Talk:Harvard Magazine

Hi - surely this article should mention that there was an earlier Harvard Magazine? e.g. this from 1963 is vol 9 https://www.google.com/books/edition/Harvard_Magazine/vOcRAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjbbrr (talk • contribs) 02:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harvard Magazine. 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/20120104120413/http://harvardmagazine.com/donate/history-of-harvard-magazine to http://harvardmagazine.com/donate/history-of-harvard-magazine/

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) 23:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

ProfDonovans article on Musk and Twitter

Donovan’s concerns about Musk’s takeover of Twitter are hardly surprising, given her longstanding arguments against “free speech.”

The quotation marks give it away: speech is either free or it isn’t. The founders knew that moderate, mild, non- controversial speech did not need to be protected. It would be perfectly safe.

 No, it was the argumentative, uncomfortable and argumentative positions that would require the protection of law, and they made it a foundation of our freedom. We have even pressed the concept yon our allies. 
  Yes, Musk is a wealthy leader from the private sector. Congress, which certainly has the responsibility for regulating the social networks, hasn’t  done more than hold a very few laughably simplistic hearings on the subject. Academia has written papers decrying so -called hate speech , renouncing their traditional role as fierce defender of uncomfortable truths.
   So our fully functioning corporate sector has sent somebody over to do the job. I see nothing to suggest that he won’t be able to fore Twitter, and thereby the entire sector, to move more toward speech that if legal, will be truly free. 
  And it’s about time.

Gary B. Helms MBA 1963 2600:1700:75B0:6BC0:E2:EB93:3F18:41F6 (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Attempt to demonstrate GNG

I did some research, attempting to demonstrate notability, and came up with these two: https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-boston-globe-the-litry-life/140271750/ and https://www.newspapers.com/article/chicago-tribune-i-like-long-walks-along/140271818/ They're not nothing, but they also still leave the article on pretty shaky ground, so I'm going to leave the {{Notability}} tag up. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)