Talk:Harvard University

Add HES to list Colleges and professional schools

I'd like to add a section on HES to the list of schools under HBS, that seems like the most appropriate location to match the table. Johndowning (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Agree Though Harvard Extension School has its own wikiarticle and it is part of the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences, it's separately listed, it's unique and, with ~3,428 students, believe it should be noted in the mainspace after HBS like the other schools. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Contribution of Harward University to the creation of the Open Coalition on Compliance Carbon Markets

Hello to all.

I put in the page information about the contribution of Harward University to the creation of the Open Coalition on Compliance Carbon Markets. The Salata institute of the Harward University together with researchers from the MIT issued a flagship report about the possibility of creation of a global cap and trade system in the 7 of September 2025 and 2 months later the idea was adopted at COP 30.

It is rare that a report of a university create an international coalition in 2 months, so it even receive a special article about at the official page of the university.

However, my edit was reverted, in my opinion unjustly. Do you agree with me it should be restored?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harvard_University&oldid=prev&diff=1336969985 Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

No. Doesn't belong. I have to agree with @EEng: on this. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Much as it pains you to do so? ;P EEng 22:30, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

🙂 Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree that this material doesn't (yet?) belong in this article. Nickknack00's comments at Talk:Massachusetts Institute of Technology about nearly identical material removed from that article also apply for this article. ElKevbo (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Redux

You said: "this material doesn't (yet?) belong in this article."

As I understood from this update advancing this coalition is now one of the things that the university do permanently. The Global Climate Policy Project at Harvard and MIT (GCPP) is working accros the world to implement the coalition. In cooperation with industry, governments the Coalition of Finance Ministers for Climate Action, so it is not something small and not important.

Can I enter about it now to the page?

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• No. ElKevbo was being too gentle. No matter how enthusiastic you are about this initiative, it's merely one of scores of such things going on all the time at Harvard and similar places, and barring some fantastic development it will never be appropriate to even mention it here. EEng 20:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Agree with EEng. Adding it is WP:UNDUE. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2026

Some user named Mwwb added “and elitist” to the intro section of the article. It’s probably just some troll who wanted to add their opinion; it should be deleted. Funkey08 (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Good catch! MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

April 1. EEng 07:11, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Removal of prestige statement

Hey all,

I think it is important that the statement about prestige is removed. Prestige itself is inherently a subjective quality and not an objective fact (meaning it goes against Wikipedia's neutral stance). Furthermore, no other comparable college or university (Yale, Stanford, etc) has a prestige statement; if Harvard is going to get a statement, then I think it is fair one should be added to other comparable institutions. Open to discussing more but would like to set a good standard. Thanks. Linn072 (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding what Wikipedia is and is not, even outside of WP:OTHERSTUFF(DOESN'T)EXIST(S). Seasider53 (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I think I understand what you're saying. Thanks for pointing that out. Linn072 (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I have reverted your removal of this section.

Substantively: I agree that "prestige" is a problematic term in many ways, but it is widely used in reliable sources.

Procedurally: there has been extensive discussion of this point in the past, referenced in a comment in the section which you removed.

The correct way to proceed if you believe the statement should be removed is to re-open the discussion on the talk page. --Macrakis (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the status quo, Macrakis.

@Linn072: If you believe that the consensus has changed or should change, you are welcome to propose that discussion. But edit warring with multiple editors to override an explicitly discussed decision will likely lead to you being blocked.

In general, there are competing interests in play here. On the one hand, we have a big problem with editors who edit articles about colleges and universities to make claims about their value and prestige. Some are likely editing in bad faith to promote their alma mater, some are editing because it's their job to promote the institution, and many are making good-faith edits that reflect their opinion or their understanding of the reliable sources. On the other hand, we have editors who want to protect articles from those edits because they believe that they violate WP:NPOV. The first problem has historically been so significant that many editors simply remove all mentions of prestige or promotional language in the lead section of any article about a college or university. This has the virtues of simplicity and consistency. But it also ignores the very real fact that some colleges and universities are indeed described in many reliable sources as being very prestigious, so much so that this must be described in the body of the article and included in the lead section that summarizes the article. Hence our attempt to handle this by requiring significant evidence before allowing this into the lead section of an article.

So if you believe that this information is missing from some other articles - and I agree - then you are welcome to edit those articles if you can do so in accordance with WP:HIGHEREDREP. (But watch out - the most common challenge that editors encounter in this area is that they forget that the lead section is a summary of what's in the article. So you may need to add some material to the body of the article before you edit the lead section. And you'd also want to ensure that you are using a variety of really good sources that explicitly support what you're writing.) ElKevbo (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2026 (UTC)