcome to do so! ElKevbo (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've known you for a long time and I have to say again I'm startled by your comments re what "belongs", and especially re this particular topic, given your background. Have you looked at the sources already listed in the article (and those are just the NYT)? An amazing number of important people were there, Roosevelt gave a speech about the duties of citizenship or something, prescient things about the coming war were discussed in symposia, and so on. It was certainly an event of lasting significance, but even if it wasn't WP doesn't make these decisions on that basis. If it was noted at the time, it's permanently notable, and since it's too much (eventually) to fit into the HU article, it gets its own. Honestly I don't know why we need to put all this effort into this question, and as you say it was hasty (to say the least) to nominate 10 minutes in. EEng (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No merge The article meets WP:N which is the only criteria for article existence. — Lentower (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability is necessary but not sufficient for an article to exist on a given topic. ElKevbo (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what you and I were discussing above? Anyway, you're just jealouse because you're a Blue Hen. EEng (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah. I just work here.  If you have to sling silly labels, I'm a Volunteer or Hoosier.  ElKevbo (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * While looking for something droll to say re "sling silly" I came across a front page which I think might interest you as a reflection of a simpler time in postsecondary education -- the November 12, 1924 issue of Central Normal Life. Consider the headlines:
 * "Dormitory Swipes and Hash Slingers Hold Frolic Friday"
 * "Loss of Prominent Young Man Keenly Felt by Students" ("His death resulted from injuries received while serving the United States in the World War. Being severely wounded in France while drinking hot chocolate...")
 * "Prospect of Men's Room Now in View" ("Since men eat, there will be a kitchenette.")
 * EEng (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * merge. If the subsection becomes excessively long it can then be spun out as a separate article. For now it's just a few sentences and not worth being a separate article. Jehochman Talk 20:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, we don't merge stubs just because they're stubs. You're just jealous because you're an Eli. EEng (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No merge ... in case that's not clear. EEng (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We (hypothetically) don't care about votes, only policy-based arguments, so the bullet point with no additional comment is superfluous. That said, I agree there should be no merge because WP:N (here, WP:NTEMP) does such a nice job of putting the kibosh on discussions which could easily devolve into silly ad hom spats. FourViolas (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My policy-based arguments are given above. You're confusing ad hominem arguments with ad homonym arguments -- very common because they sound alike. You're just jealous because you're a Trojan. EEng (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Only in the equine sense, alas; I'll smuggle my prickly convictions about the silliness of The Game through the gated ramparts this fall. And I was just teasing because I'm aphid pulp. FourViolas (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:N is not the only criteria for an article's existence. WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS ( a policy) should also be considered. If that unsightly glut of urls demonstrates the event was of lasting significance, above and beyond what could reasonably be covered in an existing article, please expand to settle this once and for all. It's easier to argue about an issue than to fix it: I would hope no one arguing to keep the article separate would be satisfied with leaving it in its current state. --Animalparty-- (talk) 06:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That WP:N is not the only criterion has already been addressed, in detail, in my earlier posts. Of course no one is arguing the article should stay in its current state indefinitely, but we don't merge stubs just because at the moment they're stubs, nor because someone hasn't hustled to expand the stub in obedience to a merge or deletion proposal initiated within minutes of the stub's creation. It is, as you say, easier to argue about this than to expand the article, and unfortunately the former -- not the latter -- is all I have time for right now. Of course, the nominator's reasoning -- "I don't see this article becoming anything more than a stub" -- being completely bogus, none of us should be spending any time on this at all. EEng (talk) 06:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Are we done here? It's been four months. EEng (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's clear there is no consensus for this proposed merge (unless someone has something new to add (there has already been too much re-hashing and repetition above)). So close with No merge or No consensus. A link back to this section should be left on the other article's talk page. — Lentower (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)