Jump to content

Talk:Memorial Hall (Harvard University)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CFCF (talk | contribs) at 14:20, 15 August 2024 (→Rfc on use of "imposing"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Confederate Memorial

Memorial Hall is explicitly not a memorial to the alumni of Harvard who fought for the Confederacy. There has been discussion of a Confederate Memorial at Harvard many times, most recently after Ken Burns' Civil War series in 1994, but no memorial has ever been constructed or will probably ever be constructed. Mem Hall is strictly Union only. 71.61.0.52 (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think? How many of the Yankees who went to Harvard would have fought for the Confeds? think about it? very few. Harvard went through this in the 1950s around the couple German alumns who fought for Nazi Germany in WW2; no their names were not placed on any memorial. Sure, Harvard may have had a few Southern gentlemen who fought for CSA, but not very many, and that's not where the sympathies of most folks at Harvard and in Boston at the time lay or what they sought to commemorate in what was a bastion of Radical Republican and Abolitionist sentiment at the time. The film "Glory" depicts the marble plaques to Harvard's union dead in Memorial Hall in its opening scene, a sacrifice Harvard can be rightfully proud of. A similar monument, prominently placed, exists at MIT dedicated to its World War 2 dead.
Honestly... what makes people think that uninformed speculation is helpful to discussions such as this? As I recall (don't ask how I know this -- I have a head for such minutiae) 57 Harvard men died in gray. Compared to the 136 blue Crimson deaths this is hardly just a "few" (sorry to say). EEng (talk) 06:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I realize this is an old discussion, but I'll just add this--individuals' names are in Memorial Hall. If anyone wants to claim Confederate dead are listed, they can cite an entry in the hall, or else leave it be. Claudia (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can additionally confirm no presence of conferederate names inside memorial hall MemHallUsher (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Sanders Theater

I think it's more than natural that Mem Hall and Sanders be treated in a single article. I can't imagine this could be controversial, so I'm just going to go ahead. (If someone points out some reason this is actually a numbskull idea, I'll be happy to undo the damage myself.)

Despite the adminsitrative joinder with Lowell Lecture Hall, I don't think it's appropriate to merge that topic in as well. (Doesn't seem to be an article on it yet anyway.)

Angels-dancing-on-head-of-a-pin question

Should the merged article be simply Memorial Hall (Harvard University) or Memorial Hall and Sanders Theater (Harvard University) i.e. is Sanders a part of Mem Hall, or its co-equal, so to speak. Whatever the formal, historical answer may be, combining WP:NAMINGCRITERIA with [1] points to simply Memorial Hall (Harvard University) as the right choice. (Historical formalities can be clarified in the article.) Naturally there will be redirects from:

  • Annenberg Hall (Harvard University)
  • Sanders Theater This is the title of the current Sanders article
  • Sanders Theater (Harvard University)
  • Loker Commons (Harvard University)
  • Memorial Transept (Harvard University)
  • Alumni Hall (Harvard University)
  • Delta (dabpage)
  • Registration Hurry-Up-and-Wait Hall (Harvard University) Just kidding!
  • anything else...??

EEng (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there should be two separate pages as historically and currently it is rare for anyone other than Harvard students and Harvard alumni to access Annenberg Hall. Sanders Theater is the only space where public ticketed access can be available. Memorial Transept is the space that physically connects the two spaces. Public access to Memorial Transept varies, but ticketed access to Sanders Theater de facto provides access to Memorial Transept. The history of Sanders Theater as a performance venue (in film media, live acts of varied nature) is noteworthy and may call for its own sub section if not page. Separately but similarly, I would like to contribute and add references regarding the names inscribed on the tablets throughout Memorial Transept and provide links to / from the respective individuals Wikipedia pages. I welcome feedback. Thank you. MemHallUsher (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I violently disagree with a split. Who has what access is a very minor (trivial, really) issue. The entire building is architecturally one, and a page split would necessitate much tiresome duplication.
The article is highly incomplete, and material on Sanders' history as a performance venue, historic speeches given there, and so on would be great. The names on the tablets would make a terrific list article (for which an interesting question is the order of presentation). Other (harder) lists would be the windows, and the portraits, statuary, and so on. EEng 18:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources

The articles already too image-heavy (for the current amount of text) but here's one for the future:

Class day abour 1900 (see img descr pg)
  • [6] Film footage of tower on fire, 1956
  • [7] Fire
  • [8] More fire pics

Jarvis Field sources

Imposing is WP:WEASEL

Before restoring this, please see the article on WP:WEASEL. This term should not be used on Wikipedia, and that it exists elsewhere is only a reason to remove it from there per WP:OTHERSTUFF. That it is sourced is a non-sequitur, it is still far too subjective and WP:WEASEL still applies. The proper way would be to state "described as imposing", and this type of language is inappropriate for the lede, hence it goes. Carl Fredrik talk 12:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WEASEL obviously has nothing to do with this, but let's assume you're confusing WEASEL with WP:PEACOCK. It is no more inappropriate to refer to an indisputably imposing (305 ft x 113 ft, tower 190 ft) High Victorian Gothic building, so described in multiple sources, as an imposing High Victorian Gothic building than it is to describe Abraham Lincoln (1920 statue) as colossal or St Paul's Cathedral as "dominating the skyline". Imposing is a common term in the vocabulary of architectural criticism and need not be quoted or attributed when there's no indication of dissent or disagreement. To say Memorial Hall is "described as imposing" would be as ridiculous as saying the Statue of Liberty is "described as big". EEng 06:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most university halls are large, even imposing, particularly those at large universities, particularly those that merit their own Wikipedia articles. The infobox image pretty much screams "imposing", and |alt= could be added for benefit of the vision-impaired. I don't see much value in or need for any adjective there. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, it's clear to me that the word in question is WP:PEACOCK. Maybe an RfC is in order? Seasider53 (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mass Hall. Imposing does not come to mind.
Cruft Hall. I wouldn't dream of imposing.
I love these discussions. Is it your suggestion, Mandruss, that since the image screams imposing, the alt= should include that word so that the visually impaired will not be at disadvantaged, relative to their sighted brethren, in their comprehension of this edifice's imposing-ness (or imposition, or whatever it is imposing buildings impose on those encountering them)?
So it seems we have two diametrically opposed lines of reasoning leading, oddly, to the same conclusion. On the one hand, the OP asserts that because that it's insufficiently an incontrovertible assertion that Memorial Hall is imposing, it must not be so described. Joined to that, we now have the assertion that since it's patently obvious that it's imposing, it need not be so described. Fabulous. In any event, with the idea that "most university halls are large" I'm afraid I must differ. For example, Massachusetts_Hall_(Harvard_University) (left) has its own article, and while impressive for its history it can hardly be described as imposing. I think the same might safely be said of Cruft Hall (right). EEng 19:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EEng 19:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is it your suggestion, Mandruss... No. It is my suggestion that |alt= could be added to describe the image in objective terms, as all |alt= parameters are supposed to do. The vision-impaired reader could then apply their own subjective adjectives, in the same manner as the sighted could do using the image itself.
Fabulous. I really don't see your point. Editors with different viewpoints or opinions is a problem, somehow?
I'm afraid I must differ. imposing: "impressive in size, bearing, dignity, or grandeur". I'm impressed by the size of Mass Hall. It's a whole lot bigger than I am. Maybe you're harder to impress. Regardless, surely you know what "most" means and don't propose to refute the claim with two cherry-picked examples? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You said that the image made it obvious (to a sighted reader) that the building is imposing. So, assuming the word isn't used in the caption, why wouldn't we give sight-impaired readers the benefit of that insight?
  • It's indeed fabulous, as in something from a fable, when two editors present completely logically inconsistent reasoning in support of each other's positions. (NB: I would never, of course, use a POV, PEACOCKy term like fabulous in an article unless supported by appropriate sources.)
  • No cherry picking (though I do love cherries). You asserted that "most university halls are large, even imposing, particularly those at large universities", with the implication (I guess) that readers will assume that a university "hall" is imposing by default. I just wanted to show that it's easy to find exceptions, which weakens that notion. And even if we do assume that readers make that assumption, doesn't that imply we, in the case of halls not described by sources as imposing, point out in their articles that they are "not imposing", so that readers won't be misled?
EEng 17:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I haven't been clear. Maybe I haven't even been consistent. At this point I'm saying the reader can form their own opinion as to imposing or not from looking at the image, and from their knowledge about university halls in general, depending on that experience. That covers everybody but vision-impaired readers, who comprise, what, about 1 in 500 readers? For them, we can do our best to give them a mental image using |alt=. When there is strong disagreement about the choice of a word, the first question I ask is whether any word is really needed. If I haven't been clear enough, see my proposed first sentence below (no adjective).
  • when two editors present completely logically inconsistent reasoning in support of each other's positions. I'm not supporting anybody's position. I stated mine, and AFAICT it's the only one advocating no adjective at all. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These example are all subjective, which is why we should avoid presenting such adjectives in Wikipedia's voice. Carl Fredrik talk 21:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When it's in quotation marks, followed immediately by quoted citations, it's not in Wikipedia's voice. WP:WEASEL refers to unsupported attributions. This one, clearly, is well supported. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, Hertz1888, I took out the quotes, because imposing is a standard term in architectural criticism. Since it's repeatedly used in multiple sources in describing the subject, and there's no source in any way dissenting from that, it becomes simply an straightforward fact that the article can assert flatly. EEng 17:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As already pointed out that what really applies is WP:PEACOCK, which is may I point out 2 paragraphs up from WP:WEASEL, so it is somewhat disingeneous to portrait this as the entirely wrong thing. I'm not adverse to using the word, just not in the first sentence as it is a clear case of peacocking. The same is in principle true for the Statue of Liberty, but WP:OTHERSTUFF, and that is a discussion that can be had in the future. These adjectives would not be allowed anywhere else on Wikipedia, why would they be okay on architectural articles? Carl Fredrik talk 22:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's part of the routine vocabulary of architectural criticism. [9][10][11][12][13]. EEng 17:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to ask whether you're purposefully missing the point: the term isn't neutral. The same can be said about various routine terms used in art, but we do not allow words like "beautiful", "renowned", "masterful", etc. Why would we make these types of exceptions for architecture? Carl Fredrik talk 12:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have to wonder who it is that is missing the point here. WP:PEACOCK objects only to using words to watch without attribution or verifiability, both of which are amply present in the current situation. "Imposing" is not explicitly on the list of words to watch (I am not good at divining what is included by inference in the "..." at the end of the list). If "imposing" is commonly used in architectural criticism, then I would not deem it puffery. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Memorial Hall, immediately north of Harvard Yard in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is a High Victorian Gothic building honoring the sacrifices made by Harvard men in defense of the Union during the American Civil War‍—‌"a symbol of Boston's commitment to the Unionist cause and the abolitionist movement in America."
    |alt=A ground-level exterior photo of a large, ornate, 19th-century building. The main body of the building is longer than high, with two stories below a steep and tall roof, and a tower rises from the far end. The building's exterior walls appear to be constructed mostly of red-orange brick. The roof surfaces are broad horizontal stripes, of widely varying widths, in pale shades of blue, light brown, and red-orange. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Love the ALT. I've added it, somewhat modified. EEng 17:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seven years later ...

To bring this up again, it is WP:PEACOCK to suggest this in Wikipedias voice. If you insist on keeping it you need to qualify with "described as imposing", or just large. That something is not expressly on the list of example adjectives does not matter. CFCF (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And to answer you again, imposing is a common term in architectural criticism, and if sources describe the subject that way (and add ten more could easily be added to the three already cited) that's the way the article will describe it as well. We don't need to say it's "described as" imposing when abundant sources agree that it's just plain imposing. The article has read this way for LITERALLY seventeen years. Every few years you show up to complain about it, but you have been signally unable to convince other editors of the validity of your position. Why you're obsessed with this particular point, I have no idea, but slow-motion editwarring is still editwarring. Get consensus or leave it alone. EEng 23:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth pointing out the three cites are from before 1900. Maybe it was imposing then, but there's no evidence it is currently imposing, 130 years+ later. Jjazz76 (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You got a cite for that? EEng 01:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the evidence anyone has called it imposing since say 1950? Why wouldn't a more accurate line be something along "in the years immediately after it was built" or some other qualifier. Using 100 and 200 year old documents to make claims about what is "current" is a bad look. Jjazz76 (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've often thought that someone should invent some kind of worldwide information search and retrieval system -- maybe one involving computers linked by communication lines -- by which queries could be entered on a keyboard or something, and answers viewed on a display screen. Because if there was such a thing, you could answer that question yourself instead of demanding that other editors do it for you (which is also not a good look). Anyway:
  • [14] Frommer's Boston 2003: "This imposing Victorian structure"
  • [15] Architectural Record (1957): "a picturesque, imposing mass"
  • [16] Blackout (2005): "Harvard's Memorial Hall looming ahead and the other imposing structures surrounding it"
  • [17] Travel and Leisure (1994): "the imposing neo-Gothic presence of Memorial Hall"
  • [18] Streets and Alleys (1995): "Memorial Hall, an imposing fortress of a building"
  • [19] Maddox, American History (1998): "an imposing brick edifice"
  • [20] Kowsky, "The Architecture of Frederick C. Withers (1828-1901)", J Soc Architectural Historians (1976) v35n2: "New England intellectuals, eager to immortalize their compatriots who had died defending the Republic, moved quickly to erect imposing buildings to their memory. In 1865 Harvard University sponsored Memorial Hall by Ware and Van Brunt"
  • [21] Newsweek (1981): "The imposing red-brick, Victorian-style Memorial Hall"
  • [22] The Architecture of America: A Social and Cultural History: "imposing mass of red brick with colorful designs in the shingled roofs"
  • [23] Sun at Noon (1955): "the old and imposing Memorial Hall"
EEng 08:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
great. add those instead. I think that helps support your claim. better than 100 year old sources. I'm convinced. Jjazz76 (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you add them if you want. Your idea that sources on architecture must be recent is just something you made up. I really just wanted to illustrate how easily you could have answered your question for yourself. EEng 23:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly the goal of Wikipedia is for readers to not have to search for answers. Just because I ask you to find sources, and you do doesn't mean you win. It means you made the encyclopedia better. Look, I'm going to keep editing Harvard articles, so we are going to be together for a long, long time. Learn to work with me!
And ok, I'll add them. Jjazz76 (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's you who needs to learn how to work here. Start by learning what's in guidelines and policy, and what's not; for example: "sources must be recent" isn't in guidelines or policy. I've already been through this with you on several other articles, representative examples being this one [24] and this one [25]. Over and over you've removed things you don't understand until other editors explain to you real-world stuff that you should either should know already or be able to figure out for yourself. EEng 03:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng - My request was completely reasonable. Thanks for responding.
But ultimately, recent sources are helpful in ascertaining that X or Y is still considered to be true. Just because X was true 2 or 3 hundred years ago, doesn't mean it is the case any longer. We live in history. Jjazz76 (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I see you just engaging in weird boosterism for Harvard, for reasons that are still unclear to me. Pretty much every Harvard you work on has this strange rose-tinted nostalgia, that I constantly have to ask "is this still true?" Or was it true in 1950 and no longer. Jjazz76 (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, imposing is a term of art in architectural criticism, and an imposing building can no more cease being imposing than a heroic statue can cease being heroic. Now, if the statement had been that Memorial Hall "imposes on its neighbors", THAT would need reasonably recent sourcing, and when you can show me that you understand the difference between those two situations (and please, look up heroic unless you're certain you know what it means in the context of statuary) then I'll start crediting your ideas about sourcing.

So no, your request was completely unreasonable, and the fact that you still don't see that, just as you likely still don't see how ridiculous your "requests" were at the threads I linked just above, shows how unready you are to participate in discussions like this. As one wise editor put it to you months ago (to little effect, unfortunately)

Collaboration is a two-way street. I see lots of long replies by you, to every single comment, repeating the same positions you have already expressed. I see less evidence that you have taken in any criticism. At a certain point this behavior is likely to cause other editors to view attempts at engagement with you as not worth the time. [26]

Finally: I like to write on Harvard related topics because I am familiar with the material, Harvard has historically been full of clever people saying droll things, and (for whatever reason) stuff related to Harvard has long been exhaustively reported. These circumstances make it relatively easy to write comprehensive articles with interesting sidelights. You call it "rose-tinted nostalgia", but one well-known professional editor called one of "my" articles (and, fact is, I wrote pretty much every word of it) "Wikipedia as art: a deft, beautiful, possibly even perfect entry" (search the page for Sacred and hover over the link); this is the same article one of our esteemed fellow editors thought should be reduced to a pile of smoking wreckage incorporating preposterous phrases such as observers from across the career spectrum and the nation [27]. So quite frankly, your evaluation of my writing is of little interest. EEng 00:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see.
Happy editing! Jjazz76 (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technical terminology

I'm continuing this discussion from User talk:HandThatFeeds to avoid bothering that editor. EEng wrote there, in part: "a heroic statue is one larger than life (usually at least 1/3 to 1/2 larger), but not colossal (which denotes a work at least twice life size).... Imposing is, similarly, a term of art."

Neat! I didn't know "heroic" had that technical meaning, and it's interesting that it's mostly objective. Like I said on the user talk page, I don't take any particular position on the question of what "imposing" means - I leave that to art and architecture critics - but some people clearly do hold the opinion that status can be lost over time, at least in the everyday sense. If you are saying that there is a technical, semi-objective definition of "imposing" which is different than the common definition, I could not find such a definition in the sources you cited above to explain its use in architectural criticism (currently links 9 thru 13) nor on Wiktionary (which does partly document the technical meaning on wikt:heroic; I check there not because it's authoritative, but to see if our coverage is complete). And obviously the vast majority of readers would not know that word was being used in an objective technical sense, rather than the arguably subjective sense of contextually large and looming, so that would need to be explained in the article. So, EEng, what is the technical definition of "imposing" you have in mind? -- Beland (talk) 08:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained changes

An editor has been repeatedly trying to impose a single large-scale edit, which mostly simply churns the internal wikitext without changing the rendered page, but with few substantive changes sprinkled in. The only description offered has been that his verions is "without weird paragraph breaks and unnecessary words" [28]. However, it's almost impossible to tell what's actually being changed, or why, given the huge size of the diff. Repeated requests for an explanation [29][30] have been ignored. I'm asking here once more for an explanation of how each substantive change improves the article. EEng 05:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc on use of "imposing"

There is an ongoing issue of whether it is WP:PUFFERY to use of the word "imposing" to describe this built structure in the lede. Sources have been given that ostensibly use this terminology. Does the presence of such sources allow for the use of the term in WP:VOICE as part of the lede? CFCF (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose use. It seems to me a clear violation of policy, and further a case of WP:OVERCITE to refer to multiple sources that use this terminology. It should be noted that structures such as the Eiffel tower or Empire State Building do not use such terminology, even though there would be more than ample sources to support it. It may at most be acceptable to state that the structure "has frequently been described as imposing" in the body of the article, but I suggest it should not be included in the lede. CFCF (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When there were three sources, someone said they were too few and too old; but now that a list (above) of ten more sources ranging over 100+ years has been supplied, it's OVERCITE? Please make up your mind. EEng 16:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No answer. Huh. EEng 03:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't relevant to my points - and remains irrelevant. I can't stand for what interactions you may have had with other editors. CFCF (talk) 10:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If OVERCITE isn't relevant, why did you bring it up? EEng 13:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said that. I said that your comment was not relevant to my points on WP:PUFFERY, WP:VOICE or the current issue of WP:OVERCITE. I have never been opposed to stating in a latter section that it "Has frequently been described as imposing" (with an adequate number of quality citations). I never even said that any of the sources you mention are bad - rather how irrespective of the sources it is inappropriate to describe anything with words of such criticism in WP:VOICE as a prominent part of a lede.
    It is unfortunate that intentional failure to consider the subject of the issue, which is adherence to the pillar WP:NEUTRAL, gives the impression of being WP:NOTHERE. CFCF (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It can only be seen as an opinion to the average reader. There was enough consensus without the need to have an RfC, I thought? Seasider53 (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As repeatedly explained, imposing is a term of art in architectural criticism. We now have thirteen sources describing it that way (three in the article and ten listed in an earlier thread on this page here):
  • [31] Frommer's Boston 2003: "This imposing Victorian structure"
  • [32] Architectural Record (1957): "a picturesque, imposing mass"
  • [33] Blackout (2005): "Harvard's Memorial Hall looming ahead and the other imposing structures surrounding it"
  • [34] Travel and Leisure (1994): "the imposing neo-Gothic presence of Memorial Hall"
  • [35] Streets and Alleys (1995): "Memorial Hall, an imposing fortress of a building"
  • [36] Maddox, American History (1998): "an imposing brick edifice"
  • [37] Kowsky, "The Architecture of Frederick C. Withers (1828-1901)", J Soc Architectural Historians (1976) v35n2: "New England intellectuals, eager to immortalize their compatriots who had died defending the Republic, moved quickly to erect imposing buildings to their memory. In 1865 Harvard University sponsored Memorial Hall by Ware and Van Brunt"
  • [38] Newsweek (1981): "The imposing red-brick, Victorian-style Memorial Hall"
  • [39] The Architecture of America: A Social and Cultural History: "imposing mass of red brick with colorful designs in the shingled roofs"
  • [40] Sun at Noon (1955): "the old and imposing Memorial Hall"
These date from soon after the building was built through the 21st century, and include specialist sources such as American Architect and the Architectural Review; American Art and Architecture; Architectural Record; Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians; and The Architecture of America: A Social and Cultural History.
When such diverse sources, over a subject's entire history, unanimously describe the subject using the exact same single-word description, and there's not a scintilla of evidence of dissent or disagreement about that description, then it ceases to be opinion. Articles don't say things are "described as" something when sources are unanimous that the subject is just plain "something". EEng 16:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As criticism it is by definition opinion. The very example on WP:PUFFERY reads:

Bob Dylan is the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture and a brilliant songwriter.

There is not a scintilla of evidence that either of those statements are anything but unanimously agreed upon by major figures of the music industry or corresponding texts on music criticism. I mean the guy won the Nobel for his texts. That is simply not the issue, the issue is one of WP:VOICE and WP:NEUTRALITY. We do not write like that.
I can only agree with Seasider53 that I also interpret there to be existing consensus to remove the term from the first sentence of the lede (not to avoid mentioning it at all in a later section) - but in the interest of avoiding what is turning into a years-long WP:EDITWAR, at this point it seems best to establish consensus in this manner. CFCF (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, it's actually quite easy to find major figures in the music industry who would disagree with the mock passage about Dylan you quoted. One of several examples: Joni Mitchell ("plagiarist ... fake ... Everything about Bob is a deception." -- "Mitchell attacks 'fake' Dylan", The Daily Telegraph, Apr 24, 2010, p. 18). So much for that line of reasoning.
To be clear for those playing along at home, this whole tempest-in-a-teapot is about the word imposing in the article's opening sentence:
Memorial Hall, immediately north of Harvard Yard in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is an imposing High Victorian Gothic building honoring ...
Now, CFCF, befoe invoking your Dylan strawman you probably should have read our FA on Dylan, which by a happy coincidence contains a passage which beautifully illuminates the confusion in your thinking. Its second sentence reads:
Often considered to be one of the greatest songwriters in history, Dylan has been a major figure in popular culture over his 60-year career.
There are two statements here, and they get quite different treatment, for good reason:
  • The "one of the greatest" bit is indeed opinion (and not universal opinion, as seen above) and can only be presented as such.
  • But that Dylan has been "a major figure in popular culture" is undeniable; you won't find any competent observer anywhere who would disagree even slightly with that statement, and that's why it's presented as straight fact in the article's voice -- because it's a fact, period.
You labor under the delusion that, because each observer uses his or her judgment in coming to the "major figure" conclusion, that conclusion can only be presented as opinion in the article. But that's not true, because when opinion is universally held with no dissent at all, it's no longer opinion -- it's fact. Given the sourcing we have, that's the case with imposing. EEng 03:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree this is about WP:VOICE? CFCF (talk) 09:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, in the sense that WP:VOICE, after warning us to Avoid stating opinions as facts and Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts, goes on to clarify:
Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice, for example the sky is blue not [name of source] believes the sky is blue. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.
If your claim is that imposing isn't an Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertion, then please point to the contest or controversy in reliable sources. If you can't, then the suggestion that the article should say something like "It has been described as 'imposing'" does exactly what the last sentence says not to do: make the description appear to be contested.EEng 13:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can not for the life of me see how the phrasing "It is frequently described as 'imposing'" would imply something to be contested.
The very example you chose from the article on Bob Dylan is phrased in that way using "Often considered". If you like that more, I don't care whether we use the phrasing "Often considered as imposing".
Further, I must not that I take offence that direct quoting of guidelines is being called "strawmanning". I implore you to stop WP:Casting aspersions. CFCF (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in the first sentence per puffery. In fact, that entire sentence is crudely written and should be broken up into two sentences. Any commentary about the aesthetic attributes of the building should be in the body of the article, that is, if you can find room for it amongst the clutter of the ridiculously oversized images in the body. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose including this in the first sentence of the article. However, I think EEng's evidence is compelling enough that we could say something like "Described by numerous publications as 'imposing'..." further down in the article—or even further down in the lead. There is little question that several sources have actually said that. The issue is whether we should include this adjective in the first sentence of the lead, without running the risk of making it sound like puffery.
Also, as mentioned above by Isaidnoway, it is probably more advisable to split the first sentence in two, anyway. Epicgenius (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Memorial_Hall_(Harvard_University)&oldid=1240468966"