View source for Talk:Memorial Hall (Harvard University)

{{Skip to talk}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1=
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Mid  |MA=yes|MA-importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject National Register of Historic Places|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=Start|B1=n|B2=y|B3=y|B4=y|B5=n |US=y|ACW=y}}
{{WikiProject Higher education}}
}}
{{Talk header<!-- |search=yes -->|disclaimer=yes|bottom=yes}}

== 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. [[Special:Contributions/71.61.0.52|71.61.0.52]] ([[User talk:71.61.0.52|talk]]) 17:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

: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). [[User:EEng|EEng]] ([[User talk:EEng|talk]]) 06:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

::::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. [[User:ClaudiaM|Claudia]] ([[User talk:ClaudiaM|talk]]) 20:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

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

== 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 [http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~memhall/] 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 <small>This is the title of the current Sanders article</small>
* 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) <small> Just kidding!</small>
* ''anything else...??''

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

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.  [[User:MemHallUsher|MemHallUsher]] ([[User talk:MemHallUsher|talk]]) 23:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
: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.{{pb}}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. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 18:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

== Additional sources ==
* {{done}} [http://harvardmagazine.com/1996/05/pump.html H Magazine] Discusses the chronology of Mem Hall horology. [[User:EEng|EEng]] ([[User talk:EEng|talk]]) 06:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
* [http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/03/the-making-of-memorial-hall/ H Gazette "Making of Memorial Hall"] 2012, includes photo showing JH statue in its original location
* [http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k55861&tabgroupid=icb.tabgroup86115 H Archives]
* {{done}} [http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/8468545?op=n&n=1&index=6&imagesize=1200&jp2Res=.25&printThumbnails=no Education, Bricks, and Mortar] 1949
* [http://books.google.com/books?id=nlaE3-XfmJwC&lpg=PP1 Bunting]
* [http://books.google.com/books?id=ZUUf7ssp1u4C Morison, Three Centuries]
* [*[https://books.google.com/books?id=55hKC9Oqx14C] Oxonian, search "Great hall", p. 92
* [https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NHLS/70000685_text] Landmark nomination, full of detail
* H Mag, "The College Pump", re rebuilding tower and "Railroad Gothic"
* H Alumni Bull v 11 1903 p.457 "Two Interesting Matters" (unsigned, but apparently excerpted from Pres Eliot's annual report) p355-7 at 357 "The presentprice of board in Memorial Hall (abouit $4.10 per week) is higher than the highest rate of board in private houses in Cambridge fifty years ago."
* [https://nrs.harvard.edu/URN-3:HUL.INSTREPOS:37363276 Shaffer, Robert B. 1949. Ruskin, Norton, and Memorial Hall. Harvard Library Bulletin III (2), Spring 1949: 213-231.]

== Potential image sources (subject to copyright check) ==

* [http://www.american-architecture.info/USA/USA-NewEngland/NE-022.htm] Fantastic images -- most are likely out of copyright. (Note they cribbed their text from WP!)
* [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Memorial_Hall,_Harvard_University] Commons category, Harvard bldgs
* [http://www.google.com/search?q=memorial+hall+harvard+interior interior], [http://www.google.com/search?q=memorial+hall+harvard unqualified] -- abundant potential image sources via Google
* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Harvard_Square_aerial_1921.jpg Aerial view of Cambridge showing clearly the Delta and poor Jhn Harvard alone on his windswept wedge of grass

The articles already too image-heavy (for the current amount of text) but here's one for the future:
[[File:Memorial_Hall,_Harvard_University,_Class_Day_exercises,_seniors_entering_Sander%27s_Theatre.jpg|thumb|center|Class day abour 1900 (see img descr pg)]]

*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARe_NzhAal8] Film footage of tower on fire, 1956
*[https://www.digitalcommonwealth.org/search/commonwealth:wd377852m] Fire
*[https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/labs/simon/fire-at-harvard-1956.aspx] More fire pics

==Jarvis Field sources==
*http://www.historicmapworks.com/Map/US/10282/Plate+B/Cambridge+1873/Massachusetts/ (map)
*http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/File:Harvard_University_map_(older,_date_unknown).jpg (another map, likely a WP/Commons mirror)
*[[:File:JarvisField HarvardUniversity.jpg]]

== 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. [[User:CFCF|<span style="color:#014225;font-family: sans-serif;">Carl Fredrik</span>]]<span style="font-size: .90em;">[[User talk:CFCF|<sup> talk</sup>]]</span> 12:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
: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".  [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 06:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
:Most university halls are large, even imposing, particularly those at large universities, particularly those that merit their own Wikipedia articles. [[:File:Sanders theater 2009y.JPG|The infobox image]] pretty much screams "imposing", and {{para|alt}} could be added for benefit of the vision-impaired. I don't see much value in or need for any adjective there. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#999;">&#9742;</span>]] 17:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
:For what it's worth, it's clear to me that the word in question is [[WP:PEACOCK]]. Maybe an RfC is in order? [[User:Seasider53|Seasider53]] ([[User talk:Seasider53|talk]]) 17:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
[[File:Massachusetts_Hall,_Harvard_University.JPG|thumb|left|Mass Hall. ''Imposing'' does not come to mind.]]
[[File:Harvard_Cruft_Hall.png|thumb|right|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). [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 19:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
::[[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 19:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
:::{{tq|Is it your suggestion, Mandruss...}} No. It is my suggestion that {{para|alt}} could be added to describe the image in objective terms, as all {{para|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.<br />{{tq|Fabulous.}} I really don't see your point. Editors with different viewpoints or opinions is a problem, somehow?<br />{{tq|I'm afraid I must differ.}} [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imposing 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? &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#999;">&#9742;</span>]] 19:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
::::*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?
::::[[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 17:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
:::::*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 {{para|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).
:::::*{{tq|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. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#999;">&#9742;</span>]] 22:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
::::These example are all subjective, which is why we should avoid presenting such adjectives in Wikipedia's voice. [[User:CFCF|<span style="color:#014225;font-family: sans-serif;">Carl Fredrik</span>]]<span style="font-size: .90em;">[[User talk:CFCF|<sup> talk</sup>]]</span> 21:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
:::::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''. [[User:Hertz1888|Hertz1888]] ([[User talk:Hertz1888|talk]]) 22:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
::::::::For the record, {{U|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. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 17:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
::::::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? [[User:CFCF|<span style="color:#014225;font-family: sans-serif;">Carl Fredrik</span>]]<span style="font-size: .90em;">[[User talk:CFCF|<sup> talk</sup>]]</span> 22:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
:::::::Because it's part of the routine vocabulary of architectural criticism. [https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/arts/design/13build.html][http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20140828-why-brutal-is-beautiful][http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2015/08/13/brutalist_architecture_a_case_for_hulking_concrete_buildings_from_roman.html][https://www.architecturaldigest.com/gallery/most-anticipated-buildings-of-2018][https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathonkeats/2017/08/07/architectural-pavilions/#a7e6afcbbe2a]. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 17:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

::::::::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? [[User:CFCF|<span style="color:#014225;font-family: sans-serif;">Carl Fredrik</span>]]<span style="font-size: .90em;">[[User talk:CFCF|<sup> talk</sup>]]</span> 12:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
:::::::::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. [[User:Hertz1888|Hertz1888]] ([[User talk:Hertz1888|talk]]) 16:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

*'''Memorial Hall''', immediately north of [[Harvard Yard]] in [[Cambridge, Massachusetts]], is a [[High Victorian Gothic]] building honoring the sacrifices made by [[Harvard University|Harvard]] men in defense of the Union during the [[American Civil War]]{{mdashb}}"a symbol of Boston's commitment to the Unionist cause and the abolitionist movement in America."<br />|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. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#999;">&#9742;</span>]] 23:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
:Love the ALT. I've added it, somewhat modified. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 17:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

===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. [[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 12:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
: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. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 23:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::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.  [[User:Jjazz76|Jjazz76]] ([[User talk:Jjazz76|talk]]) 23:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:::You got a cite for that? [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 01:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
::::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.  [[User:Jjazz76|Jjazz76]] ([[User talk:Jjazz76|talk]]) 07:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::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:
:::::*[https://books.google.com/books?id=PMMEEJ6MAn0C&q=imposing+harvard+%22memorial+hall%22] ''Frommer's Boston 2003'': "This imposing Victorian structure"
:::::*[https://books.google.com/books?id=Q50OwvCsg3oC&q=imposing+harvard+%22memorial+hall%22] ''Architectural Record'' (1957): "a picturesque, imposing mass"
:::::*[https://books.google.com/books?id=ttSMU4YpwCYC&pg=PA106] ''Blackout'' (2005):  "Harvard's Memorial Hall looming ahead and the other imposing structures surrounding it"
:::::*[https://books.google.com/books?id=eEUsAQAAMAAJ&q=imposing+harvard+%22memorial+hall%22] ''Travel and Leisure'' (1994): "the imposing neo-Gothic presence of Memorial Hall"
:::::*[https://books.google.com/books?id=oiox0sTTUrIC&pg=PA68] ''Streets and Alleys'' (1995): "Memorial Hall, an imposing fortress of a building"
:::::*[https://books.google.com/books?id=Vo-HLT-eJrwC&q=imposing+harvard+%22memorial+hall%22] Maddox, ''American History'' (1998):  "an imposing brick edifice"
:::::*[https://online-ucpress-edu.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/jsah] 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"
:::::*[https://books.google.com/books?id=vPMmAQAAIAAJ&q=imposing+harvard+%22memorial+hall%22] ''Newsweek'' (1981): "The imposing red-brick, Victorian-style Memorial Hall"
:::::*[https://books.google.com/books?newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&id=t8FPAAAAMAAJ&dq=imposing+harvard+%22memorial+hall%22] ''The Architecture of America: A Social and Cultural History'': "imposing mass of red brick with colorful designs in the shingled roofs"
:::::*[https://books.google.com/books?newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&id=J6UIAQAAIAAJ&dq=imposing+%22memorial+hall%22] ''Sun at Noon'' (1955): "the old and imposing Memorial Hall"
:::::[[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 08:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::great. add those instead. I think that helps support your claim. better than 100 year old sources. I'm convinced. [[User:Jjazz76|Jjazz76]] ([[User talk:Jjazz76|talk]]) 18:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::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. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 23:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::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. [[User:Jjazz76|Jjazz76]] ([[User talk:Jjazz76|talk]]) 03:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1225688904#Financially_Independent??] and this one [https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1225679316#Removing_unsourced_information]. 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. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 03:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::@[[User:EEng|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. [[User:Jjazz76|Jjazz76]] ([[User talk:Jjazz76|talk]]) 13:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::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.  [[User:Jjazz76|Jjazz76]] ([[User talk:Jjazz76|talk]]) 13:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
{{od|::::::::::}}
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 ''un''reasonable, 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)
:{{tq|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.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EEng&diff=prev&oldid=1225645094]

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) "[https://web.archive.org/web/20140829204242/http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/ 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 {{tq|observers from across the career spectrum and the nation}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=1192887211]. So quite frankly, your evaluation of my writing is of little interest. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 00:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

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

===Technical terminology===

I'm continuing this discussion from [[User talk:HandThatFeeds]] to avoid bothering that editor. {{u|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? -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 08:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

== 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" [https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=prev&oldid=1221260222]. 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=prev&oldid=1220478181][https://en.wikipedia.org/?iff=prev&oldid=1221299500] have been ignored. I'm asking here once more for an explanation of how each substantive change improves the article. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 05:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

== Rfc on use of "imposing" ==
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 13:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1726664472}}

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?  [[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 12:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

*'''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. [[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 12:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
:''Clarification'': The argument is that we should not use value judgements in Wikipedia's [[WP:VOICE]], including terms of architectural criticism (as here for size or aesthetics) in '''any''' article, regardless of the strength or number of the sources. Doing so is text-book [[WP:PUFFERY]]. I implore editors to review that guideline before proposing that including the term in Wikipedia's voice prominently is apt. [[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 11:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
::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. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 16:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
:::No answer. Huh. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 03:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
::::It wasn't relevant to my points - and remains irrelevant. I can't stand for what interactions you may have had with other editors. [[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 10:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC) 
:::::If OVERCITE isn't relevant, why did you bring it up? [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 13:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::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]]. [[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 14:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
:I think we're in a position where the RfC tag can be removed. Thoughts? [[User:Seasider53|Seasider53]] ([[User talk:Seasider53|talk]]) 15:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
	
{{multiple image
 | direction         = horizontal
 | align = right
 | total_width       = 250
 | caption_align     = center
 | image1            = Leer - Neue Straße - Garrelscher Garten - Kommen und Gehen 08 ies.jpg
 | image2            = SnowyandHazy.jpg
 | caption1           = {{right|Casting of ass}}
 | caption2           = {{left|Persians}}
}}
*::::::Tsk, tsk, better watch it with the casting of [[WP:ASPERSION|ass Persians]]. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 21:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I have removed the following revision by {{U|EEng}}, as it is objectively only disruptive [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMemorial_Hall_%28Harvard_University%29&diff=1240622976&oldid=1240617490]. Please meet the argument, and if you disagree with it say so in a civil manner. I will not hesitate to escalate this issue, which is especially pertinent following a recent block for conduct with other editors. [[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 13:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC) 
:::::::::And I have restored it (above and right), because it is not your fucking place to police others' posts, ESPECIALLY a post that highlights your failure to AGF by accusing me of being NOTHERE. You've got an awful lot of gall. Go ahead and escalate, at which point your baseless NOTHERE accusation against me will no doubt boomerang on you. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 14:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC) P.S. Oh, and before you say anything more about my block log, you better read this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1240647757#Personal_attack_by_Beland] and think twice.
{{od|1}}
Let me ask you, CFCF: what do you plan to do about [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22is+a+monumental%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 our literally hundreds of articles describing buildings and other works as "monumental"], or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22is+a+brutalist%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 as "brutalist"]? Do you plan to purge them too? [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 13:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
:[[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] is not a valid argument. As for brutalist, it is an architectural style. [[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 13:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
:::"It's an architectural style" is a distinction without a distance. The style of a given edifice is a judgment -- sometimes a controversial one. And yet when there's no controversy, we just report it as straight fact, ''even though it's a judgment''. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 15:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
::CFCF, I think EEng has your goat with the "monumental" argument. Other stuff exists, even if the essay WP:OTHERSTUFF puts its fingers in its ears and goes "na na na" in hopes that it will go away. If a thousand uses of "monumental" are allowed as descriptors, "imposing" is tame in comparison and accurate in usage. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 13:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC) 
:::No, that is not the case, as monumental has two main meanings: 1) "serving as or resembling a monument" and 2) "highly significant". I think that the first use, which is what I see in the search string, for the most part, is apt - the second use is less so. This is the same as the use of "massive" for "massive wood", as opposed to "massive achievement". Imposing doesn't have this non-value laden use. [[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 14:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC) 
::::Well, actually, the OED's definition of ''monumental'' includes {{tq|like a monument, esp. in being large, solid, '''imposing'''}}. (I've put that one word there in bold to be sure you don't miss it) so I think you've painted yourself into a bit of a corner here. Now, let's go back to something you said a while ago: {{tq|structures such as the Eiffel tower or Empire State Building do not use such terminology}} (i.e. "imposing"). Hmmm. Empire State Building:
::::*a skyscraper is inherently imposing, so to describe it as such would be superfluous;
::::*the article relates that the ESB "immediately became an icon of the city and of the nation" -- will you be demanding that that be removed?
::::And our article on the Eiffel Tower:
::::*"a global cultural icon of France" -- puffery, no doubt? Just an opinion? Want that removed too?
::::[[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 15:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''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? [[User:Seasider53|Seasider53]] ([[User talk:Seasider53|talk]]) 12:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
*{{anchor|sourcelist}}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 <del>in an earlier thread on this page</del> here):
:*[https://books.google.com/books?id=PMMEEJ6MAn0C&q=imposing+harvard+%22memorial+hall%22] ''Frommer's Boston 2003'': "This imposing Victorian structure"
:*[https://books.google.com/books?id=Q50OwvCsg3oC&q=imposing+harvard+%22memorial+hall%22] ''Architectural Record'' (1957): "a picturesque, imposing mass"
:*[https://books.google.com/books?id=ttSMU4YpwCYC&pg=PA106] ''Blackout'' (2005):  "Harvard's Memorial Hall looming ahead and the other imposing structures surrounding it"
:*[https://books.google.com/books?id=eEUsAQAAMAAJ&q=imposing+harvard+%22memorial+hall%22] ''Travel and Leisure'' (1994): "the imposing neo-Gothic presence of Memorial Hall"
:*[https://books.google.com/books?id=oiox0sTTUrIC&pg=PA68] ''Streets and Alleys'' (1995): "Memorial Hall, an imposing fortress of a building"
:*[https://books.google.com/books?id=Vo-HLT-eJrwC&q=imposing+harvard+%22memorial+hall%22] Maddox, ''American History'' (1998):  "an imposing brick edifice"
:*[https://online-ucpress-edu.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/jsah] 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"
:*[https://books.google.com/books?id=vPMmAQAAIAAJ&q=imposing+harvard+%22memorial+hall%22] ''Newsweek'' (1981): "The imposing red-brick, Victorian-style Memorial Hall"
:*[https://books.google.com/books?newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&id=t8FPAAAAMAAJ&dq=imposing+harvard+%22memorial+hall%22] ''The Architecture of America: A Social and Cultural History'': "imposing mass of red brick with colorful designs in the shingled roofs"
:*[https://books.google.com/books?newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&id=J6UIAQAAIAAJ&dq=imposing+%22memorial+hall%22] ''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''.{{pb}}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". [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 16:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
::As criticism it is by definition opinion. The very example on [[WP:PUFFERY]] reads:
::{{talkquote|[[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 {{U|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. [[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 21:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
:::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{{nbsp}}... fake{{nbsp}}... 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:
::::{{tq|Memorial Hall, immediately north of Harvard Yard in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is an imposing High Victorian Gothic building honoring{{nbsp}}...}}
:::Now, CFCF, befoe invoking your Dylan strawman you probably should have read [[Bob Dylan|our FA on Dylan]], which by a happy coincidence contains a passage which beautifully illuminates the confusion in your thinking. Its second sentence reads:
::::{{tq|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''. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 03:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
::::So you agree this is about [[WP:VOICE]]? [[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 09:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::Well, yes, in the sense that WP:VOICE, after warning us to '''Avoid stating [[opinion]]s as [[fact]]s''' 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 {{xt|the sky is blue}} not {{!xt|[name of source] believes [[WP:SKYBLUE|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 [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|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 {{tq|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.[[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 13:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::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 note that I take offence that direct quoting of guidelines is being called "strawmanning". I implore you to stop [[WP:Casting aspersions]]. [[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 14:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Hmmm.
:::::::*{{tq|I must note that I take offence that direct quoting of guidelines is being called "strawmanning"}}{{snd}}Your use of the example phrase from WP:PUFFERY is indeed strawmanning because its superlatives ("defining figure ... brilliant songwriter") aren't even on the same planet as the simple description "an imposing High Victorian Gothic building". And while we're on the subject of offense, perhaps you could modify the wording of your OP, which says that the sources I listed (listed with quotations, I might add) "ostensibly use this terminology". I implore you to stop [[WP:Casting aspersions]]. (I'm assuming you know that ''ostensibly'' implies that you doubt the veracity of my post. But if you tell me that you now realize that you were using ''ostensibly'' without knowing what it means, then of course it's no longer an AGF situation.)
:::::::*{{tq|The very example you chose from the article on Bob Dylan is phrased in that way using "Often considered"}}{{snd}}You clearly don't understand what the phrase I quoted means. Here it is again:
:::::::::{{tq|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.}}
::::::::You seem to think this is equivalent to:
:::::::::{{tq|Dylan is often considered to be one of the greatest songwriters in history. Also, he is considered to have been a major figure in popular culture over his 60-year career.}}
::::::::But that's a misunderstanding of the grammar of the original. A correct, precisely equivalent rewrite would be:
:::::::::{{tq|Dylan is often considered one of the greatest songwriters in history. He has been a major figure in popular culture over his 60-year career.}}
::::::::In other words, the "often considered" governs ''only'' the phrase "one of the greatest songwriters"; the next bit , "has been a major figure in popular culture" is independent of "Often considered". That's the whole point: the first statement is presented to the reader as an "often"-held subjective evaluation, but the second, even though it's a also a subjective evaluation, is offered to the reader as flat fact, because on that second point there's no dissent or disagreement whatsoever among abundant sources, which makes it fact.
:::::::Now that we're past the idea that all human judgment must be qualified with "considered to be" or "often said" and so on, I'd appreciate it if you'd respond to my request that "If your claim is that ''imposing'' isn't an {{tq|Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertion}}, then please point to the contest or controversy in reliable sources". [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 18:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::No, I am not equating in the way you suggest I am. It is in particular the statement on greatest songwriters that is clearly what is "often considered" - and which is the example of a value judgement that should (and isn't) written in Wikipedia's [[WP:VOICE]]. [[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 19:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Yes, but you keep ignoring the fact that {{tq|has been a major figure in popular culture over his 60-year career}} is also a judgment, but one which nonetheless ''is'' written in WP's voice. The point is that there are judgments that can -- and indeed ''should'' or even ''must'' -- be stated in WP's voice, when source agreement on such judgments is so overwhelming that to pretend they're not fact ("has been described as") introduces confusion in the reader's mind as to what sources say. As a first step, are you able to acknowledge that as a generality, separate from the issue at hand? [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 21:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Let me ask it another way, and then maybe you'll be able to answer. Would you advocate removal of the statement that Dylan {{tq|has been a major figure in popular culture over his 60-year career}} from his article, given that it's a value judgment but stated as flat fact without attribution? [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 16:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''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.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 08:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

:'''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.{{PB}}Also, as mentioned above by Isaidnoway, it is probably more advisable to split the first sentence in two, anyway. [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 13:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

* '''Support Imposing'''  Whenever an argument falls back to OVERCITE, it has failed.
: This is an imposing building. Or in subjective terms, a disproportionately ugly one. I'd love to know what Ruskin would have thought of it: they cite Ruskin enough and they use his details, but he also had a sense of proportion that the tower here has always ignored in favour of "More is more". It's disproportionate, deliberately so, and the reason was to ''make'' it 'imposing'. A result that is certainly well attested to. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 18:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
:: Here's something of an answer to Ruskin's view on it: [https://nrs.harvard.edu/URN-3:HUL.INSTREPOS:37363276 Shaffer, Robert B. 1949. Ruskin, Norton, and Memorial Hall. Harvard Library Bulletin III (2), Spring 1949: 213-231.]   Note particularly the changes to the tower between first and second designs.
:: Perhaps if the 1956 fire had been a little later, and a little harder to repair, things might have been so, so different. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 18:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I was just going to post that link for you. There's superb material in there for expansion of the article, which badly needs a criticism section. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 18:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
::::{{U|Andy Dingley}} The argument is not based whatsoever on [[WP:OVERCITE]], there was simply a general remark that the current status is overcitation.
::::The argument firmly rests on [[WP:PUFFERY]] and [[WP:VOICE]]. [[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 19:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
::::: VOICE doesn't limit what WP can say, just how it says it. In particular we mustn't confuse reporting opinions (there are many of those) with stating facts.  So we can ''certainly'' state "XXX has described it as imposing". But if XXX also states that the building ''is'' imposing (not merely that ''they consider it'' to be imposing) to the regular point that a RS is meeting V for such a statement (this is, BTW, what we do all the time), then we treat that statement ''as'' a truth, not merely a subjective opinion, and we can then state that as 'The Hall is imposing'. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 20:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as written. (Note: I came here from a notice at EEng's talk page.) As written now, it's a characterization in Wikipedia's voice, followed by three inline citations. That's less than optimal for the lead. I would remove the word there, and instead say later that it has been described as "imposing", with attribution. Its subjectively imposing nature is not the primary reason for its notability, so it accomplishes little to have that so prominently featured in the lead. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
**I've been following the discussion, and have given serious consideration to the recent opinions of editors who know more about architecture than I do, that "imposing" is a term that is used in specific ways in architectural criticism. I've looked carefully at these comments, and it seems to me that the word, when used in that way, is not so much a category of architecture, as an assessment of the architecture of a particular structure. So it's still an expression of opinion, even if the word is used to express opinions by expert critics. Therefore, my view remains that it should be said with attribution, rather than in Wikipedia's voice. But if there's an expert school of thought whose opinion of Memorial Hall is described as such in sources, then that would make it desirable to devote some text to this, lower on the page, including an explanation of the term for non-experts like me. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support as first choice'''. This is something of an exception that proves the rule; as EEng has demonstrated, a preponderance of sources agree in describing the building that way. {{pb}}However, in common usage, "imposing" has connotations of approval; many readers will interpret it as "impressive" or "outstanding". I'm not sure whether this is a change, or whether as EEng has implied with "term of art", architectural criticism simply uses the word differently. But reading the "Ruskin, Norton, and Memorial Hall" article linked above crystallized the issue for me by showing how the choice of polychrome Gothic revival brickwork rather than neo-Classical white stone has caused some, including its own co-designer, to see the building as not imposing enough. It was intended to be imposing—a memorial that would make an instructive impression on students—so '''as second choice: Reword''' to "Designed to be imposing" and in the body text, document the wide agreement that it is alongside the varying, and changing, opinions on its success in that respect. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 02:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
::I hate to impose. "...designed to be imposing" has possibilities. But if it was "...designed to be imposing", and then actually achieved the effect, doesn't that just make it "imposing" in the lead with the intent explained later in the text? [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 03:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, that's my first choice. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 08:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as non Puff. [[User:Celjski Grad|Celjski Grad]] ([[User talk:Celjski Grad|talk]]) 17:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Unnecessary word. It's not puff by any means but it oughtn't go in the lead. Use it elsewhere in the article. <sup>Thanks,</sup>[[User:L3X1|L3X1]] [[User talk:L3X1|<small>◊distænt write◊</small>]] 18:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' The word seems quite appropriate and helpful to the reader.  Compare, for example, [[Senate House, London]] which is described throughout its article with words such as "great", "grand" and "imposing".  What we don't need in the lead is all those citations for such a conventional characterisation. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 07:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
*:*The article you linked doesn't have any of those words in the lead paragraph; this one does. [[User:Seasider53|Seasider53]] ([[User talk:Seasider53|talk]]) 14:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
*:*:Relevant policies such as [[WP:VOICE]] don't seem to make any distinction between the lead and body of articles for such issues.  That aspect is therefore not relevant. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 21:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
{{od|5}}
Of course. But just for the record:
*{{tq|[[Sanctuary of Our Lady of Nazaré|The '''Sanctuary of Our Lady of Nazaré''' is an imposing Marian shrine that memorializes...]]}}
*{{tq|[[Isaac Jenkins Mikell House|The '''Isaac Jenkins Mikell House''' is an imposing Roman Revival residence in the style of ...]]}}
*{{tq|[[Erasmus Castle|'''Erasmus Castle''', also known as "Die Spookhuis" or "The Haunted House", is an imposing mansion situated...]]}}
*{{tq|[[Dohodno Zdanie|'''Dohodno Zdanie''' is an imposing Neoclassical edifice on...]]}}
*{{tq|[[Borl Castle|'''Borl Castle''' is an imposing medieval castle above the banks on...]]}}
*{{tq|[[Thrissur Town Hall|The '''Thrissur Town Hall''' is an imposing building situated in...]]}}
*{{tq|[[Sydoriv Castle|The '''Sydoriv Castle''' is an imposing ruin of ...]]}}
*{{tq|[[Monument Lefebvre|'''Monument–Lefebvre National Historic Site''' is an imposing rusticated sandstone building in...]]}}
*{{tq|[[Vijaya Stambha|The '''Vijaya Stambha''' is an imposing victory monument located within...]]}}
*{{tq|[[John Tucker Daland House|The '''John Tucker Daland House''' (1851–1852) is an imposing, Italianate house designed by...]]}}
*{{tq|[[Palazzo Tolomei|The '''Palazzo Tolomei''' is an imposing, Gothic style urban palace, located on ...]]}}
*{{tq|[[Bedstone Court|'''Bedstone Court''' is an imposing 19th-century country house at Bedstone, Shropshire...]]}}
*{{tq|[[Monument to Garibaldi (Rome)|The '''monument to Giuseppe Garibaldi''' is an imposing equestrian statue, which is...]]}}
*{{tq|[[Sanctuary of Our Lady of Nazaré|The '''Sanctuary of Our Lady of Nazaré''' is an imposing Marian shrine that memorializes...]]}}
In the interests of brevity, I've included above only the first dozen-plus examples I found of "is an imposing" appearing ''in the first sentence of the article''. Hundreds more here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22is+an+imposing%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1].

Really I don't know why it didn't occur to me to do this search before. The question of exact wording is a matter for editorial judgment, but I entertain the hope that the idea that articles mustn't describe a building as, factually, "imposing", or that you can't do that in the lead, or in the opening sentence, is now dead and buried. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 05:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
:We learn [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]] in high school at this point. How many of those descriptions have the obligatory “an author likes the word ''imposing'', therefore we must show the world that they like the word ''imposing''" sources? [[User:Seasider53|Seasider53]] ([[User talk:Seasider53|talk]]) 06:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
::An OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument might have some merit if only a handful of other articles using ''precisely this word used exsactly this way'' (i.e. "Is an imposing"), but there are literally many hundreds of them (and many hundreds more using grammatical variations such as "was an imposing"; it's absurd to claim that all those other editors don't know what they're doing, and you know better. Your second sentence is incomprehensible. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 07:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Doesn't belong in [[WP:VOICE]], and even if it did an abundance of sources is not the same as a preponderance of them. [[User:Chaste Krassley|Chaste Krassley]] ([[User talk:Chaste Krassley|talk]]) 07:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
*:It's not a preponderance. It's complete unanimity. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 07:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
*::I'll assume you're not intentionally lying and you've just looked at no sources but those you've found by chucking "memorial hall imposing" into Google scholar, but perhaps consider how that [[Sampling bias|might not give you a representative sample of the relevant work on the subject]]. There are dozens of sources which do not use the word, including those cited in this article and perhaps most notably including the site's landmark listing in the NHRP. [[User:Chaste Krassley|Chaste Krassley]] ([[User talk:Chaste Krassley|talk]]) 08:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
*::::Since I have a degree in statistics I require no instruction from you about sampling bias, but I do appreciate your assuming that I'm not "intentionally" lying (though, of course, all lying is intentional -- inadvertant misstatements aren't lies). By "unanimity" I meant that all sources touching on the point agree the subject is imposing, and there's no source anywhere denying that evaluation -- there's unanimity among sources commenting on the point. Obviously there are sources that are silent on the point, just as there are sources silent on the fact that it's primarily red brick -- which doesn't mean those that sources that ''do'' mention red brick have to be discounted. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 22:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::::And if you were arguing that its primarily red brick construction was so notable it deserved mention in the first sentence despite relatively few sources bothering to prominently describe it then that'd probably be an issue too. [[User:Chaste Krassley|Chaste Krassley]] ([[User talk:Chaste Krassley|talk]]) 02:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::The site's listing in the NHRP includes numerous comparative, descriptive terms including "cathedral-like", "giant", "great", "high", "large", "massive", "spectacular" and "wide".  The statement of significance says "Memorial Hall is one of the boldest, most dramatic, and original examples of a public building composed in the mature High Victorian Gothic style in the United States." [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 21:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
*::::If "imposing" here simply means "large" then we should use the latter term. Notably, it would also be inappropriate to describe it in [[WP:VOICE]] as "bold", or "dramatic". [[User:Chaste Krassley|Chaste Krassley]] ([[User talk:Chaste Krassley|talk]]) 02:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' use in lead in [[WP:VOICE]], especially oppose present use which intrudes itself before 'factual' architectural and historical elements. 'Imposing' I take to be a near-synonym of 'impressive' and ''inherently'' subjective, suggesting that the building imposes itself on the landscape or view of the onlooker and/or impresses - that the building has great 'presence'. The frequent use of the word in architectural literature is no more surprising than 'glamorous' or 'beautiful' when discussing film actresses. 'funny' when discussing comedies. The frequent use does nothing to undermine the essentially subjective nature of each judgement. I take issue with {{TQ|But that's not true, because when opinion is universally held with no dissent at all, it's no longer opinion -- it's fact}}, actually it's still an opinion, albeit a very widely held one. Comparisons with the iconic role of the Eiffel Tower or cultural figures are invalid. The role taken on by the Eiffel Tower or Statue of Liberty, say nothing about their aesthetics, nor what I should/am likely to feel on viewing them.[[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 07:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
*:{{tq|I take issue with "But that's not true, because when opinion is universally held with no dissent at all, it's no longer opinion -- it's fact", actually it's still an opinion, albeit a very widely held one}}{{snd}}Hmmm. Certainly the proposition that Oswald fired the shots that struck Kennedy is an opinion, and yet it's reported as fact in the [[Kennedy assassination]] article. How do you explain that, under your reasoning I just quoted? [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 22:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
*::{{ping|EEng}} I think two different meanings of "opinion" are being conflated. One might refer to an opinion as to whether an underlying disputed objective statement is true or false ("this building is the tallest on campus," when there is another building about the same height), or to an opinion about a purely subjective assertion ("this building is the ugliest on campus"). Additional information or very widespread agreement can justify categorizing the first category of assertion as a "fact," but not the second kind. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 22:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::Absolutely, and what we ought to be discussing is whether ''imposing'' is of the first or the second kind. Unfortunately, the discussion has remained stuck on the assertion, by some, that both kinds -- any proposition not entirely objective -- cannot be stated as flat fact. That assertion immediatley leads to contradictions, but I've been unable to get those contradictions acknolwedged.{{pb}}For example, a statement that a building is in this or that style is not entirely objective; most critics will agree in most cases, but now and then there's dissent on a given building. (This happens a lot on the question of whether a building is brutalist or not. BTW, I'm acting like I know all this architecture shit backwards and forwards, but in fact I know just enough about architecture to handle this particular debate.) In the case of this article's subject, you'll find dozens of statements -- from serious historians of architecture (let's discount sources that just parrot others) -- that it's "High Victorian Gothic". Every one of those was a judgment on the writer's part, but that doesn't keep us from stating "High Victorian Gothic" as straight fact. That gives the lie to the idea that "evaluations" can't be given in WP's voice, but I couldn't get CFCF (for example) to see that. (Search ''brutalist'' on this page.) [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 00:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
*::::{{TQ| a statement that a building is in this or that style is not entirely objective}} I agree wholly. A degree of subjectivity is involved in any artistic 'categorising' But that is substantially different from an ''inherently'' and ''wholly'' subjective statement. I take 'imposing' to be a near-synonym of 'impressive', somewhat akin to 'grand', and other terms suggesting both scale and 'boldness' of appearance. These are all inherently subjective and a great deal less informative than 'factual' and historical statements about the building. I am informed that the writer is impressed, nothing else. It might be great wording for an architectural review, which - like other reviews - we read partly to get someone's opinion. IMO it isn't suited to a WP article. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 20:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
*::I don't think that {{TQ|the proposition that Oswald fired the shots that struck Kennedy is an opinion}}, is true. A considered assessment of the available evidence is not the same as an ''inherently'' subjective opinion. I might think [[Marmite]] is delicious, you that it's disgusting, neither of us is any more right/wrong than the other and everyone on the planet except you loving Marmite wouldn't make you wrong, or Marmite delicious. That's a subjective opinion. A fact is objectively verifiable, such as the building being built of red-brick! BTW the notion that Oswald fired the shots has been so hugely challenged down the years, and there are so many anomalies in the whole saga, that the notion that WP renders it as a fact is fairly absurd. It is the considered opinion of specific investigative bodies, who have in some instances come to other conclusions at other times. You don't have to be a conspiracy theory fan to think that the claim should be attributed, even if no more widely accepted explanation has so far emerged. There being considerable uncertainty is the most certain thing about the JFK shooting.
*::But anyway, we all know that [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]]. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 19:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::Don't take this wrong, but that's another example of you being out of step with WP's approach to what's considered fact and what's considered opinion. As to JFK specifically, there's PLENTY that's not known, and undoubtedly things have been covered up, primarily because of Hoover's and others' panic at being blamed for not keeping a better eye on Oswald and so on. I'd even listen to the idea that some people knew what Oswald was planning, and let it happen, or even whispered the idea in his ear; the subject is too important to cut off all avenues of inquiry like that, because it's essentially impossible to work a general falsification, in advance, of all such possibilities. But that in the end Oswald fired the bullets that struck JFK and Connally, that's fact beyond reasonable doubt; the ideas about gunmen popping up out of manholes and darting out from behind pergolas are complete nonsense.
*:::Now going back to the question at hand, I have to bring up, yet again, my point about architectural styles, which are ''not'' objectively verifiable (that being the standard you set above) the way red brick is -- and indeed now and then there's debate about the style of this building or that -- and yet we report buildings' styles as fact (except in the unusual case where there's debate on the point, as just mentioned). How do you explain that? [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 02:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
*::::Let's not get into philosophical discussions about the nature of 'facts', I doubt that anyone on WP has a very different approach to the rest of the world. What it does have is a particular approach to what is/is not attributed, if you like to what it decides to '' present as fact'', because dissenting voices are not considered significant. The shape of the earth is the cliché example, but we employ the same approach often to more dubious assertions. But you are making no distinction between judgements that have a degree of subjectivity, and those that are inherently and wholly subjective by their very nature.
*::::Paul Robeson's voice could be disputed as to whether it was a bass or a bass-baritone voice, some judgement, some expertise some experience, are involved in arriving at a conclusion, ''there is a degree of subjectivity'' and a ''degree of expertise'' and a resulting broad consensus among experts that Robeson was a bass-baritone. But whether he had an expressive voice, a mellifluous voice, a beautiful voice, a soulful voice, a dignified voice, a heroic voice etc are all ''wholly'' subjective. Recording that he was admired by millions for many of these qualities is not the same as saying he had them as fact, certainly not putting those value judgements into pole position. As it happens I wouldn't be able to make anything other than an intelligent guess as to what the difference  between a bass and a bass-baritone voice was, and also, as it happens, along with millions of others I'd happily and wholeheartedly endorse all the value judgements and others about his voice and his use of it, but I understand that my opinion is just that, and could never become a fact, nor benefit from being presented as a fact. As it also happens, I can see why architectural reviews describe the building as 'imposing', it has a certain grandeur IMO, but millions of us responding in the same way, doesn't turn the ''inherently'' subjective into an objective statement of fact, any more than value judgements about JFK's good looks, or Marilyn Monroe's glamour or how inventive Chaplin was could ever become facts or benefit from being presented as such. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 06:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::::You're explaining what all experienced editors already understand, which is that there are some subjective judgments (indeed, probably most of them) that are not appropirately expressed in the article's voice, and some that are. We're long past that. The question that actually needs discussing is whether ''imposing'' is more like ''beautiful'', or more like ''bass-baritone'' -- or, for that matter, like ''powerful'', which is how [[Ethel Merman]]'s article quite appropriately describes her voice, given the abundant sources describing it that way (or as loud, booming, etc. [https://www.google.com/search?q=ethel+merman+powerful+voice&biw=1552&bih=816&tbm=bks][https://www.google.com/search?q=ethel+merman+powerful+voice&biw=1552&bih=816&tbm=bks]).{{pb}}Unfortunately, that question -- the only ''actual'' question -- has gotten precious little discussion here (though you, in particular, are putting effort in--if the other participants were like you I think this would be resolved by now).{{pb}}I don't know why this didn't occur to me before, but I've posted an invitation at [[Wikiproject:Arctitecture]]. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 17:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Horse cruelty at this point. [[User:Seasider53|Seasider53]] ([[User talk:Seasider53|talk]]) 20:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
*::::::If Ethel Merman is who I think she is ''(US musicals not being my forte)'', her ''"distinctive, powerful voice" ''was almost her defining feature, a bit like recording that [[Tiny Tim]] sang falsetto! Also, with both we  say "known for", which is a form of attribution and in neither case do we put the terms in the opening ''(defining)'' sentence, as is the case here.
*::::::You began this discussion by suggesting that 'imposing' is almost standard architectur-ese terminology, now you are pointing to near-unique defining qualities of a performer. 
*::::::I take note of the 'horse cruelty' comment, but meant to ask, what is 'imposing' a synonym for here? I've been treating it as a near-synonym of 'impressive', implying largeness and 'presence', a touch of 'grandeur' perhaps. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 08:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::* I do wonder how many editors have visited this building and seen it close up?  I would regard 'imposing' as a synonym for 'overbearing'. 
:::::::: I've never liked this building. I'm a big fan of Ruskin, Pugin and the Victorian Neo-gothic. But this is a bad example of the style. Its main feature is a disproportionate heaviness to the tower. Reading the Ruskin link (in this thread) shows that this expanded during the design between the first and second sketches. Not, I would say, for the better. The excessive spending on the material costs of the details as [[conspicuous consumption]] doesn't help either. But the overall effect is certainly imposing. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 21:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I don't know what it is about EEng and oddly composed first sentences that rely on sources from the 1800s, but this is the second time I have seen one come up in around a month. In this case, no, imposing is not needed for any purpose described in [[MOS:FIRST]]. If the building's scale is that important, I would suggest providing dimensions later in the lead. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 19:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support continued use of "imposing"''' per the many examples EEng presented of its descriptor use in Wikipedia lead sentences. Wikipedia so often uses this descriptor, without controversy, that opposition to it here comes down to [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] - and that is never enough of a reason to change long-term usage. Nothing broken here. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 23:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per VOICE and more general [[MOS:FIRST]] concerns. The building's scale can be appropriately described easily in practical terms; as a general case of readability "imposing" is telling us far less than doing so, anyhow. [[User:David Fuchs|<span style="color: #ad3e00;">Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs</span>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:David Fuchs|<span style="color: #ad3e00;">talk</span>]]</small></sup> 14:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' The rest of the article does not show why "imposing" is important. It only says in 2012 the building was the ninth tallest in Cambridge, but that is not necessarily remarkable in a small city. [[User:Vacosea|Vacosea]] ([[User talk:Vacosea|talk]]) 23:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' "Imposing" is an subjective opinion, not an objective fact. I, for one, do not think the building is "imposing" at all. Hence writing it in wikivoice, especially in the very first sentence of the article, is unacceptable and counters with [[WP:VOICE]]. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 13:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' {{sbb}} per Epicgenius. Seems strange to state it in [[WP:WIKIVOICE]] when it is an opinion, not a fact. <span style=white-space:nowrap;>[[User:CFA|<span style="background-color:#e0f7fa;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black"><span style=color:#00c>C</span> <span style=color:red>F</span> <span style=color:#5ac18e>A</span></span>]] <span style="background-color:#e6e6fa;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black">[[User talk:CFA|💬]]</span></span> 15:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''<s>Neutral</s> Support''' <s>as I haven't read the sources and don't know the building, but</s> "imposing" is a very acceptable architectural term, and buildings are very often designed to be such eg courthouses and what have you. It's ok to describe what the designer was aiming to achieve, if they were successful. [[User:Ceoil|Ceoil]] ([[User talk:Ceoil|talk]]) 22:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
*:You may find useful the handy list of source quoatations at [[#sourcelist]]. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 23:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
*::Thanks. Have supported on that basis. [[User:Ceoil|Ceoil]] ([[User talk:Ceoil|talk]]) 17:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' with refs to sources. The extraordinary puritanism of many WP editors, to whom any aesthetic terms are immediately "peacock" or "puffery", is a great hinderance to good coverage of the arts. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 01:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
::Indeed. See also [[Talk:Wells_Cathedral#Reversals to changes.]] where the article was gutted in a driveby because the editor was unfamiliar with standard academic terms. [[User:Ceoil|Ceoil]] ([[User talk:Ceoil|talk]]) 19:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I do think EE needs to expand on this in the article body as it seems like a lot of the pile on opposes are saying "but its not in the article body". Of course that doesn't detract from the statement's integrity, but it might help sway. And just to say, terms like "imposing" are so common in architectural academia that this discussion is leading towards the absurd, to the extent that have no interest in arguing with the opposers. [[User:Ceoil|Ceoil]] ([[User talk:Ceoil|talk]]) 19:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
::::We seem to have a similar problem at [[Widener Library]], which is also on my watchlist. I see some people have tried to remove "vast and cavernous" from the already embarrassing lede, to no avail. The one source for that quote is no longer active, but can probably be rescued if the quote survives in the long run. [[User:Seasider53|Seasider53]] ([[User talk:Seasider53|talk]]) 23:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I believe that 'imposing' is a valid term of architectural description.  And I think that WP articles as a whole are a little too reluctant to just state things.  [[User:Wasted Time R|Wasted Time R]] ([[User talk:Wasted Time R|talk]]) 00:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
:* Agreed. Adjectives are not the enemy. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 08:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)