Talk:Harvard University

Choosing a neutral photo of the John Harvard statue

In the photograph of the John Harvard statue, the rainbow garland seems inconsistent with Wikipedia's guideline of NPOV. The rainbow motif has a political meaning in contemporary American society, but the Harvard article is not inherently political in this or other ways. A similar photo of the statue without the garland would be preferable. (Does this photo represent vandalism?) Pac Veten (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Given the lack of community objection, I substituted a neutral photo this evening. Unfortunately another user reverted my change, with a relatively strongly-worded comment, to the effect that NPOV was not even relevant to this photo. For the reasons explained above, a photo that doesn't include recreational decoration IS more neutral than one including temporary (if playful) ornamentation. For what it's worth, the replacement photo is almost identical to the original in size, coloring, and perspective. And similarly sourced from Wikimedia Commons . . . Could I please request assistance with this issue? Pac Veten (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't know that I personally feel that the picture needed to be changed, but I wonder if @EEng would be willing to comment on their view of the picture as they reverted the change made by @Pac Veten? I would suggest the image not be changed again while it is under discussion here. For clarity, the two images are included here.

John Harvard Statue image with 'Rainbow Garland'

John Harvard Statue image without 'Rainbow Garland'

Jiltedsquirrel 🌰 ^{(talk || contribs)} 02:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• For God's sake, will you bunch stop prattling on about NPOV, which has nothing to do with it? That photo's been there since at least 2009 [1], and the reason it's remained is that the little garland is close to invisible. I've probably put 100 hours into editing this article over the last 20 years, and I never noticed it, and I'm sure no one else did either until now. If you'd just said, "Hey there's a garland around his neck, so here's a different photo", and just boldly made the change instead of talking ostentatiously in your edit summary about "NPOV" -- which gave no discernible clue to what the problem actually was -- all this wasted verbiage could have been avoided. I've installed the lead image from John Harvard statue. EEng 04:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Which Kaczynski relates to Harvard University?

Per EEng, I was not competent enough to edit this article, so time to learn and try to improve this page. In EEng's statement, they mentioned "Kaczynski" is not notable enough for inclusion on the page. Can someone link which "Kaczynski" EEng is referring to? What discussion found this person was not notable for inclusion on the article? I need some help, since to edit this article competently, I apparently should have known who "Kaczynski" is (per EEng). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say Kaczynski didn't belong. I said that if he doesn't belong, then Muenter doesn't either i.e. certainly before we consider adding Muenter, we'd have to decide to add Kaczynski. (In logic, that's called a contrapositive.) EEng 03:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Presumably the Unabomber, as he was educated at Harvard. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Let us hope he doesn't find out you opted to not use an internet search engine in your quest for this information... Seasider53 (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Well yeah, like, DUH -- he couldn't just google Kaczynski Harvard instead of asking everyone else to do the thinking for him? EEng 03:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, now that I know the name, I can confirm there is no discussion that determined Ted Kaczynski was not notable for the list. In fact, back in 2009, a discussion mentioned he was on the list. Good to note that it appears he was removed at some point, without a discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Are these two terrorists notable enough for the Notable people section?

This question has come up following various edit summary exchanges and two different talk page discussions. Is Ted Kaczynski (aka the "Unabomber") and Erich Muenter (US Capitol bomber) notable enough to include on the Notable people section in the article?

Back in 2009, an archived talk page discussion confirmed Ted Kaczynski was listed in the notable people section. However, as of 2025, he is not listed in the section. EEng stated he didn't belong on the list. I am unable to find a formal discussion in the talk page archives that determined Kaczynski should be removed from the list, and I am unsure when or who removed him from the list since 2009.

Erich Muenter taught at Harvard university, where he killed his wife. He went on to bomb the US capitol, commit treason while spying for the German government, bomb a steamship, and he tried to assassinate the son of J. P. Morgan.

So, do these two terrorists qualify for the notable people section in the article? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Not to say there aren't other examples in the list contradicting my viewpoint, but I don't see that their achievements in life can be tied directly to Harvard. That would be my main reason for inclusion, not simply because they blew-up shit. Seasider53 (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Here is what our current guidance for the contents of these kinds of sections says:

This section should give a sense of the extent to which persons with well-known deeds or highly significant accomplishments are or have been associated with the school (as by attendance there or by being on staff or faculty). For most schools this might take the form of a list of people meeting Wikipedia's notability standards (each with perhaps a very brief descriptive phrase), where such a list would not be excessively long. For very old, very large, or very prestigious schools it may be more appropriate to use categories ("Alumni of", "Faculty of", etc. note that "Alumni" categories are only for former students, including graduates; current students are not considered alumni) instead, limiting the explicit list to very well-known persons (heads of state, historical figures, etc.) and adding a narrative summary of statistics on such things as Nobel Prizes, other prestigious awards, and so on.

I don't read that as requiring that the notability of people in this section must be "tied directly to [the institution]." Nor is that the typical practice in these kinds of articles. If it was the typical practice, these sections would all be much different as many alumni achieve prominence in ways that are not "tied directly" to their attendance at the college or university. I also worry that this criterion would also give editors license to remove nearly all alumni who are notable for nefarious reasons as it could be argued in many cases that criminal or disreputable activities are not "tied directly" to the institution.

With respect to these specific people, my sense is that Kaczynski is certainly notable enough for inclusion in this article as he remains a household name especially by his nickname. I am less confident in opining on Muenter. I am unfamiliar with him so that makes we want to say that he's clearly not notable enough for inclusion. But basing that recommendation solely on my own ignorance is, of course, quite foolish. Based solely on his crimes it seems that he probably does merit inclusion. (Whether he should be described as a faculty member is another question that should be settled in a separate discussion.) ElKevbo (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't know the best way to phrase it, so don't take this literally, but maybe a new section should be created for the bad kind of notability. A quick check of the notable people list has no one that someone could describe as infamous for their notability. For example, Ted Kaczynski (aka the "Unabomber"), Erich Muenter (US Capitol bomber), Ernst Hanfstaengl (close friend of Hitler), Richard Whitney (NY Stock Exchange president convicted of embezzlement), are not listed in the section. I do notice List of Harvard University people has an entire section for "criminals". It is obvious several articles do mention links between Harvard and the various criminals respectively. For example, here is an article discussing Harvard's antisemitism with regards to Hanfstaengl. All the others on that "criminals" lists have respective RS as well. Should the article just have a split list of notable criminals? Rather than splitting the criminals up into the alumni and faculty categories, maybe just a stand-alone list for some of the more notable ones? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't that skirt close to WP:OR, almost implying the section is about "good people gone bad"? Seasider53 (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Not unless the current List of Harvard University people#Criminals is an OR issue. There is already a list of them, it is just about listing the most notable ones (like those linked above) in the main Harvard University#Notable people section, rather than just on the subpage list. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion but I don't think this merits a new section in this article that is always prone to being way too long and detailed. This section of the article is already in poor shape with only a few sentences followed by two collections of images that are both way too big. I think that it would be much better if the section had more prose and fewer photos and that would allow for an appropriate sentence or two to be added about people who are notable for crimes, misdeeds, or other similar negative or harmful activities. ElKevbo (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)