Talk:Harvard Kennedy School

Rehnquist

Did William Rehnquist attend the school? His wikipedia page says he attained a master's degree in government, so I guess he went to the JFK School of Government. --Harro5 07:04, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Why is Bill O'Reilly included in the list of notable alumni. I would agree he is notable but he is nowhere near as notable as all the other heads of state lited along with him

Bill O'Reilly and Katherine Harris should be listed under the notorious category. But that would be contrary to the NPOV principle.

--User: JerDW

Why is the Ph.D. program listed as tops in International Relations. The rankings referred to the government department proper, while the masters rankings refered to the KSG?

I have not read the article, but I suspect you are right. Generally, Harvard's Dept. of Government is the top-rated Ph.D. program. This program lives in GSAS, not KSG. Rlove 05:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the mention of the Foreign Policy poll, as I believe the citation is misleading. The previous text referred to a "PhD program in Foreign Policy", but KSG has no such program (it's PhD programs are in "Public Policy"). Moreover, the Foreign Policy poll was for PhD programs in International Relations. As noted above, the PhD program in International Relations is administered by the Department of Government, in so far as it allows doctoral students to choose International Relations as their focus field of study. The Foreign Policy poll also ranks master's degree programs in international relations (Harvard ranks fourth I believe), but it is unclear whether this refers to programs offered by KSG or the Department of Government. Indeed, whether the editors or respondents had a specific program in mind is an open question. --User: Beige-DC

I have deleted the ranking comparison to Maxwell as these rankings change often and can be misleading.

Joshua Frydenberg

Upon reading the article on Frydenberg, it's fairly clear that the reference to him in this article keeps getting deleted because he is not an alumnus until he actually earns his degree (which according to his page, he is still in the process of doing). In other words, wait until he graduates to add him back in, please. ScreaminEagle 22:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Clare O'Neil

See above (Frydenberg) for same explanation. She can be added again once she actually receives her degree. ScreaminEagle 02:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Orientation Sessions for Incoming US Congressmen

The school has run orientation seminars for incoming "freshman" U.S. congressmen since at leas the mid 1970s. There was an interruption in 1994 with the Gingrich led "Republican Revolution" and "Contract with America". I recall learning at the time the reason having been that the Republicans who went through the seminars at the school found them to be liberally biased. I wasn't able to find enough reliable sources to add this yet, but some of the data is here [1] and here [2]. What is missing from those is 1) why the Republicans denied the school the opportunity to run the seminars and 2) when and why they moved back. GRBerry 02:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The Kennedy School has hired some quite notable republicans. In terms of orientation most of the seminars are fairly straight-forward -- how to read a report from the Congressional budget office. What skills are needed for staffers. What are the problems with Federal workforce. What are the processes in Congress. How Congress differs from various state houses. It is almost an employee orientation for the most powerful people in the world. It is not partisan. The republicans ran their own one year, and then joined the KSG program the next year. Ljean

KSG Degree Programs

Yes, KENNEDY SCHOOL DOES HAVE A HIGHLY RANKED DOCTORATE IN PUBLIC POLICY in addition to, count them, three other doctoral programs. "The Ph.D. in Public Policy is administered jointly by the Kennedy School (KSG) and the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (GSAS)." which means you are addmitted to KSG by KSG faculty, take KSG & GSAS classes, and must have GSAS faculty on the doctoral committee. http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ksgdoctoral/

KSG also offers a Master in Public Administration/International Development (M.P.A./ID). Another program worthy of inclusion.

The degrees that one can receive from KSG are facts, and it should be possible to add these obvious, basic, verifiable facts. Ljean

Split article: list of prominent alumni

The list of alumni is very long, probably too long to be part of this same article. It would be better to create a new separate article to list all the prominent alumni, move all the listed people from this article, and create an interwiki link between the two. There may also be the possibility of keeping a few very select names on the main article, however, to do that we would need some clear criteria. Any ideas? (talk) user:Al83tito 10:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It is clear from the existing list that it is a

This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources.

to include a combination of notable alumni who never completed their degree, who did an Executive degree, who did postdoctoral work or some other combination of alumni status. Notability criteria also varies. If the individual has an page that has not been contested on Wikipedia that would seem to qualify? Which then leaves the only important element being what do we define as an alumni? Does someone who attended but never completed a degree count? Would Harvard claim Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg as alumni? Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk)

Also, recommend the editor who removed someone b/c his degree was a JD, take the time to read the page at Fernando_Martín_García -- it says individual received both a JD from Harvard and a MPP from the Kennedy School. Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

We do need a clear criteria, possibly a split article.

Reverted edits by User:JesseRafe

Why:

Choice of what is "notable" was arbitrary. For example, editor kept:

• Marilinda Garcia (MPA '10) - member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives

Yet deleted:

• Fernando Martín García (JD '75) - Puerto Rican politician and former Senator

For example editor kept:

• Timothy S. Sullivan - U.S. Coast Guard Rear Admiral

(no graduation date sourced)

Yet deleted:

• Rowayne A. "Wayne" Schatz Jr. (MPP '85) - U.S. Air Force Major General

... need more information why certain items need to be removed. Are they not notable, not alumni, or some other reason? Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk) 07:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Mason program

I feel that the Mason program could use some additional information, as it is an important component of the Mid Career MPA program at HKS. I made it a new paragraph and added a brief description that can be fleshed out more.ZR312 (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Alumni

If someone did not graduate from the JFK School of Government, they are not an alumnus. It's pretty simple, Benutzernamen. There's no basis for changing that to include random people who did not graduate from the school in the section for alumni. Furthermore, as in ALL lists of notable people on Wikipedia, they established criteria is that they are a blue link or have a citation for their notability. Otherwise they don't belong here, they're prima facie non-notable. If they have a JD from Harvard, then add them to the Harvard Law School notable alumni list, they are irrelevant here. Really can't imagine the problem you have this. JesseRafe (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

JesseRafel, please re-read my question to you - your criteria for edits is capricious. You did not remove someone who had absolutely no degree year listed, yet you removed others. Why?

Furthermore you seem to think it is okay to have someone do the ExecEd program but not the Post-Doctoral program, why?

Lastly, you removed someone because you said "the JD means they clearly didn't go to the school" when in fact the page for that person said they did both a JD and an MPP, potentially as part of a joint program. So again, your edits are capricious.

At this point we are now running-up against Wikipedia's "rule of 3" which means you need to stop reverting and we need to discuss a solution together. If you want to label, "needs more references" for this part -- that makes sense. Or if you want to discuss a proposal for what should vs. should not be included in alumni, ExecEd? Post-Docs? Joint degree programs like the JD/MPP example? that's another path. However please do not keep on reverting edits, as that is against Wikipedia's Rule of 3. Please discuss. Thank you, going to bed for now. Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal Towards A Compromise

1. Mark the alumni section as needing references. Allow contributors time to provide references, at the end of which, remove those alumni who lack references.

2. Notability criteria: If they have a Wikipedia page that is not being contested as notable. Easy.

3. Keep as alumni: MPP, MPA, ExecEd, Post-Doctoral work, and Joint Degrees as long as one of the joint degrees were one of the other mentioned degrees.

4. Remove: Lacking a Wikipedia page. If they really are notable, one should be started. Also remove those who didn't complete a degree. Or had a degree but had it later revoked.

5. If list is too long, consider a separate page. {{Dynamic List}} Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Or: Keep it as it is, and if you have anyone who needs to be added, add them WITH the appropriate citation. Your strong feelings about this matter make me strongly suspect a COI on your behalf for one of the names I've correctly removed. Further, post-docs and ExecEds are NOT alumni, and JD does not stand for Joint Degree, but Juris Doctorate means they went to the law school. Everything else you've said is irrelevant and three weeks? No. If they don't belong on the list, they don't belong on the list. If they do belong on the list, prove it. With a reference or a bluelink. JesseRafe (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

JesseRafe, I am trying to compromise with you in good faith. They could have done a Joint Degree as an MPP/JD. Remember Wikipedia is "Assume Good Faith" and your efforts do not seem to be working to a compromise. You just broke the Rule of 3. Reverting your edit as that is vandalism as you have not discussed the criteria. Again, see my question why are you keeping some folks who do not have their degree type or year even listed? Someone might say you have a grudge against someone here. I won't. Instead, let's work on the consensus here. What about the above differs from your logic? Do you include or not include ExecEd or Post-Docs or Joint Degrees? Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

JesseRafe, please work towards Dispute resolution -- I have asked for your criteria for deletes as you are being inconsistent. You have not responded. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I have not been inconsistent in the slightest, people who did not graduate from this school or are not notable do not belong on a list of "notable alumni", that's the end of the story. This isn't about you or your personal reasons for including one of these people whom you've added to this list (And done NOTHING ELSE on Wikipedia, but about the standards of the encyclopedia, not your random additions. JesseRafe (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation has been filed. You did not remove Ed Balls, no degree noted. You did not remove John R. Allen, Jr. , Exec degree. You did not remove Andrey Bezrukov , degree stripped. You are inconsistent. Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Further, not all universities do the definition you have of must have graduated to be an alumni. Other schools count as alumni students. Wikipedia's own definition of Alumni has this. Again, you need to explain your criteria and we need to reach consensus. Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

All for removing individuals who do not have notable blue link articles

JesseRafe, I'm not going to type too much other than to say if you saw my efforts towards a Compromise in this text page I have always been for removing non-notable, non-blue link individuals. I was pointing out your original edits removed some non-linked but didn't remove others that were non-linked. I asked why? Could you explain your criteria and that you were being inconsistent?

You didn't explain. So then I tried to work out here your criteria. I asked if Exec Ed would be included or not, you kept on saying alumni would have to have graduated. I tried to share the definition of alumni to point out they didn't have to have graduated to be considered one. You didn't seem to want to engage in that discussion. Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

After the mediation request I requested failed, you again made edits that were inconsistent. You removed some Exec Ed graduates but not all. All I have been asking for throughout this is what is your criteria and can you be consistent? Look at the Proposal Towards a Compromise lines 2 and 4, I've always been for:

• Notability criteria: If they have a Wikipedia page that is not being contested as notable.
• Remove: Lacking a Wikipedia page. If they really are notable, one should be started.

Thank you. Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your 3rd Opinion

Thank you Stfg for your prompt and well researched 3rd Opinion. Apologies on my end for any grammar or typo mistakes I may have made with alumni vs. alumnus or linking to Wiktionary, very helpful to learn the right format.

Agree that while graduates are included, non-graduates are not excluded: any former pupil can legitimately be regarded as an alumnus.

So we circle back to my original attempts to build a compromise criteria for what is kept and what is removed from this article based on the criteria, one might suggest the only real key is:

1. Notability criteria: If they have a Wikipedia page that is not being contested as notable.
2. Keep as alumni: those who did MPP, MPA, ExecEd, Post-Doctoral work, and Joint Degrees at the Kennedy School as long as one of the joint degrees were one of the other mentioned degrees.
3. Remove: Lacking a Wikipedia page. If they really are notable, one should be started.

Open to feedback from anyone? Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

How many times do you have to be told Post Docs are not and never have been considered students? They're paid research positions. Also Joint Degrees are irrelevant, if they have an MPA then they have an MPA, whether it comes with an MA, PhD, or JD is irrelevant. Any degree from HKS puts them on the list, Arts and Science or Law degrees are moot. Lastly you don't get to make up your own notability criteria, if they are notable a citation is often enough to override their lack of a blue link. JesseRafe (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

JesseRafe, this is again where you seem to feel like it is okay to talk down to me. We just asked for a third opinion which, while not binding, raised the same case I did which is alumni do not necessarily have to have graduated. So my question remains, do ExecEd count? Stanford University thinks Post-Docs count as students too. I was asking about Joint Degrees because some note MPA/MBA you cannot get an MBA at the Kennedy School. I wanted to clarify if you think listing the /MBA at the end of the MPA/MBA is okay so we aren't edit warring. I am try to work to a clear criteria. Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Update: Recommend that per Executive Education it is apparent that Harvard considers their executive education attendees to be alumni. Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

And of course I know about the notability. Again, your original edits did not remove some that did not have blue links which is why I said that. You don't have to talk down to me. Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

You're either making things up or being willfully ignorant. ExecEds were never an issue, don't make things, that's why I didn't remove them. I don't know what kind of degree it is, but I assumed it was what they called their part-time program, like an "executive MBA".

Obviously you didn't read what I said about nobility (I get the impression you don't read a lot) I never said blue links were the sine qua non of notability, I said they're sufficient, but in many cases a citation is enough to establish notability. Hmm, maybe that's why I didn't remove people who were cited.

As for post docs, Stanford does not consider them students, but allows them to maintain a student status for loan deferment purposes, and even if they did consider them a student, how would this be relevant to Harvard, an institution, like the other 99% incidentally, that doesn't consider them students? It's a paid position. Everywhere. When you get paid for the work you do rather than pay the school or take classes, that's called a job. JesseRafe (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello JesseRafe. Thank you for acknowledging that Exec Eds are okay. The next question as we work on a criteria for what is included are individuals who start but do not finish a degree, are they alumni? Do you consider them to be alumni or do we need to seek more opinions?

Also, a slightly related category is do you consider individuals who receive their degree at the Kennedy School of Government but later have it revoked to be alumni? Thank you. Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Also question for clarity, should we list joint degrees received outside of the Kennedy School of Government, such as MBA or JD, or just the degree sought while at the Kennedy School of Government? Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

From what I recall only one person who had their degree taken away was not notable, so that point seems moot unless you want to start adding non-notables again. Everything else I don't care. JesseRafe (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

JesseRafe, please refrain from personal attacks as we try to work to clarity as to what should be included. Andrew Card is notable and was listed as not completing his degree, alumni or not alumni? Bruce Kovner, after some research online, also did not complete his degree at the Kennedy School = alumni or not alumni? Thank you. Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Not alumni by Harvard's own definition. Alumni must have completed degrees. And postdoc tracks are not degree-seeking and therefore don't meet their "alumni" criteria. I think this is a closed case. Wish I saw this before spending so much time on the RfC.  czar ⨹ 14:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

With all respect Czar, it is not a closed case, else there would not exist List of Harvard University non-graduate alumni. Even Alumni in Wikipedia mentioned they do not always include those who just graduated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University#Notable_alumni includes Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerburg as notable alumni of Harvard University so there seem to be some alternative views as to what constitutes an alumni. I am not a native English speaker so I am open to other references if there are some? Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

http://www.nationalpostdoc.org/policy-22/what-is-a-postdoc lists the Postdocs Community as Graduate Students.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postdoctoral_research#United_States references students twice.

http://www.webguru.neu.edu/professionalism/research-team/postdoctoral-students references them as students

http://postdocs.stanford.edu/handbook/status.html references them as students.

These links are the top 4 hits on Google if you type in "are postdocs students". Recognizing they blur the lines between faculty and students, the bigger question with the dispute is should they be listed as alumni if we're including as a alumni individuals who attended the School but did not graduate? I would submit they are researching under the mentoring of a senior Faculty Advisor. Thank you. Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Post docs are not students that is the end of the discussion on that. Czar is 100% correct and it is a closed case. Also, please stop staying random "please refrain from personal attacks", you've been accusing me of all sorts of shit in your edit summaries from the beginning, accusing me of being capricious, etc. or not willing to discuss things when I have responded on Talk pages multiple times (and you've since deleted them) and your words for me are just as well applying to you. It's boring and under-handed.

There are multiple reasons why a Postdoc would be listed as student, but they do not take classes and they do not pay tuition, they are PAID researchers. End of story, how many times must this be explained? You ignore facts that don't fit your pre-formed narrative. I already said that Stanford's reasoning EXPLICITLY states that they treat postdocs as students merely so they can defer capitalization of the interest on their student loans. If you don't understand that process, that ask it to be explained. But that does not make them actually students, nor is it something that'd be listed as "Education" on someone's CV, it'd be experience. Because it's a JOB. JesseRafe (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Simply arguing it is so JesseRafe doesn't make it so, do you have references that can help? That is why I provided those 4 above. Most would look at your tone and see that you are making this personal instead of discussing facts. I am open to it going either way, and just trying to work towards consensus. Thank you. Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, as I said twice already the sources you yourself provided explicitly state that they are considered students solely for financial reasons, it is an incentive Stanford offers to do their postdocs a financial favor. That's in YOUR source, I don't have to prove your point for you, do your own research. The onus is on you to prove the nonsense claim, the status quo is they are not students, you're the only person who knows what a postdoc is (or maybe you don't) who thinks that they are students, so it's your responsibility to prove it. JesseRafe (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

JesseRafe, this source: http://www.nationalpostdoc.org/policy-22/what-is-a-postdoc lists the Postdocs Community as Graduate Students. It makes no mention re: reimbursement purposes. This is the top Google link for searching for are postdocs students. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postdoctoral_research#United_States references students twice. This link http://www.webguru.neu.edu/professionalism/research-team/postdoctoral-students refers to them as references them as students. These three do not discuss financial reasons. The third link explicitly says: the majority of postdoctoral students spend most of their time working on one or more research projects with a strong interest in bringing their projects to full fruition - presenting and publishing as much of their work as possible in the highest quality technical journals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you've been reading, but it is clearly not those links you've provided twice and twice have been told they are moot. The first, clearly draws a distinction between the two, hence the two headings on the sidebar, "graduate students" and "postdocs" and the postdoc tab is full of information about retirement, maternity leave and salary - these are the trappings of a JOB. The second, the wiki article NOWHERE states that they are students. There is a mention of "doctoral students as well as postdocs" which unambiguously demonstrates they are separate categories, and there is a separate tangent about PhD students in general (PhD students by definition do not have a PhD (or at least not yet the one they are working on) that leads to the article's larger point about being a PhD grad (and then maybe a student). There is ZERO mention of "Postdocs are graduate students". They are graduates, that's why it's "post". The third link, with a name like "web guru" would get immediately slapped with a tag, because it in no way resembles a bona fide resource. They couldn't even spell a simple plural or create a verb phrase correctly, e.g. "Ph.D.'s" and "perceived of as a prerequisite", plus, it in general looks like a homemade website. A distinct geocities vibe. Worthless source as far as I can tell. If you have to reach this far to prove a tenuous point (why, might I ask? You know you're wrong, what are you trying to prove?), it's clearly not going to pass muster. JesseRafe (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Definition of Alumni

Wikipedia's own definition of Alumni is worth reading as we work on a compromise. It notes that commonly, not always, does an alumni mean the individual graduated. Alumnus in the English definition of Wikitionary notes that it can be a 1. a student or 2. a graduate. Graduation doesn't have to have occurred. Also it can be male or female, or male only. I assume in this case we mean both male and female. Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

http://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/alumnus#English — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• JesseRafe, Benutzernamen188 66 8 4, I don't see a good reason why I shouldn't block the both of you for edit warring: you two are, as suggested by the history of the article, embarrassing yourselves. I'm going to apply full protection to the article for a week (no doubt it's the wrong version, but that's how it is) and then you two can figure out a way to agree. Consider Wikipedia:Third opinion or the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Drmies (talk) 06:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

So you willfully acknowledge this current version you protected is wrong? That's what's wrong with Wikipedia over the years, admins don't care about substantive issues, only protocols. Note that Benutz... has made NO OTHER EDITS ever in their history and only made an account to include non-notables who don't belong, and I have plead to other admins on the boards and none have cared that this user is a sockpuppet or an obvious COI case, and is undermining the integrity of Wikipedia with their flaunting. JesseRafe (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Further "agreement" is a sham when the other party isn't an actual editor, just created an account to futz about with this article, nothing else. Can a scientist and an imbecile "agree" about global warming when one has facts and the other is just spouting nonsense? Not a valid criterion in every dispute. JesseRafe (talk) 06:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Jesse, if you can't understand that there's two sides to every coin you'll never be trusted with real currency. It's always the wrong version for somebody--in this case, it's you. See Wikipedia:WRONGVERSION. If you have suspicions about this editor, go to ANI or SPI or some other board and have the matter investigated. If you have, well, maybe there is not enough evidence to block this editor as disruptive or whatever. Also, I don't see any non-notables on the list right now (they all seem to be blue links), so it is not immediately clear to me that your opponent is a vandal, for instance. Drmies (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

JesseRafe, remember Wikipedia is about assume good intent. You seem to now be labeling me as not having a NPOV or being a sockpuppet solely because I disagree with you, when I have tried the Wikipedia approach to build consensus and for mediation. If you could spell out your criteria for why you're moving certain things and not others we could work towards consensus as opposed to you throwing mud my way.

For example: You did not remove Ed Balls, no degree noted. You did not remove John R. Allen, Jr. , Exec degree. You did not remove Andrey Bezrukov, degree stripped. You are inconsistent in what you claim is an Alumni. Wikipedia's own definition of alumni says it does not necessarily have to be someone who graduated.

Case in point: Harvard_University#Notable_alumni lists Bill Gates as a notable alumni, yet Bill Gates did not complete his degree. Do you have a reply for this? Are you going to start revising that article next?

... then when I work to try and do the article consistent your logic, if you're not happy with it instead of edits of your own your solution is to revert the work?

My question remains: what is a consistent definition of alumni. Harvard_University#Notable_alumni lists Mark Zuckerberg as a notable alumni, also did not complete his degree. I have tried to engage you in discussing this, you don't seem to be open to discussion. Wish we could work towards consensus together. Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk) 06:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Who cares about Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg? Did they go to Kennedy? If so, add them, if not, who cares? All I did was remove non-notables and this editor has done nothing but undo my solid edits and copy-and-paste in a manner that is borderline unreadable to make their claims. There is not two sides to "every" coin. That is my point, this is not a real editor. Have you looked at their history? Please, have you? Why do admins no longer care about these things? I have been open to discussion from the beginning! I have constantly asked him/her to refer to WP's standards and tones which they ignore. Have you not read where I have said this sockpuppet account constantly obfuscates the issue at hand and makes it look like I am not engaging when he/she opens multiple Talk topics and ignores previous responses? I never once in my life claimed to be perfect, and likewise I never claimed to have removed all the bad items here, just the ones I happened to see. Benutz's claim that since I didn't remove Balls for whatever reason is supposed to invalidate the (appropriate) rationale I employed in removing all the others? The solution, if Benutz objected to not removing Balls was not to undo my removal of all the others who didn't belong, but to remove Balls. Simple. Likewise they made the spurious claim that I should have done the same thing with their silly "??" instead of reverting, when that's literally EXACTLY what I did. I already removed the eyesore ??s and they reverted me (why?), so I directly removed them again, because the other admins were ignoring this issue and no one else seemed to care. The two arguments are not comparable. Like I said, I acknowledge violating 3RR but only because this situation wasn't getting its attention from the admins when they were notified. JesseRafe (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on John F. Kennedy School of Government and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

I am treating Drmies's posts in this section as procedural, and thus accepting that this section meets the two-participant requirement for WP:3O. The OED entry for alumnus (see below) defines it as "A former pupil or student (typically male) of a particular school, university, etc.; a graduate of a particular seat of learning." So, while graduates are included, non-graduates are not excluded: any former pupil can legitimately be regarded as an alumnus. It is clear to me that the inclusion of non-graduates in this or any other article is correct. The significant point to consider in all cases is their notability, not whether they graduated. The expression "who graduated" in the section header is unhelpful. Please also note the following: Alumni is a plural form. It is not English to write "an alumni". Write an alumnus. or if one is known to be female, an alumna. When linking to Wiktionary, it's best to use the syntax [[:wikt:alumnus]], which gives wikt:alumnus, or the syntax [[:wikt:alumnus|]] (note the extra pipe symbol), which gives alumnus. Using the external link syntax doesn't give the benefit of letting the system sort out whether you're on a workstation or a mobile device. One editor here has made no substantive case, but simply thrown out ad hominems. In particular, accusing another editor of being a sockpuppet without raising an SPI and providing the necessary evidence is a personal attack. I haven't looked at every single diff in your edit war. If there are any matters I haven't covered that you want me to, please say so here and I'll do my best. Kind regards to both, Stfg (talk) 09:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The OED entry for alumnus is here^{[subscription required]}. (Including it in the 3O text broke the template for some reason.) --Stfg (talk) 09:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

You're ridiculously basic... ad hominems? No substantive case??? It was my name being dragged around in the mud in the edit summaries with BS claims about my lack of rationale. And it was me doing actual Wikipedia work. All you have to do is click on their edit history and see that this account was created solely for the purpose of adding non-notables to this article. I never cared about what definition of alumni was used, I always was removing unambiguous non-alumni, e.g. JD students and post docs, don't confuse the issue, those labels are for people who did not go to this school, I never said anything about whether one graduates. Read better. It's simple, and the article is fine the way it is now, although, a few notable alumni were unrighteously removed (I don't care), I'm satisfied that none of the non-notables and non-alumni are still in it. I've been clamoring this user has a COI (since removed) or is a sockpuppet to hide their COI since the beginning but do the admins care? Don't say I didn't provide the evidence of it, it's plain as day.

When I began by righteously removing the non-notables and non-alumni, Benutz objected that I removed his/her non-cited, non-blue link additions. That's the whole issue, and then Benutz wanted them left on the page for THREE WEEKS, my position was, "No, this is OR, they get deleted", that's when Benutz started besmirching me and accusing me of all sorts of capriciousness in edit summaries. I've been consistent and civil the whole time, while more than happy to discuss on the Talk Page, yet note how Benutz would obfuscate the Talk Page with multiple headings and ignore my responses, but then duplicitously accuse me of not discussing.

My latest compromise was that for the notable people (blue links) who had no graduation year, I put a CN tag on them. But since these were not the non-notables that Benutz cared about being added to this article, s/he abruptly removed them entirely. Hmmm, one of us is bad at compromising, huh? And according to Stfg it's me, because I didn't allow Benutzernamen188 66 8 4's uncited OR to remain on the page for three weeks just because they stomped their feet. And I have no substantive case, right? What a joke.JesseRafe (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• JesseRafe, your tone here is unacceptable. You've yelled at everyone involved, including me and Stfg. I will tell you once again, the version I protected has no red- or unlinked entries so you can drop that part of your complaint right now; and what happened in the past is not material for the current version, whether that is Benutzer's or yours. You need to seriously tone down the rhetoric or I will block you for continued personal attacks--and if you don't know what I mean with "rhetoric" here (Stfg has also pointed at the sock accusations--and "person X is not a real editor" is also a personal attack) you needn't come back. And it would be nice if both of you could be more succinct.

  From what I can gather the main thrust in terms of content is whether post-docs count as alumni. Our article cites Merriam-Webster to suggest "yes"; the OED and Macmillan may suggest no. This is a matter for a focused discussion on the merits of the case, and the way to go about it is to propose an WP:RFC in a slightly wider forum, like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education or some place like that. Simple. Get more editors involved, propose two option, get a consensus on one of them. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

My tone here is one of frustration, I have asked several times that one just look at Benutz's history and see that this whole thing started with them adding non-notables and a few days later me coming across them. Benutz is outright lying or incredibly forgetful as they now claim that they've always been against the inclusion of non-blue linked people when the addition of non-blue-linked people without any cites was literally the only thing they did upon account creation. How should I not be frustrated by this complete lack of anyone's due diligence on this matter? So according to you no one has a Conflict of Interest and no account is a sock puppet? Because how else could one be found one, if they weren't accused of it first? Oh, no, we can't have any accusations, can we? Especially not ones backed up by irrefutable evidence, oh heavens to betsy, let's not do that. The issue, which is painfully obvious, has never been anything other than whether non-notable or non-alumni people belong on the list. The list now (due to my work persistently removing Benutz's additions) reflects that. I don't care about this article, I only care about Wikipedia's accuracy. It's fine now, until the ban lifts in a week and Benutz adds their COI pet crusade of non-notables back in (or does another account). All the other issues (Benutz constantly making spurious claims about me and my intentions, but s/he doesn't get called out about that? I do? For stating facts? Like a single-purpose account being at least a red flag for COI?) are not germane. I said before that I'm not perfect and I never stated that my removals of non-notable and non-alumni were exhaustive, I just removed the ones I happened to notice. That's it. That's not inconsistency, that's just one editor doing what little they can to make WP better and more factually accurate. When those edits get undone (reinstating Original Research after warnings is tantamount vandalism, is it not? Please, for once, answer a question) time and time again and the other admins simply don't care, what else should I have done? JesseRafe (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

"Benutz is outright lying" is not frustration, it's a personal attack, the umpteenth. I'll place a formal warning on your talk page, something I rarely do with established editors. I'll not block you myself, though you deserve to be blocked for all of this, since your likely response will be rather predictable. But you've been offered a way forward and you chose to repeat the same old claims again and again; as far as I'm concerned, any validity those claims may have had is overwhelmed by your counterproductive tactics.

I'll answer your last question--sure. It's just that you haven't proven that this is the case. Your lengthy, unparagraphed, disorganized, and barely coherent rants may have evidence hidden in them, but I can't find it. The only thing I see is stuff like "Benutz constantly making spurious claims about me and my intentions", when all I can see is your claims about them. Good luck to the next admin who tries to help you out. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

In an effort to combine what we have discussed and learned, I have taken the version of the Kennedy School of Government dated 05:05, 4 December 2014‎ by User:I dream of horses which does not represent edits either JesseRafe or I had made. I then kept only those individuals with a Wikipedia entry (blue links) and have received an MPA, MPP, Exec, or PhD from the Kennedy School. This should make JesseRafe happy I hope. I removed those individuals who did not complete one of those four degrees. I researched the dates where I could for those individuals who did not have a degree listed.

Comments and edits welcomed on the draft page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Benutzernamen188_66_8_4#Notable_HKS_alumni I am hoping this will allow us to be ready to cut-and-paste a version we have all reviewed and are comfortable with when Drmies unfreezes the page. Hope this helps work towards agreement that we are all okay with. Thank you. Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Protection

I will be happy to lift protection if involved editors agree to not continue edit warring. Ping me when you reach that agreement. Thanks to all, Drmies (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

JesseRafe, what do you say? Comments and edits welcomed on the draft page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Benutzernamen188_66_8_4#Notable_HKS_alumni which keeps only those individuals with a Wikipedia entry that have received an MPA, MPP, Exec, or PhD from the Kennedy School. Individuals were removed who did not complete one of those four degrees. Dates added where I could for those individuals who did not have a degree listed. Does this work for you? And has the list gotten long enough that it is better as a split-off list referenced by the Kennedy School article instead? Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Have received no additional comments or edits, so cut-and-pasted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Benutzernamen188_66_8_4#Notable_HKS_alumni which keeps only those individuals with a Wikipedia entry that have received an MPA, MPP, Exec, or PhD from the Kennedy School. I do wonder if this is better as a split-off list referenced by the Kennedy School article instead? Benutzernamen188 66 8 4 (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on John F. Kennedy School of Government. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071217091343/http://www.news.harvard.edu:80/gazette/2007/12.13/04-ksgweb.html to http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2007/12.13/04-ksgweb.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080331220629/http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com:80/grad/pad/search to http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/grad/pad/search

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John F. Kennedy School of Government. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100926155627/http://www.hks.harvard.edu/leadership/ to http://www.hks.harvard.edu/leadership

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Overreliance on Harvard sources

As of October 2, 2017, this article contains 47 references. Of these, 36 (76.5%) cite publications by Harvard University, the Kennedy School, or closely related outlets. Specifically:

• 27 cite to harvard.edu
• 3 to the Kennedy School
• 2 to Kennedy School student-edited journals
• 3 to The Harvard Crimson or Harvard Gazette
• 1 to Harvard's Shorenstein Center

That leaves only 11 references to sources ostensibly independent of Harvard University.

While the Harvard primary sources provide useful information, they also tend to hype the Kennedy School. Wikipedia's policy WP:NOTPROMOTION mandates that this encyclopedia is not a vehicle for advertising, showcasing or recruitment. Naturally alumni and current students of the Kennedy School are proud of their institution; but editors ought to resist the temptation for boosterism, which undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. KalHolmann (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the article is overly promotional and the referencing is adequate. Britishfinance (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John F. Kennedy School of Government. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110101052808/http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-public-affairs-schools/rankings/ to http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-public-affairs-schools/rankings
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160402213222/http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-public-affairs-schools/harvard-university-166027 to http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-public-affairs-schools/harvard-university-166027

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Request to change title

Request help in editing name of the Wikipedia page from "John F. Kennedy School of Government" to "Harvard Kennedy School".

Reason: The School calls itself HKS now. Every mention on the website, press releases, and other publication refers to "Harvard Kennedy School". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.234.189.45 (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree, move requested. --bdijkstra (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Stuff moved from Harvard University

The following was added today to the main HU article. It's way too much over there:

In 1936, a $2 million donation from Harvard College alumnus and former Harvard football coach Lucius Littauer, a businessman and former U.S. Congressman, was used to launch Harvard's first graduate school focused exclusively on public policy, economics, international affairs, and politics, called the Harvard Graduate School of Public Administration. In 1966, in honor of John F. Kennedy, the school was renamed the John F. Kennedy School of Government and later Harvard Kennedy School. Since its founding, Harvard Kennedy School has graduated 17 heads of state, launched a number of sizable programs within the school, including the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, the Dubai initiative, the Harvard Institute of Politics, the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, and others, and built an endowment of $1.7 billion as of 2021. Harvard Kennedy School routinely ranks as the world's best, or one of the best, graduate programs for public policy, social and health policy, international affairs, and national security.. EEng 01:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

References