Talk:Harvard University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Harvard University article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Harvard University is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
To-do list for Harvard University: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
    Archive
    Archives
    1, 2


    Contents

    [edit] Forsythe Institute

    Isn't part of harvard. It's a private dental research institute. Some harvard dental school faculty members are part of the institute, and have labs there.--HarvardToofDoc 19:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Contradiction tag

    As mentioned several months ago by an anonymous user above, the library size ranking and its number of volumes is different in the lead section than it is in the library section. Basar 05:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

    I've done some basic web research, fixed the contradiction, and removed the tag. All references to the library are now given in-line citations.Citynoise 18:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Announcement of new president

    Just to clarify any potential confusion, Harvard officially announced its next president, Drew Gilpin Faust, on Sunday, February 11, 2007. She will not actually be president until July 1, 2007. Derek Bok will serve as interim president until then. The media seems to get these things incorrect frequently. I hope the Wikipedia community can get it right. Jkbaum 20:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Crimson

    This article talks way too much about the school color, which makes the intro not very concise and cumbersome to read. I experimented with splitting the three or four paragraphs on color into their own section, but there were some problems. I recommend somebody else take a look. – Lantoka (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Old Motto

    Something is a bit off about the old motto...Veritas, Christo et Ecclesia should translate to "Truth, Christ and the Church". However, Veritas "PRO" Christo et Ecclesia would mean "Truth for Christ and the Church", as the translation says. I tried to search for it on Harvard's website, but I'm having firewall issues with it. I did find a Harvard Crimson article that had the "pro" part [1]. Also, is that something that should be in the info box? It looks a bit cluttered because of it...just a thought. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 21:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    Fixed/clarified. Doops | talk 03:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] A+ Grades

    It says in the View of Harvard section that Harvard doesn't award A+ grades. The Harvard Undergraduate Student Handbook says that it does. —LestatdeLioncourt 14:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

    I'm not sure which handbook you're looking at, and I can't offer any more evidence than my own experience, but you can't get an A+ on your "report card." 67.85.183.103 05:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    I've gone to four universities and none award A+ grades, neither did my high school. Its a novelty grade elementary schools give as far as I know.

    [edit] Acceptance

    Is it extremely hard to be accepted in to Harvard, because I wanted to go there--Kolegegraduaet 21:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

    a) Yes, it's hard. b) You can't be accepted unless you apply, so apply. c) What are your reasons for going to Harvard? Maybe there are other schools that would be equally good choices for you that are not as hard to get into. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Unimportant/unsourced "popular culture" items

    • On the hit American TV show "Gilmore Girls" (episode 3.22: The Big One), one of the main characters, Rory Gilmore, is admitted to Harvard, Princeton as well as Yale University and chooses to attend the latter in lieu of the other two.
    Well, then, Harvard isn't important in the episode, let alone the series as a whole. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    Scores of fictional characters are given an Ivy League background as an indicator for membership in the WASP establishment. Would the M*A*S*H series be any different if Winchester said he was a Yale graduate? If not, this item isn't important. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    Ebert's review suggests that this is just character background, that the incident has taken place before the story begins, that the story is set in London, and that Harvard does not play an important role.
    No page reference given. Fact that "attended" is in the past tense suggests that it is just character background and that Harvard and HBS are not important elements in the book. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Minor

    At Harvard is it compulsory to do a minor or is there a way of opting out. Also I don't quite understand what a liberal arts course. Help appreciated. Algebra man 21:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

    Is this in relation to the article, or is it just a general question about the school? If it is the former, could you please clarify what you mean. If it is the latter, you should be aware that this is not a general forum for discussion about the article's subject; it is, rather, for the discussion of the article itself (see WP:TALK). Most of us probably wouldn't be able to help you with those kinds of administrative minutiae anyway, so I would suggest contacting the University's admissions office instead. --Dynaflow 22:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    Dynaflow is of course right; but I might as well add that there actually aren't any minors as such at Harvard. Doops | talk 01:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] missing a section header?

    It appears that a "History" section header may have been deleted inadvertently. Under "Major campus expansion", the first three paragraphs relate to that topic. The next eight paragraphs don't relate to campus expansion at all; they appear to be a history. I'm just passing through, so rather than make the edit and possibly blunder into an editing dispute, I thought I'd ask. -- Sfmammamia 02:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Fair use rationale for Image:1874 Harvard-McGill.jpg

    Image:1874 Harvard-McGill.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

    Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

    If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

    BetacommandBot 04:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Reverting vandalism

    I am trying to revert vandalism on Harvard University article but the spam protection filter is preventing me from doing so. NHRHS2010 Talk 18:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

    Reverted by admin User:Jaranda. NHRHS2010 Talk 18:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Views of Harvard section

    In my opinion, much of this section seems unnecessary and biased against Harvard, while other parts could easily be incorporated into the rest of the article. I am not connected to Harvard in any way whatsoever in case someone was going to accuse me of bias – I am a Duke grad. Many of the issues presented in this section are universal among all universities and colleges in the US; since they are not unique to Harvard, these topics belong in articles about legacy preferences, affirmative action, grade inflation, etc (many of these articles already exist). The information presented in this section specific to Harvard (which isn’t much) can be moved to those articles, if desired.

    A section similar to this exists in hardly any other university article unless it is a specific controversial episode in that particular university’s history. I believe that people continue to target Harvard because they are just jealous of Harvard’s prestige and wealth. Harvard is a fantastic school – clearly one of the finest in the world – but obviously it still isn’t perfect and has its flaws. It is really necessary to point all of these flaws out? No, since they are not unique to Harvard. Put another way, do you honestly think that a 2000 (guesstimate) word summary of everything there is to know about Harvard should include a 75-word quote of Larry Summers about the problems with student-faculty interactions? I personally do not.

    Let’s break down the section and where it can be moved or if it should be eliminated entirely:

    • 1.) “Oldest, Richest, and famous” – move to Institutions or History. Move rankings to Admissions; can rename section if want.
    • 2.) Grade inflation – move to grade inflation article
    • 3.) Too many teaching fellows – move to different article or delete. Way too many details. If something in this article needs to be expanded, it’s the History and People sections.
    • 4.) COFHE survey – pointless to mention. Every school has these same issues. Quote from Summers? Not significant at all.
    • 5.) Large class sizes and quote from Dr. Sendel – why? If you want to mention stats of classes over 50, that’s fine. Look it up in US News and put in a Profile-type section. It’s not necessary to provide small details and the article should be written in an unbiased manner that lets readers decide for themselves if that is too large of a percentage.
    • 6.) Alumni giving - move to People section and expand it to discuss alumni in general. How was this ever a “View of Harvard”? A view since alumni tend to give money to their alma mater? I guess….
    • 7.) Legacy and affirmative action – move to legacy preferences and affirmative action in the United States.
    • 8.) Fin aid info – move to admissions or a profile section
    • 9.) Self-promotion – ok….pointless….no basis for fact, completely biased, and something other Ivy League and elite schools are accused of.
    • 10.) Who Needs Harvard reference – pointless. Delete.

    That’s just my opinion on the matter, obviously, but if you look at wikipedia’s guidelines for university articles (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities) I think you’d agree with most (if not all) of my points. I have experience getting a university article to FA status as well as providing feedback for others. Cheers! -Bluedog423Talk 01:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] History

    The History section is just plain abysmal. Harvard's history begins in 1636, not 1800! There is hope though. It seems that as of February 14 (<3) of this year, the Harvard article did contain a more comprehensive History section. Take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harvard_University&oldid=108155179#History

    Maybe we should reinstate the history section from that version (with modifications of course). This would save us the arduous task of writing a new section. Any thoughts? -Mdmace91 04:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

    " In my family history records search through many Generations i have found that i was related as a direct decendant of EDWARD JACKSON Born 1602 Stepney Whitechapel , London England . He was the Son of Christofer Jackson He Moved from England to Newton Massachusetts in 1643 ,, He was Freeman 1645 ; Selectman ; Deputy to the Genral Court 18 sessions ; aid of the Apostle Elliot in Evangelism of the Indians . He purchased a 500 acre Farm from Gov. Bradstreet for 140 pounds , which had been sold to Gov. Bradstreet for 6 cows in 1638 . Edward Jackson was one of a committee of 4 to lay out highways in the Village of Newton. In 1657 Edward Jackson Donated 400 acres to Harvard college. He died June 17 , 1681 In his Will dated11 june 1681 he Beq. to wife , Children , inlaws , Friends, step-children , to the Use of the ministry , to the college .,,,,,, I have an almost complete Record of his 2 wives and Children if needed My name is James Louis Davis He would have been on My Great Grandmothers side of the Family in my reading of the website wiki i have found no references to these facts and Hope they fill in some lost information If you need to contact me i can be E-mailed at kansasjim@gmail.com --Thankyou --Jim-- "

    [edit] Harvard University logo

    I'm not entirely sure, but I get the feeling that the Harvard University logo is the one with the wreath of leaves and the "Harvard" banner surrounding the Veritas shield, while the version with the shield alone is used for FAS. [2] lists the former as the "Harvard seal" and that version is used all over the University website, while the latter version is used all over the FAS website. Does anyone have direct confirmation of which seal is which? Antony-22 23:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

    You're right to say that the central university tends to use the one version and the FAS tends to use the other. But it's still the same coat of arms, heraldically speaking. Other faculties have their own arms, and the various sub-schools of the FAS have their own arms; but the FAS itself, for some reason, doesn't have one. The different presentations of these arms by the two offices says nothing (other than that FAS has better taste). Doops | talk 23:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    Alright. I'm just wondering whether the wreath version should be used for the University page and the bare shield should be moved to the FAS page, even if the distinction is informal. Antony-22 00:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    The article and infobox already say "Harvard." Adding a scroll below with the same word would be redundant (besides bad heraldry). Doops | talk 01:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Proposed project

    Given the extraordinary importance of this university to American history, and the incredible number of notable graduates this institution has had, I thought it might make sense to create a separate group devoted to working on the articles related to this school and its graduates. It helps that, if I remember correctly, each of the students was (is?) supposed to write their own biography as well. Anyway, such a project is now proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Harvard University. Any parties interested in working on such a project is more than welcome to indicate as much there. Thank you. John Carter 14:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Dr. Eliot better known than many Presidents of the United States of the time?

    This claim appears at the end of the second paragraph. It wouldn't surprise me if it were true, or at least if someone said it were true, but I think it really needs a citation.

    Eliot's tenure spanned that of Presidents Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland, Harrison, McKinley, Roosevelt, and Taft. He was most famous near the end. Was he more famous than Grant or TR? I doubt it.

    Parenthetically, it seems to me that the presidents of the major universities did carry more weight in the past than they do now. When was the last time a university president was a well-known national figure? (And I don't think Eisenhower counts, since his presidency at Columbia was sandwiched between, uh, other positions that gave him national importance.) Dpbsmith (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Harvard Lodge

    Just to sort this out, Richard C. MacLaurin Lodge, which is affiliated with MIT, predates The Harvard Lodge by at least one year. It was instituted in 1920, and constituted in 1921 (so it depends on which date you pick). See here. The Harvard Lodge's own history page states it was instituted and constituted in 1922. It is also not restricted to just students, but is open to "any member of the Harvard community" who meets the eligibility requirements, including employees. Moreover, as with all groups of a fraternal nature in and around Harvard, it is not officially recognized by the University, and the lodge receives no funding from the school for activities. Therefore, I do not believe that it is factually correct to claim the lodge as a Harvard student organization. Thus, I have removed it from the article. MSJapan (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Library Size

    Don't have time to sort this ount now, but this article notes that Harvard has one of the 5 largest libraries in the world, with the others being the Library of Congress, the British Library, the French Bibliothèque Nationale, and the New York Public Library. However, the Boston Public Library page notes that it is one of the top three collections in the US, with the other two being Harvard and LoC. Seems like both of these statements can't be true. (And, anecdotally, I've heard the cited BPL as one of the top three elsewhere.) I suspect that a look at statistics from ALA could solve this pretty quickly, but don't have time to get into it right now. --Dmdwiggi (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Preliminary Review of article for WP:UNI/COTF

    This article's very well written, although there are a couple things that I found that were... interesting...

    • Historic Events section is blank.
    • No Academics/Demographics section
    • No Research/Endowment section
    • Student Life section, which is supposed to be comprised of athletics, student gov, fraternities/sororities, etc, is missing, but a Notable Student Organizations section is present.

    On a different note, I see why the Harvard in pop culture and Views of Harvard sections are there, but it seems almost out of place, it might be one of the reasons why this article hasn't been upgraded to A class yet (amongst other things...like that blanked section mentioned above).

    - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 21:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Move part of Intro to History?

    The second, third, and fourth paragraph of the intro look more like history to me....should they be moved to that section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NinSmartSpasms (talk • contribs) 22:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Harvard Crimson

    Harvard Crimson I am sure there must be room on the article for this information. What can one say, the Harvard Crimson is filled with so much info on the life of the students.--Margrave1206 (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] John Harvard

    Harvard did not attend St. Olave's Grammar school but infact attended St. Saviour's Grammar school which later merged with St. Olave's. Also at the time that Harvard attended the site of the school would have been somewhere under London Bridge Station as the Orpington site has only been used since 1969. worth editing the main text over? Lordlimpet (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Controversy??

    Where is the controversy regarding the "No Men" exercising rule? This is notable, and on many a tv news program. Just wait till O'Reilly gets a sniff of it. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 15:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Harvard rejects all transfers for 2008-2009 after they already applied

    This needs to be a story somewhere in the article. A lot of transfer applicants are really outraged, and if this is truly the encyclopedia anyone can edit they should be allowed to have their controversy given a voice.

    John C. Pierce (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

    This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox or a forum for airing ones outrage. If you can find some reliable sources describing this announcement as controversial, please cite them. Otherwise it's only your point of view and thus unacceptable in this (or any other) article. I understand that there is disappointment and perhaps even outrage associated with this announcement but this is simply not the correct forum to air those emotions.
    I've also asked other editors in the Universities Wikiproject to stop by and take a look at our disagreement and weigh in. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

    I understand what you are saying, and you are right. Ultimately, I do hope you and those who discuss this really assess the situation and come to the conclusion that this really is a "controversy." Myself and I am pretty sure almost all of the transfer students are pretty irate about this development. Here's some of them:

    http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/harvard-university/476671-transfer-admissions-announcement.html

    Thus this should absolutely be at least labeled a controversy. As for the sources, I wish I could convince you that I am a good source, I am not meaning to be arrogant but I probably know as much about this issue as anyone. I currently go to Georgetown and I put in a transfer application to Harvard and know a lot about the recent developments. I know a lot of what is going on here (of course not everything though). I was the one who was quoted in the Crimson article referenced, and I wish they had used "outrageous" instead of "very unfair." Anyway, thanks so much for taking interest and getting others to take a look at this controversy. I can't believe Harvard has done this: if there is a housing crunch than they should take (even more selectively) the best transfer applicants and the best freshmen applicants, but they should reject nobody for any reason other than that there applications were not good enough. I wish someone would sue Harvard...they have really done an injustice here. Please consider what is true about this story and let it be a part of your encyclopedia. I understand that this is not a site for debate or emotion but a site for facts and information, and that is what I am doing my best to provide, as part of "the encyclopedia anyone can edit." Thanks a lot! ps I edited the Harvard College site too--you might want to take a look at it. John C. Pierce (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

    pps I think I can say for one that this final editing you have allowed is acceptable to me as well.

    I agree - the current text is pretty good.
    I'm sure that if you poke around you can find some other reliable sources describing this decision as controversial. It wouldn't take much for us to be able to accurately state that "so-and-so labeled the decision controversial" much like the current text quotes the Crimson article. You'd need some really good sources to convince me to label the decision as unequivocally "controversial" but writing that someone else has said that is a pretty low bar. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

    I'm not so sure man, none of the major media is covering this, this is so disappointing, just another injustice to go by with the wind...go to yahoo, click more, then news, then type in Harvard Transfer and you only get 4 articles that relate. Man, it's so hard because not all truths or injustices have been quoted in some random newspaper. But I'm pretty ok with the current wording I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John C. Pierce (talk • contribs) 21:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

    You seem to be right. I can't find anything in the Chronicle of Higher Education or InsideHigherEd. That's a bit surprising given the media coverage Harvard usually gets. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

    Yes. Still man, I know this continuation of my posting may be annoying, but just because some news thing claims to be true does not mean it is. Can I put something completely fallacious into a newspaper and then cite it as true? Currently the article states that housing would not be available. But housing could still be available if they were just more selective among both the freshmen and transfer applicants--get my drift? The point is we applied and should have been considered and had our applications reviewed. Yes, and like you, I can't believe this injustice is so unnoticed and I am so disappointed. I currently have much better things to be doing like my studies here at Georgetown University. But this issue is so important to me--I am sure I had better things to do then complete an "outrageous" transfer application for nothing. That's right I said outrageous...I also said "very unfair" in the Crimson article. My name is there and I can give you my phone number if you would like. Or I can call you. Then I could try to prove to you I am who I say I am, etc, I go to G-town, this issue is such and such...etc Man I gotta go study now though. Thanks for analyzing this issue, please see through any possible bias and make sure the facts are stated--and facts that tell the whole truth about the issue. Thanks again, John C. Pierce (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

    I added: "it determined." Please don't delete this, and don't delete my account! John C. Pierce (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

    Reliable sources on this topic are easy to find. How about the Harvard Crimson, Harvard's own daily newspaper? http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=522698 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morphling89 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    Already cited. Any other sources? --ElKevbo (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah but, how can they be rejected before they apply? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.196.222 (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] "Gentleman Cs"?

    The above phrase refers to a grade that was given, basically in the era before WW2, to low achieving students as a form of social promotion at Harvard and similar schools in an era when to some extent these institutions were finishing schools for the rich, powerful and socially connected. It would interesting to have some discussion of the social changes in these Ivy League schools away from rank class privilege to meritocracy. I think Galbraith has alluded to this in referring to Harvard's having changed from a "ridiculous aristocracy" in the Gilded Age to a genuine meritocracy in the contemporary era, partially as the result of the adoption of standardized testing.

    To those who didn't actually have subtantially inherited wealth to fall back on, this system actually did a disservice to those who recieved this privilege as it created largely skilless gentleman "dudes" with little survival ability outside reliance on clubs and the good old boy network, characters aptly depicted by Jack London (and also recently on HBO's Deadwood). Thus, like a recent ancestor who attended Harvard in the late 40s, at the end of this era, partially on the basis of his family appearing in the society pages, they were potentially set-up for failure, not just in experiencing unepected and disorienting reverses and rejection in their professional lives on Wall St. and elsewhere, but more importantly in the inability to cope with and rebound from such circumstances that a modicum of grit and entreprenurial pluck would have given them and that such gross unearned privilege will not cultivate. An example of someone from this period who had such qualities, in contrast, being Col. Norman Vaughn, who left Harvard to go to the Antartic with Byrd in 1929, but was not too proud in 1968 to shovel snow for food money at the age of 62 in Anchorage in order to build up a stake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.196.222 (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Glee club the oldest?

    Harvard Glee Club says it is the oldest men's chorus in the world. However, the Orphei Dränger (Swedish chorus in Uppsala) was founded in 1853, five years earlier then the Glee Club. I'm not completely sure if OD was a men's chorus in the beginning, but research should be done.86.50.9.167 (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC) I found new info about another choir which is founded in 1838, 20 years before the Glee Club. It is called Akademiska Sångföreningen (The Academic Male Voice Choir of Helsinki). http://www.akademen.com/hem/?p=historia&set_lang=en for more info. This makes me to conclude that the Glee Club is not the oldest but third oldest choir.86.50.9.167 (talk) 10:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Library of Harvard University in top 5 in the world

    This is certainly a huge exaggeration. Just for fun, I checked Russian libraries - the Russian State Library in Moscow has over 42 mln items in its collection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_State_Library), while Russian National Library in St.Petersburg has over 34 mln items in its collection (http://www.nlr.ru/eng/nlr/facts/). You'd better leave a reference to the 'largest academic library', but don't compare to national libraries.

    [edit] Harvard University seal

    [edit] Challenge

    The version of the logo currently shown on the Harvard University wikipedia page is obsolete and is no longer in use in any official instances on Harvard's website. [3] The proper Harvard logo should be, as discussed in item 15 above, either the Veritas shield on its own, or the Veritas shield with the wreath. In addition, the user who uploaded the file (user talk:Frank.trampe) failed to attribute a proper source for the logo, but he seems to imply that he created the seal by himself. The file also lacks a logo tag and proper fair use tag.

    I will be removing this seal and reverting it back to the original Veritas shield. Atheros07 (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Response

    The University has placed its seal upon diplomas and other important documents for hundreds of years . The current version of the seal has been in continuous use since Charles Eliot's presidency , although it was closely based upon a more classical design from the middle of the nineteenth century . The outer motto , the books , and the shield go back much farther . Because of its age , the seal is not copyrighted like the wreath logo . Although different divisions and websites employ the shield in various other contexts , the Harvard Academic Seal continues to be the seal for Harvard University and for Harvard College . --Frank.trampe (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Comment

    I see that the seal is still in place and assume that Atheros07 found the response suitable . I am happy to answer further questions , though . --Frank.trampe (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Response

    I actually find Frank.trampe's response unsuitable. First of all, please clarify the actual source of the image. My understanding is that it is your own reproduction based on older but verifiable sources. If so, it is inappropriate for someone to unofficially create or reproduce a historical logo to represent modern-day Harvard. The proper logo should always come from the University itself.

    Second, I note that Harvard itself claims that the "Harvard Seal" is the Veritas shield with the wreath. [4] I have seen no other uses of your seal in Harvard's official web communications, indicating that the University-- even if they did allow you to reproduce their seal-- would not recognize your version of the seal as representative of Harvard on the web.

    Last of all, Harvard's seal/shield is still trademarked. [5] See their full list of trademarks here: [6]. Please note that the Veritas shield and the wreath version of the Veritas shield are listed there as trademarks. Your version of the seal is not listed there. I thus stand by my initial assertion that it is simply inaccurate to portray the seal as the modern-day Harvard logo. Furthermore, I believe that if your seal was reported to the University's trademark infringement office, they would agree that it is an unofficial and inaccurate reproduction that uses a trademarked logo.

    In the interest of not starting a reverting war, I will not revert it back to the Veritas shield (for now). I would be in interested in hearing other people's comments. Atheros07 (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)