Talk:Ray and Maria Stata Center/Archive 1

32 vs Stata Center
In the article it says that the building is known by "Building 32" and not by its proper name. This is not really true. While most buildings on MIT campus are referred to by number (I think the building I walk through every morning is the "Whitaker Building" but I'm not sure as it's usually just called Building 56), not all of them are. Examples include the Green Building (54), Walker Memorial (50), the Student Center (W20), Johnson Athletic center (W35 or W34, not really sure), and all dormitories ("East Campus" is not referred to as buildings 62 and 64). There seems to have been an effort, although I don't know by whom exactly, to make the Stata Center be known as the "Stata Center" rather than as "Building 32." While everybody knows that the two are one and the same, most people, at least at the moment, tend to use "Stata Center" in normal conversation.

Of course, there is some dispute over the pronounciation of "Stata" and so those who wish to avoid embarrassment will sometimes say "Building 32." I'm one of those.

From: Kirk D Kolenbrander  Date: Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 2:01 PM Subject: RE: How to pronounce "Stata" To: "Ian J. Katz"  Mr. Katz, President Hockfield asked me to reply on her behalf. Ray Stata pronounces his name "STAY-ta", with a long "A" in the first syllable. Best, Kirk Kolenbrander — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.13.22 (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to reword the final paragraph to reflect this.

Aerion 05:52, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm with Aerion on this... I've seldom heard it called "Building 32" without it being someone saying, "I have class in 32-155." I'm changing the last paragraph of the intro to say something along the lines of, "In contrast to MIT's usual naming conventions." Janet13 22:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"It is said that Ray Stata specifically requested that this project be a "center" and not a "complex" as the phrase "Stata Complex" sounds like a psychological disorder."

This sentence is totally irrelevant and out of context. Furthermore, it would certainly require a citation. Amasa walker III 03:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Stata Critical Responce
I added a few comments and rearrange some of the text under the already existing heading 'critical responce'

Did Building 20 leak?
To the best of my recollection, Building 20, hastily constructed as a temporary building and famous for its run-down shabbiness, was, nevertheless, a perfectly sound building and free from leaks and other gross deficiencies. Am I seeing it through a haze of nostalgia?

Removed: "the building that threw up on itself"
Removed:

"It is often referred to as "the building that threw up on itself" by members of the MIT community.<ref< { {cite web
 * author=Sawyer, Keith
 * title=The building that threw up on itself
 * url=http://keithsawyer.wordpress.com/2007/06/07/17/
 * date=June 2007
 * accessdate=2007-11-06} }</ref<"

Why?

1) Mr Sawyer's account is not a secondary source. It is a personal anecdote.  It is not up to WP standards for sources.

2) Mr Sawyer's statement is "Some locals call it “the building that threw up on itself”." He gives no citations or attribution to back up his claim, leaving it as heresay. Lentower 01:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternate Photo
As per the request associated with the current image at the top of the page, I have posted an alternate photograph that my be of interest for this article. --Tafyrn 07:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)