Talk:Pforzheimer House

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Vote for Deletion

2 September 2006: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pforzheimer House. Result: keep. `'mikka (t) 03:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] biased point?

I am deleting the following sentence--

"PfoHo had a student arrested on the premises this fall, basically for Watching Football While Black. (http://thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=509113)"

It isn't all that factually accurate, and certainly isn't objective.

Andrewstillman 19:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Grads

The intent of the "famous grads" section is to include people who are famous enough to shed some light on the house, for having played a role in educating them, or to surprise people who would not have expected the famous person to have gone there. How does Isaac Schapira qualify? Searching for him yields the damning Google report

Your search - "Isaac Schapira" "dirty jesus" - did not match any documents.

Who is this guy that he deserves to be listed here? Uucp 14:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If you lived in Pforzheimer House, you would know, UUCP, if that is your real name. http://www.boston.com/sports/nesn/gallery/damon_disciples?pg=2

So his claim to fame is that, by getting naked and pretending to be a baseball player, he got his photo on the Boston Globe's website? Harvard's standards must be dropping. Uucp 21:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Not only do I wish to be commemorated as a famous resident of Pforzheimer, UUCP, I would appreciate it if you mentioned me in your excellent entry on Harlem. I used to live at 127th and Lenox. I'll be the first to admit surprise that I merited a mention on wikipedia (though not anymore, it seems), but then again, how awesome were Mo Rocca's Thursdayfests? Finally, I am pleased to report that Harvard's standards are as high as ever, despite my four-year campaign to tarnish the institution. --Dirty.

You're right up there with James Baldwin. Uucp 11:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inline citations?

On looking at this article, I see that it's supported with numerous references to the Harvard Crimson. However, it's not very easy to tell from inspection what specific things in the article have published sources and what might have just been personal stories with no sources other than the personal authority of the editors.

For example, what's the source for "War with Adams?" None of the article titles in the references says anything like that, and it's not reasonable to expect a reader to check eleven different articles looking for a source.

I think this article really needs to have per-section citations for sections like "War with Adams," and individual citations for trivia items. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-notable?

Uucp: if you want to go and wholesale delete the majority of the article, I think the burden of proof is on you to show that it's non-notable. Removing large amounts of information needs some consensus; you can't do it without consulting anyone. AJD 14:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It fails Wikipedia notability standards. I doubt the "War with Adams House" was even notable to people living in Dunster House when it happened. It's certainly not notable to the entire world, years later. Ditto for the other fluff. Read the notability standards and I am sure you will agree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments Uucp 16:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think the question is whether or not it is verifiable by reference to a reliable published sources. Due to the absence of inline citations it's not at all clear whether this material is really supported by the many references to the Crimson or not. I think the Crimson is a reasonably reliable source and if it's good enough for the Crimson it's good enough for me.
The tone of some of this material is prolix, breezy and opinionated... reminds me of the Strunk and White example of alumni notes, glazed eyeballs and bumbershoots... It's not necessary to say
An infuriated Adams responded by declaring war. Its rather absurdist declaration of war named PfoHo an upstart colony...
for example. It would be better simply to say
Adams responded by naming PfoHo an upstart colony...
etc. letting the reader infer for him- or herself whether a) Adams was "infuriated," b) this declaration was "absurdist," and c) whether it amounted to "war."
With cleanup, and assuming a published source for this declaration is cited, I don't see why this couldn't be retained. WP:NOTE is not a consensus or even a guideline: it describes a "concept which topics usually must satisfy." And my understanding of it is that it applies to "topics" (i.e. to entire articles). We should not have an article on the "war" between Pforzheimer and Adams house. (If you must know, I'm not by any means convinced that we need an entire article on the topic of Pforzheimer House). But given that we do, I don't see why there shouldn't be material in it of interest only to Pforzheimer residents... just as the article on Lie groups contains material of interest only to those already interested in the topic of Lie groups.
verifiability, however, is a policy, and a longstanding one. Material needs to be supported by a good published source, and that source must be provided when requested. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with verifiability. The Crimson prints many things that are not notable and not encyclopedic. Uucp 01:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Dpbsmith. Given that it's decided that PfoHo itself is notable enough to have an article of its own (like Dpbsmith, I'm not convinced that that's the case, but it survived an AfD listing), the notability question isn't "Are these facts notable in their own right, as facts about the world?" but "Are these facts notable as facts about PfoHo?" And that they are. Your non-notability argument doesn't seem to hold water with Wikipedia policy. AJD 06:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
You miss my argument -- nonsense like the "war with adams house" was not even notable for PhoHo. I don't deny that it happened -- I deny that it matters. Try to find anybody who didn't participate who cares about it, even PfoHo residents of other graduating years. It may have been fun for those who participated, but it isn't notable. Put it on a personal webpage if you want to, but not here. Uucp 13:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
But I'm saying you're wrong: it is notable as a fact about the recent history of PfoHo; and I think the burden of proof is upon you if you want to delete most of the article. I mean, what can I say&mdash:I'm not a PfoHo resident, and I find these facts interesting and notable? I mean, that's true. AJD 15:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it would appear that the article does reference a Crimson article about the "war," :Resnick, Scott A. (Oct. 18, 1999). "Spirit Unleashed As House War Ends". The Harvard Crimson. [1], so it would seem that the campus newspaper considered it newsworthy... so I'm going to reinstate that section. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Nobody is claiming that the "war with adams house" didn't happen. The crimson article is irrelevant. And the assertion by Ajd that the burden of proof is on me to show it not notable is absurd. The burden is on the editor who inserts something on wikipedia to show that it *is* notable. Ajd's claim seems to be that (1) it really happened, and (2) it's recent, so (3) it's notable. That's absurd. Uucp 16:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
No, my claim is, in the first part, that the burden of proof is on someone who unilaterally deletes multiple entire sections of an article to show that there's a strong argument for doing so in order to achieve consensus among those who edit the article. At present, consensus seems to be against you. And in the second part, (1) it really happened, (2) it's unusual and interesting, (3) it has unusual consequences that, to the best of my knowledge, remain current, and so (4) it's probably notable, at least as a fact about PfoHo. AJD 16:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
UUCP, I never said anything about "burden of proof."
1) Please cite the Wikipedia policy that says anything, either way about a "burden of proof" of notability or a "burden of proof" of non-notability. I don't think there is one.
2) My claim is that a) if the Harvard campus newspaper has a long article about something, that's good evidence that Harvard students consider it to have some importance; b) it is reasonable to suppose that Harvard students form the main readership of this article; c) therefore, coverage by the Crimson is an appropriate test here. For an article with more general readership I'd might want to see coverage in The New York Times... or some other source, depending on the subject matter and likely readership of the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I must completely disagree with anyone who says the war with Adams is non-notable even to Pfohozheimer House and its residents. As an actual RESIDENT of the house, I can tell you that the war is one of the most actively discussed points of Pforzheimer House history. This is the case because at Harvard, dinning hall privileges, especially at the houses closest to Harvard Yard, are coveted, and the Adams house war won Pfoho the most coveted eating privileges on the Harvard campus.

I will never understand these constant battles among some wiki editors to root out what they consider "fluff". Wikipedia is not paper - there is plenty of room for the most esoteric points on all subject matter. Just take a look at how in depth some of the pages on virtual worlds, or ficitional worlds gets. I'll take your fluff, and with it make a delicious fluffernutter sandwich of information for the wikipedia. Ivymike21 18:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


They're back! Yes, director Del Lord has done it again! Those lovable rapscallion Harvard boys are back in another laff-riot of hysterical hi-jinks! You'll split your sides at the zany antics of these merry pranksters. They'll tickle your funnybone as they warm your heart with their rollicking, merriment. This time, it's war—but, gee whillikers, what a war! You've never seen one like this! It's all good fun, and in the end, those collegiate rogues settle their differences peacefully in a madcap finale. A comic campus classic from the team that brought you "The Halfback of Notre Dame." Rated G.

[edit] Press mentions

To calibrate some of this discussion:

A search of The New York Times from 1990 through the present for articles containing the phrase Pforzheimer House yields two hits: One mentions Pforzheimer House in the context of students competing for Rhodes scholarships: "Harvard officials may seem blasé about it but they prep, too; Anna Weiss felt 'mildly uncomfortable' about it, but she... [attended] a mock cocktail party at Pforzheimer House [where] Rick Bell, a fellowship advisor, told the students 'Don't fiddle with your glasses. Don't shift your weight....'"
One, "Blacks' Guide to Harvard Covers History and Tips," Sara Rimer, February 1, 2003, p. A15, says that
"By the late 1990s, according to the guide, many black and Hispanic students lived in the Radcliffe quadrangle, in the Pforzheimer House." Starting the class of 1999, it goes on to say, Harvard began a system of randomly assigning students to residence halls." Dpbsmith (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
A similar search of The Boston Globe and The Boston Herald yields 11 hits, of which:
4 simply mentions in passing events which happen to be taking place at Pforzheimer House
"Harvard square accident leaves N.J. student in ICU," simply says the student was living at Pforzheimer House
"Harvard's Ace Student of Fashion", Boston Globe, February 11, 2001 profiles "Laura Mehlinger: Harvard senior, English major, and, yes, budding clothing designer" and mentions a fashion show she is putting on at Pforzheimer House.
An article on local musical events mentions that that "Composer Rodney Lister at Harvard's Pforzheimer House Music Society has organized a three-concert festival celebrating British composer Michael Finnissy"
"Is it any (Stevie?) Wonder," Boston Globe, October 24, 1999, Hazel Trice Edney, profiles a singer named Pumla Bhungane and mentions that Ryan Leslie "helps Pumia with his background music and recordings at Quad Sound Studios inside the Pforzheimer House at Harvard."

Three seem to me to actually be "about" Pforzheimer House:

"Radcliffe's Days As College Coming to and End," Boston Globe, April 12, 1998, John Yemma and Daniel Golden, includes a photo captioned "A student on the terrace of Pforzheimer House at Radcliffe, which would become an "allied institution" of Harvard under a proposal.
"The Last Days of Radcliffe?", Boston Globe September 19, 1997, Alex Beam, says "Piled on top of the Pforzheimer House flap -- Harvard renamed the Radcliffe-owned house after a loyal donor without consulting Wilson & Co. -- and the unseemly Hastings Room flap (don't ask), Harvard and Radcliffe are heading toward the final showdown."
"Harvard Puts End to Selective Living," Boston Globe, June 6, 1996, Alice Debner, says "Pforzheimer, formerly North House, has evolved into a base for black student activism and a mecca for premeds. But next fall, the distinct cultures of Harvard's 12 residence houses, already eroding under administration pressure, will suffer the final blow. Harvard is abolishing all student choice in housing, adopting a random assignment system modeled on Yale's."

Dpbsmith (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

UUCP removed the section on "Dispute with Adams on dining access" and reverted the section on "rechristening" with this edit comment:

(your assertion that it is noteworthy does not make it noteworthy. also, you are reinserting POV nonsense about people "zealously defending" the new name, for no imaginable reason.)

The reinsertion of the "zealously defending" language was a mistake. My bad. I support the reversion. In fact I was the one who added the {{fact}} tag and certainly didn't intend to remove it.

As to the dining dispute, what makes it noteworthy is not my assertion that it's noteworthy, but the fact that the Harvard student newspaper thought it was worth a long article. I've explained above that I think that the Crimson is a reasonable judge of what's considered important to the Harvard community, and that the audience for this article is primarily the Harvard community. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The audience for this article, and every article in the English wikipedia, is primarily the English-speaking world. It's something of a mistake to start writing particular articles for particular communites, as the purpose of the encyclopedia is to provide knowledge not to be a collection of "in" clubs. As for the notability of this issue in particular, it doesn't seem particularly important, especially given how transient it is likely to be (in 50 years, this will be incredibly trivial). However, the only reason this is a problem is that the detail is somewhat disproportionate to the rest of the article. Wikipedia is not paper, however, so greater article depth is not something to be avoided. siafu 18:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relation of Pforzheimer to original Radcliffe dorms?

I'm having trouble trying to reconcile material in a 1913 book about Radcliffe,

Dowst, Henry Payson; John Albert Seaford (1913). Radcliffe College. H. B. Humphrey Company. . Brief text; content is mostly illustrations by John Albert Seaford Online page images and PDF at Google Books

with the statement in Pforzheimer House that

Radcliffe College students first took up residence on campus in 1901, and the oldest parts of PfoHo date to that year.

and in Pforzheimer House, that

In 1901, Radcliffe College students first moved into residence halls, some of which are now part of Pforzheimer House.

The 1913 book says, on page 32 of the PDF (Google's page images show no page number on the original pages)

Two Dormitories are in Shepard Street. These are, at the left, Bertram Hall, 1901; at the right, Grace Hopkinson Eliot Hall, 1907... Behind these is a rectangular field for out-of-door games. Sarah Whitman Hall, 1912, overlooks this playground from the east; James and Augusta Barnard Hall, 1913, from the west. The four Radcliffe Dormitories are small,—none accommodating more than fifty-five students.

No residence facilities on Linnean Street or on the north side of the "playground" seem to be mentioned in this book. Which parts of Pforzheimer represent 1901 Radcliffe buildings? Did the 1913 book overlook a couple of dorms? Were some 1901 living quarters converted to some other purpose by 1913 and thus not mentioned? Dpbsmith (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Pforzheimer house shield.jpg

Image:Pforzheimer house shield.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 (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)